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
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

 
 
Republicans Block NY Minimum Wage Increase That Would Give 880,000 Workers a Raise

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos

 
 
Why Don't TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?

By Katherine Bagley, | Inside Climate News

 
 
New Book Says Teenage Obama Was a Huge Pot Head -- So Why Won't He Legalize It for the Rest of Us?!

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Pew Poll Finds Clean Energy Is A Political Wedge Issue for Republicans

By Stephen Lacey | Climate Progress

 
 
Mitt 'Not Concerned with the Very Poor' Romney Visits West Philly, Gets Lesson in Keeping it Real

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Corporate Media Stokes Racial Angst in Election Coverage

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
5 Things to Know About the Paycheck Fairness Act (The Next Big Legislative Battle for Women)

By Annie-Rose Strasser | Think Progress

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]