Gay Marriage, Citizenship, Courts and Democracy

My esteemed Keloland Colleague Cory Heidelberger celebrates the Iowa Supreme Court's judicial activism with a bad argument. 

The Iowa Supreme Court's declaration that non-heterosexuals are full citizens too has some significant political implications. Among them: Four more years for President Obama.

I am not sure what bearing this issue will have four years down the road, but I know that Cory is confused about citizenship.  I don't know of any marriage laws that distinguish between citizens and non-citizens.  Maybe Cory can fill me in. 

I can think of one aspect of citizenship that is denied to homosexuals: eligibility to serve in the armed forces.  If homosexual Americans are denied that eligibility under "don't ask, don't tell," as it seems they are, there one has a claim that homosexuals are denied full citizenship rights.  I think it's time to abandon that policy, and I am sure Cory agrees.  President Obama has promised to do something about it, but so far he hasn't had the time. 

Restrictions on marriage to heterosexual couples involve no distinctions in citizenship.  They do not single out any group of persons.  No man has a right to marry another man under such restrictions.  It doesn't matter whether the men are homosexual, heterosexual, resident aliens or Seventh Day Adventists.   When a law is applied the same way to everyone, it can't raise questions of equal protection or second class citizenship.  Sorry if logic is sometimes inconvenient. 

The Iowa Court seems to think its a matter of treating homosexual couple differently from heterosexual couples, but couples don't have rights until they are incorporated in some legal fashion, and that is begging the question.  Logic again, alas.  Besides, it is obviously legitimate to distinguish between couples.  Two people one or both of whom are underage, two people who are too closely related, two people one or both of whom are already married, lots of citizen couples aren't eligible to marry and shouldn't be.  The criteria for legal marriage involve judgment calls, and are therefore political rather than legal. 

I am not opposed to gay marriage, but there is a right way to get it.  Vermont shows the way, and several states look likely to follow suit.  That's what democracy looks like.  It's also what citizenship is all about. 

Comments

[bill howard]

Let the gays get married in IRAN. They need the best send off.

[Jason]

Amen! Hopefully Vermont will show the rest of the country that the legislative process works.

[Vince]

Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/first+states+that+will+legalize+gay+marriage

['tchard]

I think you missed the point, Vince... it's not an issue of 'equal rights' at all.

[A.I.]

I know from past exchanges your argument is that homosexuals already enjoy "equal rights" because they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as do heterosexuals. But that is kind of like saying a vegan at a steak fry has the same right to eat as the meat-eating guests. He could force himself to eat, but doing so would be repulsive, unsatisfying and perhaps would make him physically ill.

[KB]

A.I.:

As long as a law is applied the same way to everyone, it doesn't raise equal protection questions. That is a matter of simple logic. To be sure, a liberty extended equally to everyone will not be of equal value to everyone. The right to an abortion directly benefits only women. Whatever might be wrong with legalized abortion (I am opposed), it isn't a violation of equal protection for adults. Anyone who gets pregnant can employ the right. Whatever might be wrong with same sex restrictions on marriage (again, I am opposed), it isn't inequality.

[A.I.]

Were poll taxes not "applied the same way to everyone"? Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_tax

http://snipurl.com/fvdp4