comments_image -

Ironic that Same Sex Couples Can Marry in Cedar Rapids But Not in San Francisco

The heartland is now ahead of "the People's Republic" of California.
April 4, 2009  |  
 
Advertisement
 

On Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and the Hawk-eye State will now join Massachusetts and Connecticut in leading the nation towards marriage equality (the Vermont legislature passed a law legalizing same-sex marriages as well, but  Republican governor Jim Douglas has promised to veto it). Good on Iowa.

As in earlier civil rights movements, the nation is headed towards the right place -- although support for full marriage equality is still a minority view, the trend, as this table from ReligiousTolerance.org suggests, is clear:

Click for larger version

(click for larger version)

When it comes to general acceptance of homosexuality, the numbers are better still. Moreover, there's a huge generation-gap on the issue; in the vote that denied equality to LGBT couples in California last Fall, the exit polls told the story: folks over 65 voted for discrimination by a 57-43 margin while under-30s supported marriage equality by a 67-31 spread.

Anyway, I'd like to make a point about this that's inspired by a few paragraphs in a San Francisco Chronicle story on the Iowa ruling:

Calvin Massey, another constitutional law professor at Hastings, agreed that the ruling reflected emerging views among some state judges but said their importance shouldn't be overstated.

"I think you're likely to see more victories in judicial chambers for advocates of same-sex marriage," said Massey, who described himself as uncommitted to either side. "The judiciary in general is more liberal on this issue than the population as a whole."

It's easy to look at the polling on marriage equality and these decisions and come to the conclusion that the "judiciary in general is more liberal on this issue than the population," which of course fits nicely into the right-wing meme about  "activist judges" run amok. But the reality is very different -- the legal basis for these decisions is both sound and, in fact, extremely popular, and that renders words like "liberal" and "conservative" almost meaningless in this context.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.
submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: california, iowa, referendum, marriage equality
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]