The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?
-- Iowa Supreme Court
One year ago the court unanimously held that couples like these had a state constitutional right to marry each other. By legislative and court decision, five states and the District of Columbia now have equal marriage rights for same sex couples. As do various countries, including the Netherlands and Canada. This has allowed some analysis of the effects of same sex marriage. The value of such research is suggested by a letter written by the CBO -- upon a request from a Republican member of Congress -- in 2004:
"The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are numerous. Marriage can affect a person’s eligibility for federal benefits such as Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions—ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners’ eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)—in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving “benefits, rights, and privileges.”1 In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government."
Ironically, saving money was one reason raised by the state of Iowa to defend its discriminatory marriage laws. Given the holiday season, it is also suitable to note the opinion also addressed religious arguments against marriage. In effect, it noted that ruling was about "civil" marriage, not religious recognition. The latter was a private matter, one divided in opinion:
Many religions recognize same-sex marriage, such as Buddhists, Quakers, Unitarians, and Reform and Reconstructionist Jews. Schuman, 96 Geo. L.J. at 2108. Amicus curiae Iowa and National Faith Leaders, Communities, and Scholars point out the United Church of Christ encourages, but does not require, its local congregations to adopt wedding policies that do not discriminate between heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples, while the Episcopal Church permits priests to perform liturgies and blessings at same-sex weddings as a matter of pastoral care. Additionally, many groups and clergy within various religions are working to achieve inclusion of same-sex marriage.
This underlines the true definition of a "right to privacy" -- a religious marriage is in various ways a "public act," in fact, that is something of the point for many people. But, it is still one for people to do privately, that is, separate from state action or the compulsion of others. So, if someone tried to tell you whom to marry, you might say "that is a private matter for me to decide." The importance of private/religious rights in this area in a country where the right to same sex marriage is denied in most areas is underlined by this ironic case.*
A year has gone by, and the fight continues.
---
* This is one of those cases where reading through lower court opinions is an interesting enterprise. Not only did the case involve a lesbian in the office of Michael Bowers (of Bowers v. Hardwick fame), but it turns out that the person who fired her for marrying a woman in religious ceremony (not a criminal act) was committing adultery (a crime) at the time.
It seems a bit curious to fire someone like her. Seems a good strategy move, like having someone personally against the death penalty defending its legality. Cf. an out homosexual in the Obama Administration having the unfortunate responsibility to defend certain federal discriminatory policies.