[As of November 2011 just shy of two years after this article originally appeared in April 2009, I have now performed multiple same sex unions here in Iowa for male and female couples from around the nation. May I continue to have the ability to do so for a long time to come!]
Shalom All,
I would like to comment on the arguments made in opposition to same-sex marriages in Iowa and in so doing will explain my views. As you likely know, I am an advocate for marriage equality and more specifically for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. The only role for the government should be in creating civil unions or civil partnerships in which people who live together and/or share expenses and property in a significant way are allowed to pay taxes together, share benefits, and dispose of jointly owned property. The government has no business enforcing religious views.
“The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!” is NOT a legal argument. Some of us, who know the first part, disagree with the latter two parts of that statement.
The arguments presented by Polk County lawyers as the rationales for banning same-sex marriages follow.
They argued that a ban was needed:
1. To maintain traditional marriage,
2. To promote the optimal environment for raising children,
3. To promote procreation,
4. To promote stability in opposite-sex relationships and
5. To conserve state resources such as tax breaks.
Let me go through them one by one.
"To maintain traditional marriage" is a religiously based argument. Maintaining religious traditions is not at all the role of the government. Maintaining the religious traditions of some, even if the large majority, of religious traditions is even less so its role.
"To promote the optimal environment for raising children" is questionable. With exceedingly high divorce rates and more than a few children living in "traditional" homes being abused, one can hardly make a blanket statement that children are always better off in the home created through a heterosexual marriage. One can argue whether or not the statement that a random heterosexual marriage is the "optimal environment" at all. The optimal environment in which to raise children is one in which there is a stable loving relationship between parents and their children.
"To promote procreation" is no longer true. It certainly was at one point in time. Lesbian couples often have children through artificial insemination and same sex couples of both sexes can adopt children. Additionally, many bisexuals bring children from heterosexual relationships into same sex households after a divorce. What our society sorely lacks is not the production of children, but good homes with loving and capable parents in which they might be raised.
"To promote stability in opposite-sex relationships." I do not even understand what this means. Is the argument that the existence of same sex marriages somehow threatens heterosexual relationships? Why? Because one partner is really a homosexual and might prefer to be in a same sex relationship? This is an exceedingly weak argument.
"To conserve state resources such as tax breaks" makes a lot of sense to me. This is exactly the argument that the state should make. The problem is that it should not be offering tax breaks for reasons based in religion. The legitimate reason that there is a marriage tax break is that couples share expenses and property. This is equally true of same sex couples. The real fear is that same sex couples who are platonic will be able to file for these tax breaks. Regardless of the extent of this occurrence, however, this is something easily dealt with by the legislature as it sets taxation rates.
With our society changing and especially with people living much longer lives, one can easily envision friends of the same sex living together and looking after one another long after their spouses have died, perhaps longer than a decade or even two decades. Why should they not be able to receive a tax break? We should have civil unions based upon arrangements of shared expenses and property as opposed to having the government only recognize familial based relationships to begin with.
Nothing at all says that religious institutions that oppose same sex marriage will now be forced to practice it. Nothing says that religious institutions in Iowa must stop preaching what they believe about the necessity of heterosexual marriage. Today’s court ruling did not change any of those rights. Religious education is not the obligation of the government, much less enforcement of it. Those responsibilities rest with parents and religious institutions. Let us not pretend that we can pass off our responsibilities as parents to the government.
As a Reform Jew, I believe that God created all of us the way that we are and that homosexuality is not a choice, but a biological reality. It is gratifying to me to know that our state will allow those who, in loving relationships, have chosen to devote themselves to one another exclusively in a manner binding them not only emotionally and spiritually, but legally as well.
In a society in which the fabric of family life is eroding, with ever increasing divorce rates, Iowa has now taken a step toward strengthening the family unit.
For those interested, I both support Civil Marriage and have performed a same sex commitment ceremony. My requirements for so doing are EXACTLY the same as for a non-homosexual couple. Someone has to be Jewish and the couple must either be prepared to raise the children that they may have as Jews or have discussed it and not decided.
I do not act as "Justice of the Peace" in a secular capacity. When I do weddings of any kind, I represent the Reform Jewish tradition in general and my beliefs as a Reform Jewish Rabbi in particular. I am there as a Rabbi, not as Justice of the Peace.
