Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned that state's ban on same sex marriage. The unanimous decision was based on fact and reason, as the court spelled out in their ruling. "The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, 'Marriage is a civil contract' and then regulates that civil contract," the ruling reads. "Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage."
In other words, marriage as a contract is the state's business, while marriage as a religious ceremony is religion's business -- and the state of Iowa isn't in the religion business. When two people can go to a Justice of the Peace and have themselves declared married, marriage stops being solely a religious institution. And, following that reasoning, marriage stopped being solely a religious institution a long time ago. The state has no more reason to care if you're upholding your religious traditions in the ceremony than they do whether you're upholding your family's traditions. Your religion is your business, not the state's. Iowa has no reason to care if you're being a good Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc. It's not the state's job.
If marriage were nothing but a religious ceremony, then it would be impossible for atheists to marry. In fact, it would be just as much of an offense for two atheists to marry as two people of the same gender. After all, a purely religious ceremony without any of the religious trappings and hoodoo would practically be the definition of a "mockery" -- like an atheist baptism. Oddly, few (I won't say none, because there's always someone) get all freaked out when two non-believers tie the knot, even though it obviously happens all the time, in every state.
In Iowa, the state Supreme Court used the laws of the land, not the laws of some randomly chosen religion, to reach their decision. As a result, the ruling is entirely rational. The problem is that many people reacting to the ruling are not... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]
