The striking thing about Iowa, aside from the unprecedented unanimity expressed simply as “Affirmed. All justices concur,” is the sense that finally, finally, a court has said what is so painfully self-evident. This ruling was inevitable. It’s as if the grownups have finally come home and put an end to nonsense like the “oops” argument. Sullivan:
From the abstracts and summaries, it’s clear that the actual arguments for limiting marriage to 97 percent of the population, while denying it to 3 percent, no longer hold in reasonable minds. Once you have accepted sexual orientation as a fixed and profound part of someone’s identity, and once civil marriage is not restricted to those with children, it is simply very, very hard to find a secular argument for denying critical civil rights under constitutions that guarantee formal equality.
It’s so hard to find viable secular arguments, in fact, that Peter LaBarbera of the anti-gay activist group “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality” agrees; he says in his press release that anti-gay activists should give up on that approach entirely.
I’m afraid that the pro-family movement – eager to provide secular, public-policy arguments against ‘gay marriage’ – has failed to convey the monstrous evil of expanding, state-sanctioned homosexualism [sic] in our midst. Our Creator is pure, perfect and holy, and homosexual behavior is diametrically opposed to His will for people’s lives and His purpose for sex within the healthy boundaries of marriage, for the procreation of children.
So there you have it: The way forward for those who are unhappy with civil marriage equality is to argue that it is diametrically opposed to their personal religious belief about the nature of human sexuality; that this religious belief is the only one deserving of special consideration; and that it should be imposed upon everyone else, regardless of whether they share it. Just because.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Sounds like a good plan to me too 😉
From the Christian Science Monitor:
The anti-marriage arguments are about to bust. Religious liberty cuts two ways, don’t they? Or are we going to give special status to certain religious beliefs? That’s the only answer because the secular arguments were shot down in a pretty brutal manner.
The religious liberty argument, I think, will quickly backfire. I can’t help but be amused at the degree of blindness required to not understand this.
It must be incredibly frustrating for those who want to deny what just is in favor of what they wish was reality. I really do think we need to have compassion for people who are struggling. I know that folks like James deny that fear has anything to do with it, but that’s just not credible. And yes, I know it’s challenging to have empathy for people who are fearful of losing their privilege, but in a lot of cases they don’t even recognize that they have privilege. They just don’t see it, and that’s part of the illness.
Making an argument about the best interests of children is only intelligible if one uncritically accepts the notion that acceptance of GLBT people and slightly greater flexibility wrt gender roles are inherently “bad” outcomes, because those are the only things opponents can point to as notable in the children of same sex couples (that is, without just making shit up). At any rate, the Iowa court found the evidence for “harm” less than compelling.
Just read the Family Leader Network’s report in Meridian Magazine. Love the lockstep reporting. The AGI must meet in a dark room periodically to keep their stories straight. Emphasis mine.
It sounds to me like the Family Leader Network is doing their best to ignite citizens…yawn.
Democracy is “eroded” and we helped. Amen.