|
How Marriage Lost in Iowa
BY Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.
May 24-30, 2009 Issue |
Posted 5/15/09 at 12:57 PM
By now,
everyone knows that the Supreme Court of Iowa has imposed same-sex "marriage"
on the heartland of America, a mere 10 years after the people of that state had
expressly voted against it. What very few people know is exactly how unfair
this fight really was. Not only was the lineup within the courtroom imbalanced,
but the trial court refused to hear relevant evidence. When the case made its
way to the Iowa Supreme Court, they didn't behave much better.
This case, known as Varnum
v. Brien, began with a half dozen same-sex couples applying for
marriage licenses in Polk County, Iowa. The county clerk, acting in accordance
with the law, refused. Mind you, the state of Iowa did not go bothering
unassuming people who were minding their own business. This was a staged case.
These couples went to the clerk's office intending to be refused. They sued
Timothy Brien, Polk County recorder and registrar, an ordinary county employee.
The plaintiffs, that is, the people
who complained, were not exactly average citizens battling the big mean state
of Iowa all by themselves. They had the backing of homosexual-rights
establishment organizations. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund took
in $20 million in 2007. Lambda Legal is a nonprofit devoted solely to bringing
legal challenges like these.
By contrast, Polk County, Iowa, has
a budget of $15 million for the entire court system. One of the attorneys of
record for Lambda Legal has degrees from Yale and Columbia. Iowa's law was
defended not by the state's attorney general, nor even by the county attorney,
but by two assistant county attorneys.
The case wasn't a fair fight: It was
more like David and Goliath without the benefit of divine intervention.
Most citizens do not realize that
this mismatch of legal resources is typical for advocacy cases. So, advocacy
organizations on the side of natural, man-woman marriage came into the case as
friends of the court, trying to help defend the law of the state of Iowa. Most
notably, a group of scholars presented briefs and affidavits on various aspects
of the social significance of marriage. But the trial court refused to admit
five out of the eight expert witnesses presented to them.
These experts covered a wide range
of issues, including the ethics of artificial reproductive technologies, the
rights of children to be raised by their parents, the procreative purpose of
marriage, the history and meaning of marriage, and the significance of gender
differences in parenting. The trial court refused to hear the testimony of
Allan Carlson, author of five books on the history of marriage, Margaret
Somerville, founding director of the McGill University Centre for Medicine,
Ethics and Law, and Stephen Rhodes, political science professor at the
University of Virginia. This is the very sort of evidence that courts in other
states, such as New York, have found persuasive.
After refusing to hear their
testimony, the court had the nerve to declare a whole list of facts were
"undisputed." Instead of listening to both sides and deciding impartially, the
court lifted the "facts" directly from the brief of the same-sex "marriage"
advocates.
When this case went to the Supreme
Court of Iowa, several friends of the court pleaded with them to reopen the
admissibility of the evidence, to hear it, and to consider it. The Supreme
Court said, "The error committed by the trial court in failing to do so is of
no consequence" since they were going to review it themselves.
But their review didn't amount to
much. As for the parenting issue, surely one of the most significant issues
under discussion, the court relegated it to a footnote.
"The research appears to strongly
support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome
environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion
that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted
adults is based more on stereotype than anything else," says the court, but the
court offers no citations to any evidence in support of this remarkable claim.
If we took that statement out of the context of the same-sex "marriage" debate
and applied it generally throughout society, we would create enormous problems.
But put that point to one side for now. Just realize that the Supreme Court of
Iowa did not do the public the courtesy of citing a single source in support of
this claim.
The debate over marriage hinges in
large part on what people think is the subject: Advocates of genderless
marriage believe it is about fairness and equality. Advocates of conjugal
marriage believe it is about the role of marriage. By dismissing testimony so
obviously germane to the functions of marriage in society, the Iowa courts
prejudged the case and tacitly declared equality to be the only issue.
The homosexual lobby continually
hectors the rest of us about "fairness" and "equality." But when they get the
power, they ignore the most basic rules of fair play. Whether you agree with
same-sex "marriage" or not, you can't possibly support these tactics.
Jennifer Roback Morse is the founder and president
of the Ruth Institute, an educational project of
the National Organization for Marriage.
Filed under
Advertisement
Advertisement
Make a Donation now!
Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.
Click here to donate
| 
.
