By Leland C. Abraham, Esq.
On April 2, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling finding that a ban on same-sex marriage, in the state of Iowa, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court based this decision on the premise of “equal protection” under the law. This means that homosexual couples did not have the same protection under the laws as heterosexual couples who were married in the state of Iowa.
This measure has significant impact on the course of the nation’s stance on this issue. The Iowa Supreme Court found that a state statute that banned gay marriage was unconstitutional and that homosexual couples should have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples. The interesting thing about the decision is that the same logic used the Iowa Supreme Court used to justify its ruling is the same argument that can be used to justify a number of significant future marriage measures.
Equal protection under the law means that a protected class will have the same rights as a majority class. In this case, that majority class will be the heterosexual couples who are married. The Iowa Supreme Court has just made a verdict that allows homosexual couples that same rights and access to laws as the heterosexual couples. While I will not make a religious argument in this article, I will make a legal argument as to how this decision can lead to what we in the legal world call a “slippery slope.” A slippery slope is a situation in which once something is started, it is nearly impossible to stop it. Another common phrase used to describe this phenomenon is “ringing the bell.” The adage goes, once the bell has been rung, you can’t unring it.
Most Americans will assume that the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court will be limited to marriage between homosexuals. However, this is not necessarily the case. Because equal protection was cited as a reason for the decision, any group seeking marriage will have a viable argument as to why they should get married under the “equal protection” argument. Thus, if two men and two women wanted to have communal marriage, there is no legal argument as to why they should not be married in the state of Iowa. While this form of marriage is at the very least, unconventional, the four participants will have the same argument that the Iowa Supreme Court used in its decision. If homosexuals have equal protection under the law, then so should communal marriages. Another example would be if a man wanted to marry man’s best friend, the dog. While most Americans would consider this to be an outrageous arrangement, it is possible in this generation of Americans. While the man may initially have some legal resistance to his right to marry his pet, once the matter gets to the state court levels, he will have the same legal arguments that I have already asserted, “equal protection under the law.” He would also have the case precedent of the Iowa Supreme Court overriding a state statute to accommodate such a protection.
Some Americans may not have a problem with what the Iowa Supreme Court decided. In fact, many may see it as a sign on progression in the social justice movement. The state that has had marriage legalized the longest is the state of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the homosexual lifestyle is taught to students in grade levels as low as the 4th grade. This is being done to promote tolerance for when the students are older and have to confront the homosexual lifestyle in adulthood. If my assertions are correct and this decision really is a slippery slope, then there is a great possibility that the next generation of young students can be learning about communal marriages and other forms of unions as accepted alternatives to traditional marriage while they are young students. These are the formative years for young people. If the issue of gay marriage continues to be passed in the various states in the union, it will be interesting to see how the relationships amongst the next generation of young people form.
Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment