Last Thursday, in a case brought by six couples that were denied marriage licenses in 2005, Judge Robert Hanson ruled under a prohibitive Iowa law that the state’s marriage laws “must be read and applied in a gender-neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage.” The ruling effectually meant that Iowa’s law prohibiting same-sex marriage was illegal and same-sex couples could marry. However, the ruling was temporarily halted from achieving its effect by same-sex marriage opponents less than 24 hours after going into effect, pending its appeal.
Married persons — both in same-sex and opposite-sex unions — have been granted civil benefits for more than 2,000 years, at least since Greek and Roman times. The notion of marriage as a religious institution and not just a civil contract can be traced back to Saint Paul, who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Jesus Christ and his church as stated in the Bible (Ephesians 5:23-32).
Currently, 20 countries and seven states in the United States recognize same-sex unions or same-sex marriages. If Judge Hanson’s ruling is upheld on appeal, Iowa will be the eighth state to permit or recognize same-sex marriages.
Whether you agree that same-sex marriage is a form of marriage or should be recognized by any religion or the government is a matter of personal opinion, but arguments on the subject come back to the same point: Legal recognition of marriage with corresponding rights and privileges for some with the denial of others constitutes unfair and unequal treatment by the government.
Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers asserted a need for the separation of church and state within the Constitution and other historically related documents of the period. Marriage is anything but a separation of church and state. Marriage is a state-recognized and state-rewarded religious institution and practice.
It is neither the government’s business nor place to permit and sanctify a religious practice and award civil benefits for those select persons deemed “fit” by the government to participate. Religion has no place within government. If the government wants to grant rights and privileges to certain partnerships or groups, the government should permit all legally consenting persons to enter into such partnerships and afford all such partnerships the same rights and privileges under the law. If certain religions want to go further and recognize or deny certain types of partnerships (e.g. same-sex marriages, plural marriages, etc.), that should be up to the specific religion and not dictated or mandated by the government.
Laws should provide for equality and equal treatment for all persons under the law. Current marriage laws in Utah and 42 other states do not achieve this end. Current governmental laws, including Utah’s, deny all people equal treatment under the law based on religion, and that is neither fair nor right. This situation is analogous to the governmental denial of marriage rights to interracial couples earlier in America’s history, which was equally unfair and wrong.
Iowa’s ruling should be upheld and persons should be able to marry one other person of legal age and of the sex of his or her choosing, or at least have the rights and privileges that go along with marriage or its legal equivalent, however named. The government should leave the sanctity, permission and recognition of marriage to the discretion of individual religions and simply concern itself with the equal protection and treatment of all its citizens under the law. If that means everyone has the ability to enter into civil unions and receive their benefits, and marriage exists only within individual religious contexts, then that is what needs to happen to have equality under the law for all.
Iowa is on the right track with Judge Hanson’s recent court decision and other states should move in that direction too. Equal partnership rights for all Americans are long overdue.
