Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Iowa ruling again

From World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs said,
Jacobs commented: “The rationale for this ruling is that limiting marriage to a man and a woman is a violation of equal protection for homosexual couples who want to marry, hence unconstitutional.”

“But if not allowing same-sex couples to marry is unconstitutional, what about a brother and sister, or a man and three women who want to marry? On the basis of today’s ruling, aren’t they also denied equal protection under the law by not being allowed to marry?” Jacobs asked.

“Clearly, the ‘equal protection’ argument is a ruse by a court determined to force its social views on the people of Iowa.” Jacobs charged. “Otherwise, it would have ruled that any two people, or group of people, have an equal-protection right to marry in the state.”

The ruling is the social engineering of the left to impose their beliefs on Iowan society.

The Iowa decision brought about the religion aspect of Marriage here From Christian Today :

“While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling,” the seven justices said in a summary of their opinion. “Civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individual.”

The court said that its desire to protect religious freedom is consistent with preventing government from endorsing any religious view, which opponents found troubling.

“The notion that the only reason one could have an opposition to same-sex marriage is because of religion is pretty preposterous,” said John Eastman, dean of the law school at Chapman University in California. “And to discount religion or to say it’s not a legitimate part of the discourse is not only erroneous but dangerous.”

No comments: