Throughout every generation, there are social issues that divide and define it.
It is how we respond to these dilemmas that define us as a people and as a nation.
Our grandparents’ generation dealt with the civil rights movement, while our parents faced the Vietnam War. Gay marriage has become the social issue for our generation. While our situation might seem unique, it really isn’t.
The 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia and the 2009 Iowa Supreme Court case Varnum v. Brien are very similar despite a large time lapse.
Loving v. Virginia overturned the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, thus ruling a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. The Virginia Racial Integrity Act had made marriage exclusive because it outlawed a black person from marrying a Caucasian person.
Propositions 102 and 8, which were passed in Arizona and California, respectively, last November do the same thing. They make marriage exclusive by defining it as a union between one man and one woman. The historic correlation is finally clear.
Upon examination, we come to realize that history is the greatest teacher, but the U.S. is not the best student. However, there is a growing resistance to the complacency many find in these gay-marriage bans.
A little more than a week ago, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a law that prohibits gay marriage is unconstitutional. This ruling comes from a progressive court system that has been ahead of its time on numerous occasions. In the court’s decision, the Iowa Supreme Court points out it ruled that humans are not property 17 years before the infamous Dred Scott decision and ruled against segregation 86 years before the Brown v. Board of Education decision, both of which came down from the U.S. Supreme Court. When a court has such an unprecedented record of progression, we should not ignore the ruling of the justices.
In each case, both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Iowa Supreme Court justify their rulings similarly despite a 42-year gap. “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival,” said the justices of the Loving v. Virginia decision. When the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes marriage as one of the “basic civil rights of man” this should apply to all people, including those who are gay. The Iowa Supreme Court realizes this and responded in a similar fashion.
“The [Iowa] Legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification,” said the justices of the Varnum v. Brien decision. By acknowledging the importance of marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court echoes the reasoning of the Supreme Court.
Despite the recognition by several courts that marriage is a cornerstone in human life, states continue to deny same-sex couples the right of marriage. The country that sets the standard for human rights in the world should not treat its citizens with such disrespect.
Unfortunately, 46 states, save Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, do not allow same-sex marriage. There will probably be many more legal battles in various states.
As a nation, we must respond to this issue with the benevolence of which we are capable, not the bitterness and discrimination we reacted with in the past.
Reach Andrew at andrew.hedlund@asu.edu.
