INKS | Legal gay marriage
Over the past week, two states have legalized gay marriage, Iowa and Vermont. One state butchered the legal system in doing so, while the other exercised its state's right to define marriage.
Let's start off by looking at the state that did it the right way: Vermont. The Vermont General Assembly passed S. 115 and sent the bill to Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, who vetoed the bill. The bill then went back to the Assembly where a vote to override his veto barely squeaked by.
Vermont exercised its state's right to define marriage, a right given to the states because of the fact that the federal government has never defined whom states can legally allow to be married.
And then there is Iowa. Last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Varnum v. Brien that Iowa Code section 595.2(1), which says, "Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid" violates the "equal protection clause" of the Iowa Constitution (Art. I, 6). It says that "the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."
The court ruled that allowing marriage only to be between a man and a woman violated that clause, but what exactly is the privilege of marriage? The privilege refers to being able to enter into a marriage, which Iowa defines as "a civil contract, requiring the consent of the parties capable of entering into other contracts."
Is defining marriage as between one man and one woman making it impossible for a homosexual to get married? No. A homosexual can get married as long as he or she marries someone of the opposite sex. If that person chooses not to marry someone of the opposite sex, then he or she has chosen to make the civil contract (the marriage) invalid.
In its ruling, the court said, "Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all."
The Court went on to strike down the one man, one woman clause of the marriage law on the basis that marriage involves intimacy. This seems like a logical conclusion; however, the legal system does not allow for courts to simply redefine terms based on logical conclusions.
In Iowa, marriage is defined as a "civil contract," and a stipulation of that contract is that it is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals have as much of a right to enter into that contract as everybody else, but the contract is valid only if they marry someone of the opposite sex.
The court stepping in here and striking down a contract stipulation is no different than if it were to strike down a section of a government contract regarding firing a construction worker for dereliction of duty. In Iowa, construction workers contracted with the government have the privilege of entering that contract, but if they break that contract, the contract is invalidated.
The same principle applies to marriage.
If states wants to legalize gay marriage in the same manner as Vermont, that is there right; however, complete butchering of the legal process, like in the state of Iowa, is unacceptable.
Nathan Inks is chairman of the College Republicans.
