As I have argued before, scripture is and has never been an immutable set of proscriptions on human behavior (even if some delude themselves into thinking it is). That canonization has conferred immutability is not only problematic for function of scripture, it also seems to ignore the nature of how and with what it was synthesized to its current form.
The point is that even it it did function to proscribe behavior, it should not be a relevant document to the rule of law in civil marriage legitimation in a secular politics. Disagreements over the issue are entirely ideological and that is where we find the utter failure of the so-called debate. Iowa ruled correctly along these lines.
Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” Cady wrote in the 69-page opinion that seemed to dismiss the concept of civil unions as an option for gay couples.
“A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution,” Cady wrote.
The choice is between ideological immutability and rational equality in who can partner with whom. Since the former is a mere myth and does not correspond to the reality of inevitable social change over time, the latter is our only reasonable choice. Time to continue to choose wisely along with Iowa and other states.
Related posts:
