Poor Republican

The Iowa Supreme Court declared a law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman to be unconstitutional in Iowa, as it violated the equal protection clause of that state’s constitution.

Gay marriage advocates are trumpeting the decision as proof that it’s “not just the liberal coasts” that are tolerant of gay marriage.  They could not be more wrong in their interpretation of the court’s decision.

The fact that there was a law against gay marriage to begin with proves that gay marriage is not exactly popular in Iowa.  In fact, even in liberal California and Massachusetts, gay marriage was ordered legalized by the courts after losing at the ballot box and in the legislature.  So no, the population is not generally in favor of gay marriage, even in liberal states.

As further proof, there is this from the summary ruling of the court:

“The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa constitution must be declared void even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.”

In other words, the court ruled based on the state constitution as written because that’s what the court was supposed to do.  In plain language, the court made a conservative ruling.  It didn’t decide that a gay marriage ban was okay because it was popular.  It didn’t confer rights to the majority that didn’t exist.

It read the state constitution exactly as it was and based its ruling that way.

This is not an activist court victory for a non-existent right, such as Roe v. Wade.  This a conservative victory in that a court ruled exactly the way it should have.  There was no constitutional basis to ban gay marriage in Iowa, so the court threw it out.  It’s not affirmation of gay rights; it’s affirmation of proper use of the state constitution.

As a conservative, I support that decision.  I am not in favor of gay marriage; I am in favor of the Constitution as it is written because I am a conservative.  I do not want a court ruling against the Constitution just because I don’t agree with the issue.  I would rather have gay people getting married than have an activist court ignore its duty.

Ironically, had the Iowa Supreme Court acted as the U.S. Supreme Court frequently does, gay activists could easily have lost this case.  Judicial activism is what gave us rulings like Roe v. Wade, where the court invented a right out of thin air, or  Roper v. Simmons, where the court overturned death sentences for anyone under age 18 at the time of their crimes.  The court cited popular opinion and the laws of other countries in determining that executions of 17 year old murderers was “cruel and unusual” under the 8th Amendment.

In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled exactly in the opposite fashion as the Iowa Supreme Court.

Liberals are always claiming that the Constitution is “living and breathing” and should reflect society’s whim of the moment.

Had they gotten their way, gay marriage would still be banned in Iowa.

Trackback URI |