With the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court coming out, the push back has started. There have been many arguments, pronouncements and etc as to why this is an over reach by the courts.
When it comes down to to it, the disparity being talked about is the religious marriage verses the legal state of marriage. It is the legal standing that is taking precedent here. This is what the supreme court ruled on. The relationship between the Iowa Constitution and the law that was passed. Due to a clause in the Iowa Constitution, it was ruled that the specific ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional.
However, this is not how it is being taken. There have been several arguments presented from both sides that don't seem to be that well thought out or don't even really apply.
On the Des Moines Register's website they published an editorial by Karl Schowengerdt. In the editorial, the author recounts his opinions on his life and his experience related to his gay son. His son, according to the author, was recruited him into the homosexual "lifestyle.". The son then contracted HIV and died.
I have sympathy for any parent that has to go through their children dying by any means, while I have no children of my own, I have many brothers and sisters (some young enough to be my children) and did loose a younger sibling and other relatives.
I do not understand how he connects his son's homosexuality and the pain that it caused him with allowing gay couples get married. I also do not understand how he thinks he can tie contracting HIV with being a homosexual. There are examples of people around the world who are committed to their spouses (India, etc) and yet still contract HIV because of the behavior of the other person in their relationship. These are goodly married people that are not failing in their marriage views. HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with homosexuality, per se, but more to do with lifestyle choices. If you choose practice unsafe sex with people who also practice unsafe sex (even without your knowledge), then HIV, along with many other diseases are distinct possibilities.
As to the recruitment into the homosexual lifestyle, I don't understand this in the slightest. I don't remember at what point in my life that I decided to adhere to the heterosexual lifestyle. Was it my parents that recruited me? Did I sign up at a young age? My mother tells me of stories of wanting to have a birthday party and as long as one young lady (Catherine) came I didn't really care who else was there. Was it before then? Or is it something that is just a part of my nature? While I have read scientific studies about how this may be a genetic predisposition, I don't think the proof is quite there yet, but it certainly looks like it is headed that way.
The author of the editorial, states that the Supreme Court decision encourage and underwrite the negative results that naturally come from the homosexual "lifestyle.". If he takes away the fact that the authors son, through his own choices, got sick and died, he seemed very pleased with the way that his life turned out, even with his sad incident, even stating early in his writing Ours has in many ways been a storybook life. I think the author is refusing to think that his son that seemed to make such good life choices (commented on the intelligence and activities of their son in High School and College), could also make such bad ones (ie unsafe sex and promiscuity). The idea being that it was someone else's fault (being recruited). Yes this was painful for them, yes it was a hard time, but their struggle isn't the only type of interaction that homosexuals have on lives. To make the claim that homosexuals only have a negative impact on society, then you need to provide a lot more evidence beyond the single incident.
Others have indicated that the judicial decision over reaches the power that is issued by the court. I don't understand how this is the case. According to the Iowa Constitution, the supreme court shall shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law . It seems to me that this seems exactly what the court should be doing.
There are laws, and then there is the constitution. Laws are intended to address the day to day specific activities, while the constitution, in my mind, is intended to give a broad stroke of a sort of legal compass to which you put the General ideas of how things in the government and society should function. To me, when you put in very specific details into a constitution, then eventually they get loaded up with them and collapse on themselves.
Take for example the 18th constitutional amendment to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. This was an absolute failure. This is the perfect example of something that should've ben made as a law, and then it could've been repealed easier.
To call for a constitutional amendment means that it becomes hard to address the issues of the time. To me it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to create an amendment to specifically address a single issue that addresses a single group of people.
The biggest issue I have here is that people seem to think that there is only on view and interpretation on religion. To those that cannot see beyond their own religious bias often do not see that there are people that interpret the same book that they believe in in an entirely different way. It is also a fallacy to believe that everyone has the same religion. In the US constitution it states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, if one were to establish an law based on a group of peoples religious belief, wouldn't that be contrary to this?
I've also heard that marriage belongs in the realm of religion. If this is the case, then there would be no need for a marriage license. The standards for marriage would also be based on the religion that people were to go to (since we have the free exercise of religion). So in this case it would allow certain sects the rights to marry whom they choose. So if a particular religion would allow same sex marriage, then it would still be fine. This would also include things like polygamy as well, for those who think that it is part of their religious history (which includes many parts of the major world religions).
If it is in the realm of religion, then shouldn't all the legal benefits of Marriage also be rescinded? These include items such as next of kin, inheritance, pension plans, social security, medicare, tax exemptions, tort, and etc. To create a contract that has all of the benefits is nearly, if not, impossible. Sure you can define next of kin and other things through living wills and what not, but as far as the legal rights of the person you are married to, it is one simple legal way to do so.
When I married my wife, the pastor we hired (we don't generally attend church) to perform the ceremony, told us that when we signed the document we were legally married. This is the exact point. The marriage license is a contract between two people of legal age to give them certain rights with each other. If people are of sound mind and of legal age, then they should be able to enter into that contract.