Rejoicing and Weeping in Iowa

Yesterday the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriages.  This is a reason to celebrate for some, a reason to weep to others.

For those who rejoice, they rejoice because the state is granting gays the right to a legal status that they did not enjoy previously.

For those who weep, they see this decision as a step for the state, further away from the particular religious morals that many still hold in their personal lives.

This is a land of religious freedom.  People are still free to believe that homosexual acts are sinful,  and to proclaim their belief.  It is a particular religious belief, and others are free to accept or reject that teaching.

People do not have to believe in God, or the Bible.  They can ignore or remove the parts that they do not like,  but I believe that we will all one day face the God of the Bible, and be held accountable for our actions.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Rejoicing and Weeping in Iowa”

  1. The Center Square Says:

    I would respectfully disagree that the court “ruled in favor of gay marriages.” The court found that a law prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional. Not the same thing. Likewise, since this ruling returns Iowa to exactly where it was before the law was passed, I don’t think gays gained “a legal status that they did not enjoy previously.”

    But those are small quibbles. Compared to much of what has been written on this topic, by people on both sides, yours was a nicely balanced post. It is refreshing to see respect bestowed on both sides of a debate. Thank you for that.

  2. Pastor Curt Says:

    The Center Square,

    Could gay couples get a license to marry in Iowa before this ruling?

    Does this ruling make it possible for gay couples to get a license to marry in Iowa?
    Yes. (At least that is what the newspaper I am looking at says.)

    It certainly seems like a ruling in favor of gay marriages to me.
    Gays now have the legal right to marry that they did not have previously. They will have the option of the legal status of being married.

  3. Gloria Says:

    My question would be ‘how did this come about with no or very little news media? I heard all about California and there wasn’t anything I could do or say about that state. Yet I live in Iowa and didn’t hear a thing about this until today.

  4. Pastor Curt Says:

    It was a decision made by judges of the Iowa Supreme Court. Judicial decisions are not supposed to be influenced by popular opinion.

  5. The Center Square Says:

    @ Pastor Curt:

    Not to belabor the point, but I guess I would just like to know why you think the decision was swayed by popular opinion, and was not an honest interpretation of the constitution?

    Iowa’s constitution says in Section 6: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” With that in the constitution, how could the court have ruled other than it did?

    Also, if gay couples could not get a marriage license in Iowa before this law was passed, then why was a law passed to ban gay marriage? That makes no sense to me.

    Are you open to the possibility that your reaction to this ruling is based solely on your personal ideology?

    Thanks for discussing this civilly.

  6. Pastor Curt Says:

    Center Square,

    I am afraid that you have misunderstood my comment. My comment about popular opinion was in response to Gloria’s question about why she had not heard about this upcoming ruling. It was not a big issue in the news, and there wasn’t a push to sway opinion because it was a judicial, not a political decision. I do believe that the judges made their own decision.

    As far as the constitution goes: “All laws of a general nature…” A law pertaining to marriage is specific in its application. The law that was struck down was simply trying to clarify what was tacitly understood for over one hundred years, that marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. It would not have been even questioned until relatively recently.

    A few years ago, somewhere in Iowa, I do not remember the specific details, a gay couple was granted a marriage license, by some county official. The popular response to that event caused the legislature to pass the law banning gay marriages, which has now been decided by seven people; who are appointed, not elected, as judges, as being unconstitutional. So the actions of a small number of people have resulted in a major change in state policy, a change that I suspect the majority of Iowans would not support.

    I have to laugh a little at your last question. Of course my reaction to this ruling is based on my personal ideology:) What is a reaction if it is not personal? That is why some rejoice, some weep and some couldn’t care less, because of their personal ideologies.

  7. The Center Square Says:

    @ Pastor Curt: That’s helpful clarification and background. It would be interesting to see what would have happened, before this law had been passed, had a gay couple been denied a marriage license and pursued the matter in court. Perhaps the previous status quo did not preclude gay marriage; perhaps it just had not been tested yet.

    Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation. Be well.

  8. Pastor Curt Says:

    Center Square,

    Thanks for your comments.

  9. a follower Says:

    The style of writing is quite familiar . Did you write guest posts for other bloggers?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: