Sweet arguments from The Iowa Decision (Varnum, et. al. v. Brien)

I'm late in blogging about this, but I finally had time to read through the 8/31/07 decision from the Iowa Judge Robert Hanson, who ruled in favor of same-sex marriages.

Here are some sweet things I noticed:

*Decided that the "expert" testimony from Defendant's expert witnesses would not be admissible at trial.
FYI--These experts were Margaret Somerville (where she is on the McGill University Faculty of Law, and Faculty of Medicine); Paul Nathanson, and Katherine Young (also both from McGill University, where they appear to be some sort of dynamic duo of intolerance). Nathanson was all set to testify "regarding the significance of marriage as a social institution, and the state's role in maintaining it, and related matters."

Likewise, Young sought to testify on "what universally constitutes marriage and why."

The Court rejected all three of these "experts" on the grounds that the Court doesn't believe that "the expected testimony of these individuals is scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence..." Nor were any of these people, according to the Court, qualified to testify as experts in the issue.

Allan Carlson's testimony was also disallowed.

(despite his "impressive" academic credentials, said the Court at one point).

[emphasis mine] I wouldn't be proud to have his credentials.

Some Arguments by the Plaintiffs:

1. "As a result from their exclusion from the civil institution of marriage, Plaintiffs, their relationships and their families are stigmatized and made more vulnerable in comparison to heterosexuals. Through the marriage exclusion the State devalues and delegitimizes relationships at the very core of the adult Plaintiff's sexual orientation, and expresses, compounds, and perpetuates the stigma historically attached to homosexuality, for them and all gay persons."

This sounds much like a heterosexism argument. And "metaphorical lynching."

2. "...Plaintiffs are continually reminded of their own and their families' second-class status in daily interactions in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and other arenas in which their relationships and families are poorly and unequally treated, or are not recognized at all." [emphasis added]

3. "Because their parents cannot marry, minor Plaintiffs are subjected to the historical stigma of "illegitimacy" and "bastardy" which, though of diminished social and legal force, is still a status widely considered undesirable."

4. "Plaintiffs inability to marry their chosen partners is a painful frustration of their life goals and dreams, their personal happiness and their self-determination."

5. "Plaintiffs and their families are harmed in an infinite number of daily transactions as a result of being denied the right to marry, including transactions with employers, hospitals, courts, preschools, insurance companies, businesses such as health clubs, and public agencies including taxing bodies."

6. The arguments go on to list an array of other legal benefits from which Plaintiffs are being deprived (workers compensation from death of a spouse, estate and other economic protections, among others). And the arguments go on to say that while Plaintiffs can have all or most such documents drawn up, "piecemeal" document creation is very costly, and all of these are "automatically afforded to" married couples by law.

7. And just because I think some people may need a refresher course on what it means to be gay: "...One's sexual orientation defines the universe of persons with whom one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling relationships, that, for many individuals, comprise an essential component of human identity and life." [emphasis mine]

8. "Nothing about a parent's sex or sexual orientation affects either that parent's capacity to be a good parent or a child's healthy development ('adjustment')." [emphasis mine]

9. "Allowing same-sex couples to marry is in the best interests of and will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples and the couples themselves, without having any detrimental effect on heterosexual couples or their children." [emphasis mine]

Of course most of us know this already. And those who claim otherwise are talking about mere inconveniences (like having to accept that a homosexual couple is now their equal). Not actual harm.

The Court then goes on with a discussion on the history of gay stigmatization in the U.S. I won't go into this. I think we all know how much society has intolerated gays and lesbians. And if you don't remember, then read it.

The Court's Analysis

The Plaintiffs argue that it is a violation of Iowa's Due Process clause that they are denied the right to marry. The Defendants argue that because no other State Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court has declared same-sex marriage a "fundamental right," that this precludes Iowa from doing so, as well.

The Court responds with "such protections 'should not ultimately hinge upon whether the right sought to be recognized has historically been afforded. Our constitution is not merely tied to tradition, but recognizes the changing nature of society.'"

Another finding of the Court: "Though the Defendant cites an abundance of case law indicating that Courts have long considered marriage to be an important relationship, the Defendant makes no argument that promoting procreation, child rearing by a mother and father in a marriage relationship, promoting stability in opposite sex relationships, promoting the concept of traditional marriage or conservation of state and private resources are compelling state interests, despite the fact that it is his burden to do so. "

I would like to see anyone try to prove that.

Further, the Court said that the Defendant failed to prove how banning gay marriage would promote any of the above "interests" like procreation, etc.

I invite anyone to take that to task.

The Court also found that the Iowa marriage statute violates the Equal Protection clause of the Iowa constitution.

my favorite part of the Court's conclusion:

"5. Court costs are hereby taxed to the Defendant."

That's all for now. I'll end with a quote by Justice Scalia:

"...'[P]reserving the 'traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."--Justice Scalia. 539 U.S. at 601, 123 S.Ct. at 2496."