When Is 7 More Than 3,000,000?

On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down Iowa Code Section 595.2 which provided that “Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid” and held that sexual orientation is an “immutable” characteristic, shared by a “powerless” category of persons. Therefore, any attempt to legislate a definition of traditional marriage is presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny by the Court. Put simply, the Court has held that the good people of Iowa cannot define marriage as between a man and a woman--as has traditionally been the case in this state for over 160 years.  Rather, the Court has reserved unto itself the power to redefine marriage in a way that cuts against the grain and the values of the vast majority of Iowans-- traditional, hard working, honest folks who share the belief that marriage between opposite sexes has something to do with the power to create human life and propagate the species according to Judeo-Christian principles. But the issue far transcends the debate over the gay and lesbian lifestyle or their ability to marry. This issue is, pure and simple, one of disenfranchisement.  For over two hundred years this country has harbored the funny notion that we express the will of the people through our legislators, who pass laws governing conduct, morals, commerce, and a host of other matters necessary to conduct civilized society.  But when a handful of judges decide to abolish traditional marriage and tell the people that they must accept a new definition of marriage, they are clearly thwarting the will of the people and, in effect, outvoting them.   After reviewing the ruling of the Court in Varnum v. Brien, my son, David, had a great idea: Why not review the legislative history of the Iowa Code Section which the Court decided to void, in order to see what  the actual representatives of the people thought about that language? The results were revealing.  As it turns out, The Iowa House of Representatives voted 89-10 for the language that “Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” Further, the legislative history showed that the Iowa Senate voted 40-9 for the language that “Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” If my math is correct here, then 129 men and women elected by the people of Iowa voted that “marriage” is a legal relationship existing between a male and female, and 19 voted against that proposition. Put another way, 87% of the people elected to do the will of the citizens of Iowa believed that the only valid marriage is between a man and a woman.   Yet, when it came time for the seven justices of the Iowa Supreme Court to vote on the subject, these seven folks outvoted, overruled, and trumped the will of the three million Iowans as expressed through 87% percent of the people they elected.                 I have vigorously defended judges in this state during campaigns to vote them out, or when newspapers have unfairly attacked them, and on other issues--and have not been afraid to do so. However, there are times when we must voice our respectful disagreement with them. This ruling is less about gays and their legal rights than to what extent citizens have a say in their own lives. Why must the vast majority of people be deprived of the simple right to define what traditional marriage means to them? Shall the morals, values, and rules by which we live be decided from the bottom up, through our elected representatives? Or shall they be dictated from the top down, by judicial fiat issued from this august body (whom I respect and are themselves good people--if wrong on this issue)? It is a question worth contemplating, given its implications for all levels of government. If a group of  appointed judges can presume to define our morals and legislate our conduct from above rather than simply applying and interpreting the laws our legislatures pass---why do we engage in the exercise of electing people every two, four, or six years as our county, state, and federal representatives?                 If judges are able to fix potholes, run our schools, legislate from the bench, provide for the defense of the country, and appropriate funds, then perhaps we should amend our constitutions, abolish our legislative branches, and let judges tell us how to live. It won’t be democracy, but, then again, it would be easier.