Rational, Considered Legislating. But I’ll get back to that in a second.

The big news out of Iowa today is that the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision striking down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act.  This is great news for the LGBT community, and really anybody who cares about equality and the rule of law.

You can catch the PDF Summary or full opinion at Iowa Politics. The opinion is strong in its analysis of the situation, such as dismissing tired arguments that marriage is simply for children:

Same-sex couples currently raise children in Iowa, even while being excluded from civil marriage, and such couples will undoubtedly continue to do so.  Recognition of this under-inclusion puts in perspective just how minimally the same-sex marriage ban actually advances the purported legislative goal.  A law so simultaneously over-inclusive and under-inclusive is not substantially related to the government’s objective.  In the end, a careful analysis of the over- and under-inclusiveness of the statute reveals it is less about using marriage to achieve an optimal environment for children and more about merely precluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage.   (Varnum at 57-58)

And of the “stability of heterosexual marriages”:

While the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, we must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-

sex relationships.  The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none. (Varnum at 60)

And, of course, the deciding paragraph gives me the chills:

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage.  A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.  This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.  Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.  (Varnum at 60)

This is an opinion worthy of our nation and of the topic.  I highly suggest you take a gander at it. Even if you don’t have a background in the law, it is well-written and explains the background well enough for everybody to understand the legal questions.  The logic persists here in California, despite the success of Prop 8. Or even because of the success of Prop 8. One of the questions that the court grappled with was the political power of the relevant group.  And the passage of Prop 8 here, in California, the loony Left Coast, shows that clearly. If we are to have equal protection, it must truely be equal, and it cannot be subject to political whims.

But, back to where I started.  The rational, considered legislating.  You see, in Iowa, a Constitutional Amendment cannot be placed on the ballot simply by gathering a slightly higher number of signatures. No, it must go through the legislature not once, but twice.  The good folks at Bleeding Heartland suggest that the large Democratic majority will likely resist any such efforts.

Instead of immediately subjecting these new rights to a vote of the people, the Legislature considers how this process will turn out to work in reality.  Iowans will see the sky doesn’t fall and that everybody won’t just run out of their marriages because the gays get to marry. They will see the moral fabric of society is stronger, not weaker.  And tomorrow will be better than today.

That, my friends, is how the process should work, if in fact a process of voting on rights should occur at all.  Sit back and think of what you do. Let the leaders you elect consider the policy options before you move forward.  A novel concept from our perspective, I know, but it certainly puts an exclamation on our own structural dysfunction.