Seven Angry Liberals

It’s been interesting to watch over the last few days the response to the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. Conservatives, Republicans are generally outraged. Liberals, Democrats, Facebookians, Tweeters and other sheep in social media (excluding the IBC, of course) praise it as “equality,” and “acceptance” for an oppressed group that has been unjustly singled out for discrimination.

And of course the media…the whores in the local MSM media are riding this bus ‘til there’s nothing left. In-depth coverage such as the positive angle of gay marriage, the political angle, social angle, cultural angle, religious angle, legal angle and angles of angles are being explored ad hominem.  When all angles are exhausted, wait for the stories in a few months:  "Gay Marriage, [insert number] Months Later:  the Impact on Iowa," etc., etc.  How predictable.

But here at the Iowa Blog Cabin, we’re “noticers.” You don’t just get a seat on the editorial board by dropping the terms “social justice,” “equality,” and “human rights” enough times in a conversation.

Let’s be honest…marriage as an institution is not what it once was. Speaking generally about American society at large, marriage is not seen as a lifetime vow, rooted in Christian values, as it once was. For all intents and purposes, marriage today is little more than a legal structure that is used by lawyers to help decide who gets the couch when the couple breaks up. So, to me, I don’t see how gay people getting married is going to further destroy an institution that really isn’t taken serious my most people anyway.

That’s not to say I support gay marriage – I don’t. Primarily because I don’t agree with what society has done to the institution of marriage.

The real threat that last Friday’s ruling represents is an attack on the idea of self-government. The idea that people can decide the laws they want to govern their own culture and society. Last Friday’s ruling was a unanimous decision by seven un-elected individuals who are not accountable to the voters whatsoever. Now in some ways, this distance from the passions of the “mob” is very important for ensuring justice. But when the judiciary is used as a tool for shaping public policy and legislating, this is where it becomes dangerous.

Those who support the ruling make several arguments: One, this is no different than the civil rights movement of the 1960s and, two, this is exactly the kind of thing the court should be ruling on – the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature.

To me, these points are quite similar in what they represent. First of all, much of the civil rights movement of the 1960 was in fact legislated – through Congress, state legislatures or through the executive branches – each is an institution that directly answers to the people. Additionally, the civil rights movement was an actual movement that, in many places, changed hearts, minds and the culture – by pointing out the genuine oppression and discrimination of an entire race of humanity. In other words, the culture changed, laws changed (although not always in that order) and voters living in these representative governments had a voice.

In Iowa, the voters had this opportunity – and through the legislature – passed a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Rather that working to convince Iowans that the law should be changed and creating an environment where gay marriage would be accepted, the gay rights movement worked through the courts to have gay marriage imposed on the people of Iowa. What happened on Friday can be described no other way.  This case and ruling had nothing to do with achieving justice.  It was, pure and simple, a liberal activist group achieving legislation through the courts that it could not achieve through democratic avenues.

Which brings us to the second argument: it is the role of the Iowa Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws and that, simply enough, they ruled Iowa’s marriage law unconstitutional because it violated the “equal protection” clause of Iowa’s constitution. This is what we get when judges, their liberal social agenda in mind, see the constitution as a “living document” and don’t look at what the intent was when the amendment was written. Although this case is regarding the state constitution, the exact argument can be made on the federal level.

Our society legislates, regulates, legalizes, criminalizes and defines behavior based on the society’s culture all of the time. Practically, that’s what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were when they were written. Much of the basis was founded in the idea that the 13 colonies were analogous to 13 “children” of Great Britain. The 13 children had grown up and it was time for them to be independent. The culture of the 13 colonies had developed so that it was genuinely different from that of Great Britain and that the king and parliament no longer represented their interests.

If society doesn’t have the ability to legislate and codify cultural standards and norms it opens the door to a dangerous cultural relativism where, in the end, the rights of one person or a “micro-minority” out-weigh the rights of the entire majority culture. One tiny group or individual set the policy for what the vast majority must accept simply so that one person or group doesn’t have their “equal protection” violated.

This doesn’t mean that the micro-minority group must be oppressed or discriminated against, but simply that every conceivable lifestyle is not considered equal to that of the vast majority.  There is a difference between institutionalized racim of past generations and not letting gays get married.  Under the Iowa Supreme Court’s logic, explain to me why the polygamist is a criminal? Is his/her equal protection under the constitution not being violated? Why shouldn’t the errant Arkansas hillbilly be permitted to marry his/her cousin? When these comparable examples are brought up to a person who supports gay marriage, they are immediately dismissed as extreme and laughable. But why not? (The answer is as simple as who they tend to vote for…not Democrats.)

Things to think about, Iowa. My problems with gay marriage are many, but the most significant is the fact that the way it is implemented throughout the country is wholly undemocratic and destructive to our idea that we as a people are capable of governing ourselves and creating laws that define our culture.

But each coin has two sides. In the long run, this ruling may set the gay marriage agenda back – significantly. Many states already saw the writing on the wall and passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Many others have laws like Iowa had. In nearly every case where a gay marriage ban-type amendment has been brought to a vote, it has passed. Watch to see the number of amendments defining marriage in 2010 that are voted on. There will be a significant number of states that respond to the Iowa ruling by proposing and passing amendments outlining their specific desires.

Gay marriage advocates, right or wrong, could have gotten a lot further by working through the democratic process to attain their goals. By not, and having gay marriage laws imposed on the public, they ensure a much longer fight which will be much harder to legitimately reverse in the court system.