The Iowa Supreme Court will issue its opinion in Varnum v. Brien tomorrow morning. Regardless of the outcome this decision may ultimately not matter.
Tomorrow's decision might not matter because it is a decision of law-and the law is impermanent. Whether the Court affirms Judge Hanson, which is likely because Judge Hanson is among Iowa’s smartest and most competent judges, or reverses that decision can be reversed by the actions of the people of Iowa.
The people of Iowa, generally assembled, pursuant to Section 1 of Article III of the existing Constitution of Iowa can take action to overrule some, and potentially all, actions of the Iowa Supreme Court. However the Supreme Court decides Varnum it is quite possible that the shifting political winds could empower the General Assembly to pass specific legislation that would reverse or nullify tomorrow’s decision. Since we know the current majority is committed to homosexual marriage rights as a hill upon which to die expecting any permanent resolution from this General Assembly is pointless.
In a small class of Constitutional cases the General Assembly cannot overrule the Supreme Court. In those classes of cases we the people, must act directly. The popular will is not any part of the judicial function. Lady Justice is blind because the Courts exist to find the law and not to implement popular policies. No one should expect tomorrow’s decision to arise from any perception of popular sentiment or even a shared belief in the social concept of marriage. Only an express amendment to our state Constitution can place a defining issue beyond the judicial function.
Even if the trial court is reversed in Varnum either the legislature or a different Supreme Court could, and probably will, revisit the issue. So if you, like us, believe that the definition of marriage as a monogamous unit composed of one man and one woman-a view that seems amply supported by social evolution in virtually every culture in every part of the globe over six thousand years of recorded history-is one of the social and moral premises of Western civilization then you cannot be willing to entrust such a premise to the one branch of government that we conservatives don’t think should be making such fundamental decisions.
The only permanent solution that will sustain the overwhelmingly shared concept of marriage is a Constitutional amendment that declares that the state of Iowa will neither issue same sex marriage licenses nor recognize such marriages of other states.
Tomorrow's decision might not matter because it is a decision of law-and the law is impermanent. Whether the Court affirms Judge Hanson, which is likely because Judge Hanson is among Iowa’s smartest and most competent judges, or reverses that decision can be reversed by the actions of the people of Iowa.
The people of Iowa, generally assembled, pursuant to Section 1 of Article III of the existing Constitution of Iowa can take action to overrule some, and potentially all, actions of the Iowa Supreme Court. However the Supreme Court decides Varnum it is quite possible that the shifting political winds could empower the General Assembly to pass specific legislation that would reverse or nullify tomorrow’s decision. Since we know the current majority is committed to homosexual marriage rights as a hill upon which to die expecting any permanent resolution from this General Assembly is pointless.
In a small class of Constitutional cases the General Assembly cannot overrule the Supreme Court. In those classes of cases we the people, must act directly. The popular will is not any part of the judicial function. Lady Justice is blind because the Courts exist to find the law and not to implement popular policies. No one should expect tomorrow’s decision to arise from any perception of popular sentiment or even a shared belief in the social concept of marriage. Only an express amendment to our state Constitution can place a defining issue beyond the judicial function.
Even if the trial court is reversed in Varnum either the legislature or a different Supreme Court could, and probably will, revisit the issue. So if you, like us, believe that the definition of marriage as a monogamous unit composed of one man and one woman-a view that seems amply supported by social evolution in virtually every culture in every part of the globe over six thousand years of recorded history-is one of the social and moral premises of Western civilization then you cannot be willing to entrust such a premise to the one branch of government that we conservatives don’t think should be making such fundamental decisions.
The only permanent solution that will sustain the overwhelmingly shared concept of marriage is a Constitutional amendment that declares that the state of Iowa will neither issue same sex marriage licenses nor recognize such marriages of other states.
7 comments:
Which process, Ted, may the legislature promptly initiate.
One thing for sure: the Republican Party and social conservatives have just received a gigantic shot in the arm. The Iowa political landscape has been transformed for the text two cycles, at least.
Chet Culver should start packing now.
One more point: great blog, but print so small it's almost illegible!
As a D, I'm hoping Bob is right about this becoming a top issue for Iowa R's. Surely conservatives foaming at mouth over gay marriage will attract the middle that has been drifting away from your party. And Sporer, nothing really more American (you claim to be a historian, right?) than inserting discrimination into our constitution!
RF,
I am sure you underestimate the angst and anger average people not bought and paid for by liberal bosses will feel at this issue. Even immigrants becoming part of the political process will feel anger over this issue as it strikes against basic Christian beliefs. Christians are to be tolerant, no debate there, but condoning a sin clearly spelled out in the Bible is too much to ask for even average Democrats.
Yeah Ken - let's start locking up those bastard adulterers who keep Ted in business!!!!!! That's a sin that needs some law to back it up!!!!
The average voter isn't going to give a crap about this in a few years - just like most normal people aren't upset about inter-racial marriage anymore.
Brim over I acquiesce in but I contemplate the brief should prepare more info then it has.
Post a Comment