Iowa’s Supreme Court today heard arguments in Varnum vs. Brien, which will determine if gay marriage is legal and/or constitutional in Iowa. The arguments by the defense, which oppose same-sex marriage, included arguments about child-raising, procreation, polygamy, tradition, and equal protection.
What is fascinating is that the defense so desperately was attempting to use tradition as a reason for not allowing gay marriage. “For four thousand years marriage has been between a man and a woman.” The judges did not seem to be swayed by this argument. It appeared they were far more interested in finding for the plaintiff and allowing gay marriage, but there are legal issues involved.
Come back for a report on the plaintiff’s argument, which seemed far more logical and based on fact and interpretation of prior cases.
Here are a few quotes from Roger Kuhle, the Polk County Assistant Attorney, and some Q&A from the judges:
Kuhle: Children have an “essential right to know their biological parents.” Judge: If that’s the case why are adoption records legally allowed to be sealed? How does allowing same-sex marriage deny a child the ability to know their biological parents? And isn’t this more an issue with artificial birthing methods? If marriage provides the optimal environment for children, doesn’t denying it harm the children of same sex unions?
Kuhle: “By fostering same-sex marriage the state will harm and could defeat its [marriage’s] vital purpose. The state will be teaching that marriage is not necessary.” Judge: “If stability is the goal then by denying same-sex couples marriage aren’t you going against your argument?” “How does including gay marriage interferes with this purpose of procreation?”
Kuhle: The plaintiff “could not provide evidence or example of anyone turned away from a hospital or a will contested” because they, as a same-sex couple were not legally married.
Kuhle:Â The “perceived harms [of not being legally married] are not real. Different treatment is not substantial.”
Kuhle:Â “How does a man teach a girl to be a woman, or a woman teach a boy to be a man?”
Kuhle:Â “In a generation or two after same-sex marriage is legal you will see the fabric of marriage fall apart. In allowing same-sex marriage the state would be saying you do not need a mother or father.”
Judge: “If procreation is a primary basis for marriage, how does recognition of same-sex marriage result in less children born?” Kuhle: “It doesn’t. But it could. There is a legitimate fear when the state encourages same-sex marriage, it teaches that marriage is no longer about procreation, it says procreation is not important.” Judge: “How is this having a real purpose? There are more child born out of wedlock today than ever.”
Kuhle: “There is no ban to same-sex marriage, there is no exclusion to same-sex marriage. To reach the conclusion that the current state of same-sex marriage is bigoty flies in the face of convention.”
Kuhle: “The plaintiff has said they are going to knock down the institute of marriage to gain equality.” Judge: Are you saying that homosexuals do not have equality?
See also: “Attorney for gay couples: Marriage ruling would not allow polygamy“