3-30-11 point- counter point brain
Laws Are For The Few, But Affect The Many
How true this statement is. For the most part, laws are necessary, logical, specific, well intended and the cornerstone of human society. However, some laws are ridiculous, not founded on sound principles, illogical and just not right. Judy and I agree on many laws but disagree on the merits of a few, one being the recent Supreme Court ruling that allowed same sex marriage in Iowa. Truthfully, I was not clear if the ruling was to enforce a law, if it made a new law or was one of those cases that set a prescience of new law. More about the law at the end of the article.
A few weeks ago Judy was going to a rally at the Capitol and when I looked it up, all I could find was a rally to support the vote on the definition of marriage. I knew she was not at that rally but it got me thinking of the ongoing debate and of a show I just watched, Sister Wives, and I said “see this is why the definition of marriage is an important issue”.
Sister Wives is a reality show about a polygamy family (a man with four wives) on The Learning Channel. I’ve heard about polygamy, know that it is illegal in all states, even in Utah, but understand that it does exist. However, I’m sure these people keep to themselves versus putting in out there for everyone to see.
My curiosity got the best of me and I watched two hours of the show. Amazing, the degrading of a wife and the narcissistic life of a man, and a show made to look like the “Brady Bunch”. Short story long, the guy married his first wife 20 years ago = 1 child, then 17 years ago wife #2 = 6 more children, then 15 years ago wife #3 = 6 more children. The first series of the show, he’s courting wife #4 who has 3 children. I am sure this is how he sold the show (he’s an Ad salesman), openly courting wife #4. The odd part of this, the wives appear to be supportive of the man. They all live in the same house with separate sleeping areas (wife #4 lives down the block as there was no more room in the main house). They think this is normal, they know it’s against the law, but live openly and now in the public eye. I say karma will get them sooner or later for profiting off their lifestyle.
Back to laws, for most part, laws that affect the day to day lives of most citizens are created by the states, like the marriage law. Most states define marriage as “between one man and one woman”. Most have specific language that voids a marriage like - same sex, first cousins, niece to an aunt, nephew to an uncle, age of marriage and so on. I looked up the definition of Iowa’s Law, which was last passed in 1998. (I did not know that)
The state’s Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1998 by a 40-9 margin in the Senate and an 89-10 margin in the House, defines marriage as being solely between a man and a woman.
Iowa Code: 595.2 GENDER -- AGE.
1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.
So we have a law that defines what a marriage is, then a series of lawsuits that claim the law denies a person of the same sex to marry is unconstitutional, which the plaintiffs won and then affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. I’m not going to pretend I know what all went on, or what is next, all I know is that the judiciary branch of the government interprets the law in question, not make new law. With that said, the debate goes on and the Iowa Code still reads the same, defines marriage as being solely between a man and a woman.
Should there be a citizen vote or a vote by the State Legislature on marriage? I say yes, to either one. Otherwise, the slippery slope begins. What will be next, one man and three women or three women and one man or perhaps we get into the dog, cow, horse scenario?
While this may appear ridiculous, you can count on someone pushing the envelope and I wanted to make Judy chuckle :).
That Girl, Ann Marie
Counter Point: Judy talking now
Yes, I tease Ann about worrying about things that won’t happen; One being the "Slippery Slope” theory (if you allow Gay marriage, soon someone will want to marry their dog, horse or cow)…. and an oldie but goodie …. “ Trickle Down Economics”.
For me, marriage is a religious term and the churches can and should decide who they want to allow to marry. However, for the State or Federal Constitution, a law should not create inequality. That is when you get judges involve to test if a law in constitutional.
I feel the solution is that the state law needs to remove the word marriage altogether and refer only to civil unions. Gay marriage is not about the right to love whomever you choose, that will happen anyway law or no law…. But Gay “marriage” is about the access to equal rights under the civil laws of our Land, not the Law of God. Two separate issues as far as I’m concern…. Like the separation of church and state.
Thanks Ann for getting the discussion going.