Here we go...
I honestly don't get the judge's logic..
"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."
However, I can "otherwise qualify" for anything if you remove the one requirement I don't meet.
For example, I can "otherwise quality" to vote in Iowa by being over 18, not being a felon, etc. But I'm stilled denied the right to vote in Iowa "by reason of the fact that " I don't live in Iowa. It seems to me that using this judge's logic, anyone that fails to quality for ANYTHING for only ONE reason can now be considered to qualify.
I could meet a woman tomorrow, fall in love his her and "otherwise quality" to marry her except for ONE little detail... I'm already Married. So using this logic, I would still be able to marry this person despite the fact that I fail one of the "qualification" needed to be allowed to marry. Why is the requirement to be "not already married" valid and the requirement to be "of opposite gender" not valid?
I can understand the judge or anyone disagreeing with the requirement, but nothing about it violates any "equal-protection" clause. Everyone has the SAME rules for who they can and cannot marry. No matter what you think I, no anyone else, has the absolute right to "marry a person of their choosing". The choice is limited by several things. First (in no particular order) the other person must also choose to marry me, 2nd the other person must not currently be married to someone else, 3rd the person must be old enough to get married. I see no reason why adding "the other person must be of the opposite gender" make the law "unequal". You may disagree with it, it may make you angry, but in reality it is simply just ONE MORE requirement that applies EQUALLY to everyone.
Can someone explain to me how a law that applies equally to everyone violates a "equal-protection" clause?
Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry - CNN.com
2 comments:
This violates an equal protection law because (to use your example of voting) this is not like saying you can't vote in a state because you don't live in that state, this is more like saying a person can't vote in a state because they are black.
But the US Constitution specifically bars states from not allowing someone to vote based on their race. However, it says NOTHING about marriage nor anything about sexual orientation.
I'm willing to bet the Iowa State constitution also is silent on marriage and sexual orientation. So the only thing left is the general requirement that laws have to apply to everyone EQUALLY.
And Marriage laws DO apply to everyone equally. Everyone has the same rules, no one is treated differently.
Just because someone doesn't like one of the rules, doesn't mean it treats them "unequally".
Post a Comment