-David
Shalom All,
I would like to comment on the arguments made in opposition to same-sex marriages in Iowa and in so doing will explain my views. As you likely know, I am an advocate for marriage equality and more specifically for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. The only role for the government should be in creating civil unions or civil partnerships in which people who live together and/or share expenses and property in a significant way are allowed to pay taxes together, share benefits, and dispose of jointly owned property. The government has no business enforcing religious views.
“The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!” is NOT a legal argument. Some of us, who know the first part, disagree with the latter two parts of that statement.
The arguments presented by Polk County lawyers as the rationales for banning same-sex marriages follow.
They argued that a ban was needed:
1. To maintain traditional marriage,
2. To promote the optimal environment for raising children,
3. To promote procreation,
4. To promote stability in opposite-sex relationships and
5. To conserve state resources such as tax breaks.
Let me go through them one by one.
"To maintain traditional marriage" is a religiously based argument. Maintaining religious traditions is not at all the role of the government. Maintaining the religious traditions of some, even if the large majority, of religious traditions is even less so its role.
"To promote the optimal environment for raising children" is questionable. With exceedingly high divorce rates and more than a few children living in "traditional" homes being abused, one can hardly make a blanket statement that children are always better off in the home created through a heterosexual marriage. One can argue whether or not the statement that a random heterosexual marriage is the "optimal environment" at all. The optimal environment in which to raise children is one in which there is a stable loving relationship between parents and their children.
"To promote procreation" is no longer true. It certainly was at one point in time. Lesbian couples often have children through artificial insemination and same sex couples of both sexes can adopt children. Additionally, many bisexuals bring children from heterosexual relationships into same sex households after a divorce. What our society sorely lacks is not the production of children, but good homes with loving and capable parents in which they might be raised.
"To promote stability in opposite-sex relationships." I do not even understand what this means. Is the argument that the existence of same sex marriages somehow threatens heterosexual relationships? Why? Because one partner is really a homosexual and might prefer to be in a same sex relationship? This is an exceedingly weak argument.
"To conserve state resources such as tax breaks" makes a lot of sense to me. This is exactly the argument that the state should make. The problem is that it should not be offering tax breaks for reasons based in religion. The legitimate reason that there is a marriage tax break is that couples share expenses and property. This is equally true of same sex couples. The real fear is that same sex couples who are platonic will be able to file for these tax breaks. Regardless of the extent of this occurrence, however, this is something easily dealt with by the legislature as it sets taxation rates.
With our society changing and especially with people living much longer lives, one can easily envision friends of the same sex living together and looking after one another long after their spouses have died, perhaps longer than a decade or even two decades. Why should they not be able to receive a tax break? We should have civil unions based upon arrangements of shared expenses and property as opposed to having the government only recognize familial based relationships to begin with.
Nothing at all says that religious institutions that oppose same sex marriage will now be forced to practice it. Nothing says that religious institutions in Iowa must stop preaching what they believe about the necessity of heterosexual marriage. Today’s court ruling did not change any of those rights. Religious education is not the obligation of the government, much less enforcement of it. Those responsibilities rest with parents and religious institutions. Let us not pretend that we can pass off our responsibilities as parents to the government.
As a Reform Jew, I believe that God created all of us the way that we are and that homosexuality is not a choice, but a biological reality. It is gratifying to me to know that our state will allow those who, in loving relationships, have chosen to devote themselves to one another exclusively in a manner binding them not only emotionally and spiritually, but legally as well.
In a society in which the fabric of family life is eroding, with ever increasing divorce rates, Iowa has now taken a step toward strengthening the family unit.
For those interested, I both support Civil Marriage and have performed a same sex commitment ceremony. My requirements for so doing are EXACTLY the same as for a non-homosexual couple. Someone has to be Jewish and the couple must either be prepared to raise the children that they may have as Jews or have discussed it and not decided.
I do not act as "Justice of the Peace" in a secular capacity. When I do weddings of any kind, I represent the Reform Jewish tradition in general and my beliefs as a Reform Jewish Rabbi in particular. I am there as a Rabbi, not as Justice of the Peace.
-David
