Video: Iowa anti-equality team earned a D-, passes blame to the teacher

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/16/2010

by Jeremy Hooper

We keep hearing the well-funded NOM/Iowa For Freedom coalition talk about how the state Supreme Court supposedly decided the marriage case inappropriately, and the judges should therefore be removed from their jobs. But nobody on the anti-LGBT wants to actually show people what went down in that court room and let them make up their own minds about how and why the justices arrived at their opinion. So we will.

Here now, six clips -- three from pro-equality attorney Dennis Johnson and three from Roger Kuhle, an attorney who attempted to defend marriage bias. Take a look back:

Johnson kept his cool, relying on the state's current policies and his plaintiffs' demonstrated merit:

And then there's Kuhle, who based his words around the flawed procreation argument, said that Massachusetts opened up a "Pandora's box," and who claimed that same-sex marriage "destroy the nature" of marriage itself:

Our verdict: Just like in the much more extensive Prop 8 federal trial, the anti-equality side lost because they simply have no reasonable foundation for their views. It's the whole "you can't polish a turd" thing. Their biggest argument is based on the idea that creating babies, something that is a 100% non-requirement of the civil marriage contract, is actually what the marriage institution is all about, and gay couples (who often parent themselves) will somehow ruin that for current and future generations. Honestly, they should save face by thanking their own parents for birthing them into this time, because the reality is that this kind of reasoning will someday not only be rejected in court -- it will be unapologetically laughed out of the same!

***

**SEE ALSO: The 2009 decision that quite ably details

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has
been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding
plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on
sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the
fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.
This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection
analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative
classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.
Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the
remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner
allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage.

VI. Conclusion.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.
Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa
Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of
procedendo.33
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur.

07-1499