The important question to ask in regard to the fitness of this ruling is why ever not? The court seems to have followed this line of thinking, as it looked for "persuasive justification" of the 1998 law, and found none. The majority decision, written by Justice Mark Cady likewise concludes that the 1998 law "does not substantially further an important governmental objective." Justice Cady is no doubt correct, for, when we speak of protecting the institution of marriage, what do we imagine we are protecting it from? Surely whatever threat from within (which I cannot fathom) gay married couples might pose to marriage is much less a threat than the blow dealt to marriage if significant portions of the population, having been denied access to the state of matrimony, decide that marriage is arcane and obsolete.
Indeed, the objections to gay marriage that national evangelicals registered since the 1980s have fallen through: where same-sex marriage is practiced, there have been no outbreaks of polygamy, no epidemics of aids, and not even one locust descending to show numinous disapproval.
The part of this ruling that does not make sense, however, is its definition of marriage, in the editors' words, as "a civil contract [that] should not be defined by religious doctrine or views." Why should "religious doctrine or views" be specifically excluded from the marriage discussion? Does Justice Cady believe that there is some actual religious doctrine condemning gay marriage? Or perhaps this reference is a jab at the religious factions who lobbied against the decision. If that is the case, then it smacks of judicial activism--why target a group by name when your ruling is otherwise concerned only with the law, not with politics?
Justice Cady's opinion demonstrates a trend that has begun since the Religious Right lost some political power over the last four years: namely, an insistent intolerance of religion in any discussion of government matters. If this progressive ruling and the similar accomplishments we have seen lately are to be part of a truly tolerant era in history, we must not condemn religion on account of its more rabid participants' excesses. That just wouldn't be (dare I say it?) Christian.
Posts
8 comments:
I think Justice Mark Cady and the Iowa Supreme Court are completely right in legalizing same-sex marriage because there is no valid reason not to. However, David criticizes Cady's statement that religious views and doctrine should be kept out of laws concerning the "civil contract" of marriage. I see David's point in saying that religion should simply be left out of the discussion completely to avoid the constant power struggle between religion and politics, however I think Cady was right in including it in some way. Cady was attempting to provide justification to the majority of people who were the most likely to be upset by the decision: evangelicals. Evangelicals have not kept their views on same-sex relationships a secret; therefore, I believe Cady was justified in addressing the religious audience. Most opposers of same-sex marriage cite the Bible as an overriding reason why they think it is wrong, so by addressing that in the law, Cady enforces his belief that religion and politics should remain in completely separate spheres.
I'm not sure if I agree with Melissa's take on David's opinion; my interpretation of the post was that David doesn't believe religion should be so casually dismissed from the discussion, and I agree. I think this legislation is a positive step forward, but those who oppose it based on religious grounds should not be denied of their opinion. As David noted, there has been "an insistent intolerance of religion in any discussion of government matters," and excluding religion from the marriage debate would be taking secularism to unreasonable limits.
I agree that, when it comes to government policy, religion should not be the deciding factor. I agree with Tanya that Justice Cady was probably just addressing the source of most opposition to same-sex marriage when he mentioned religion-- it would be the same as saying that the right to vote can not be defined by race or gender. However, I also agree with David's point that, in ever-increasing attempts to be tolerant, our government is becoming increasingly intolerant towards religion. Although I certainly don't believe that the rights and freedoms of religious groups are being trampled, I do think that our society is less likely to take someone seriously if they are arguing from a faith-based position. As we've learned in class, the majority of Americans are religious in some way-- religion shouldn't have to lose its voice.
I think that Judge Cady, knowing the religious nature of Americans, just wanted to use religion as a way to relate to them and explain the court’s decision. I also agree with many others who say that religion should not have a drastic influence on politics. However, given the religious trends of Americans, the government should not completely reject religion. In fact, they should embrace it, to a small degree, in order to represent the majority of pious Americans.
I think David raises a very valid point considering the exclusion of religion from the marriage contract. By explicitly excluding religion, are we not discriminating against the very group most accused of opposing gay rights? Religion should be excluded from the law not in the sense of an open rejection, but by not mentioning it at all. If the grounds for the Iowa court’s decision are based in legality, and are claimed to be made on governmental terms, then why does religion have to be a part of it? The court’s decision is an important and progressive step towards truly equal rights, but in making such decisions justices need to be wary of tipping the balance towards a backlash against those who have traditionally opposed such rulings.
I agree with David D.'s analysis of David W.'s post, this legislation is indeed a step forward, but it fails to address the main issue. Most people aren't opposed to same-sex marriage for reasons other than religion, so this legislation essentially ignores most of the opponents of same-sex marriage by not taking religious opinion into account. This can be dangerous, because clearly the dissent hasn't been quelled if it wasn't addressed in the legislation, so the problem isn't solved yet. More thorough legislation needs to be passed that provides an argument to counter those who oppose same-sex marriage based on religious grounds in order to fully address the issue.
This is one case where the state should separate its decisions from that of religion. Religion shouldn't be involved in this definition of marriage as it is a civil one. Religions themselves can chose collectively whether or not to accept same-sex marriages based on their beliefs. I think that the separation of church and state, although I usually say goes too far because it gets in the way of some advances, is applicable here. The state should be free to make its definition of religion based on what the populous believe and what is most beneficial with the current taxation and welfare laws as they pertain to married couples.
There are three points I’d like to make in follow-up.
The first is to clarify: I am not arguing that religion should be left out of political discussion. David D’s reading of my post is quite correct, for I do not believe “religion should be so casually dismissed from the discussion.” After all, why should it be banished from our minds? Metaphysical faith exercises a part of the human brain that has evolved for just such beliefs—I don’t see why we should have a knee-jerk suspicion of a natural function of our species.
Secondly, I want to endorse Tanya’s post as a good articulation of my last paragraph’s argument. Just as the Religious Right once had a louder voice than the proponents of gay marriage, now it seems that the coin has flipped. Will the agents of tolerance make the same mistake the evangelicals did?
Finally, and most importantly, I’d like to address the point Melissa made, that “most opposers of same-sex marriage cite the Bible as an overriding reason why they think it is wrong, so by addressing that in the law, Cady enforces his belief that religion and politics should remain in completely separate spheres.” First of all, Justice Cady did not write a law, he wrote a court decision. This means that he should not be enforcing his beliefs, but interpreting the standing laws—this he does insofar as he determines the 1998 law is unfit for continuation. But, when he address the politics surrounding gay marriage, which he does by calling out the Religious Right specifically, he is no longer interpreting the law, but rather, the political climate. He should remember Justice Hugo Black, who, when handling the Watergate hearings, had his aides clip out the parts of the paper he wanted to read so as not to be tainted by politics and factions.
Post a Comment