Friday, April 03, 2009

Excerpt from the Ruling: Reasoning We Can Do Without

For political reasons, this passage is unsettling for we know that the enemy will use this to justify opposition to ENDA (which would protect workers from same-sex orientation-based discrimination in the workplace and housing, the Matthew Shepherd Act (which would impose harsher penalties for bias crimes), DOMA reversal and the Uniting American Families Act (which would allow gay Americans the right to sponsor their non-American partners for citizenship and thus entitle them to the same immigration rights their straight counterparts take for granted):


"Not surprisingly, none of the same-sex marriage decisions from other
state courts around the nation have found a person’s sexual orientation to
be indicative of the person’s general ability to contribute to society.

More importantly, the Iowa legislature has recently declared as
the public policy of this state that sexual orientation is not relevant to a
person’s ability to contribute to a number of societal institutions other than
civil marriage. See Iowa Code § 216.6 (employment); id. § 216.7 (public
accommodations); id. § 216.8 (housing); id. § 216.9 (education); id. § 216.10
(credit practices).19 Significantly, we do not construe Iowa Code chapter 216
to allow marriage between persons of the same sex, a construction expressly
forbidden in the Iowa Code.

See id. § 216.18A (“[Chapter 216] shall not be e.g., In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 442; Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 434–36;
Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307, 345 (D.C. 1995); Conaway, 932
A.2d at 609. More importantly, the Iowa legislature has recently declared as
the public policy of this state that sexual orientation is not relevant to a
person’s ability to contribute to a number of societal institutions other than
civil marriage. See Iowa Code § 216.6 (employment); id. § 216.7 (public
accommodations); id. § 216.8 (housing); id. § 216.9 (education); id. § 216.10
(credit practices).19 Significantly, we do not construe Iowa Code chapter 216
to allow marriage between persons of the same sex, a construction expressly
forbidden in the Iowa Code."


Also the Court's reasoning here is dubious since it is highly selective (the Court is affirming the legislature's reasoning here but not with respect to marriage) and suggestive in importance (as if this recognition from the state is required for the Court to reach its own ruling on marriage discrimination).

No comments: