| esquire within |

Ծնունդդ շնորհավոր.

I didn't forget.

I keep your picture on the bookcase; I look at it every single day and think about how much I miss you.

It still doesn't feel real.  I half hope it never does.

Happy birthday.

Redefining "Batshit Crazy."

Michelle Bachmann is back! 

And this time, she's not leading denying leading an anti-American witchhunt. She's crusading to save the dollar!

I think I speak for all of us* when I say:

WTF?  When is this lady's term up, anyhow?

*And by "all of us," I mean everyone in the country besides Glenn Beck and her 30 deploringly stupid co-sponsors.

"Times can blind us to certain truths, and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

The text of the Iowa Supreme Court decision overturning the gay marriage ban can be found here.  I've reviewed the 69-page opinion, and will try to excerpt the most pithy sections so you get the flavor of the Court's rationale.

Some interesting facts litigated in the district court case:

The plaintiffs produced evidence to demonstrate sexual orientation and gender have no effect on children raised by same-sex couples, and same-sex couples can raise children as well as opposite-sex couples. They also submitted evidence to show that most scientific research has repudiated the commonly assumed notion that children need opposite-sex parents or biological parents to grow into well-adjusted adults. Many leading organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.

For example, the official policy of the American Psychological Association declares, “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for children.”  Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. In Iowa, agencies that license foster parents have found same-sex couples to be good and acceptable parents. It is estimated that more than 5800 same-sex couples live throughout Iowa, and over one-third of these couples are raising children.

An excellent breakdown of the constitutional framework:

We approach the resolution of this case with a keen and respectful understanding of our Iowa Constitution and the vital roles of the three branches of government, as well as the role of the people. It is important for these roles to be identified and expressed from time to time when individuals seek recognition of rights, if only to serve as a reminder of the process of governing that has served us so well as a state for over 150 years.

The Iowa Constitution is the cornerstone of governing in Iowa. Like the United States Constitution, the Iowa Constitution creates a remarkable blueprint for government. It establishes three separate, but equal, branches of government and delineates the limited roles and powers of each branch. See Iowa Const. art. III, § 1 (“The powers of the government of Iowa shall be divided into three separate departments—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial: and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any function appertaining to either of the others, except in cases hereinafter expressly directed or permitted.”). Among other basic principles essential to our form of government, the constitution defines certain individual rights upon which the government may not infringe. See Iowa Const. art. I (“Bill of Rights”). Equal protection of the law is one of the guaranteed rights. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 6. All these rights and principles are declared and undeniably accepted as the supreme law of this state, against which no contrary law can stand. See Iowa Const. art. XII, § 1 (“This constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void.”).

This case, as with most other civil rights actions before it, implicates these broad constitutional principles of governing. The legislature, in carrying out its constitutional role to make public policy decisions, enacted a law that effectively excludes gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage. The executive branch of government, in carrying out its role to execute the law, enforced this statute through a county official who refused to issue marriage licenses to six same-sex couples. These Iowans, believing that the law is inconsistent with certain constitutional mandates, exercised their constitutional right to petition the courts for redress of their grievance. This court, consistent with its role to interpret the law and resolve disputes, now has the responsibility to determine if the law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution.

A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion. Iowa Const. art. XII, § 1 (providing any law inconsistent with the constitution is void). As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote over two centuries ago, “It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it . . . .” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L. Ed. 60, 73 (1803).

God bless the Heartland.

Today, Iowa joins Massachusetts and Connecticut in support of the equal protection of laws: the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that a 1998 statute banning gay marriage violates the Iowa Constitution.

Friends in New England have expressed delighted surprise.  But I'm not surprised.  Iowa is a great deal more open-minded than folks give it credit. 

Being Blue is not a new phenomenon in Iowa.  People forget that Bush took the state by a margin of less than 1% — 10,000 votes tipped the scale in his favor in a state with a long history of giving its electoral votes to Democratic candidates, as it did decisively this year. 

To dismiss Iowa as territory hostile to progressive values is to ignore distinctions in which the state takes enormous pride. Every child in Iowa, regardless of citizenship is guaranteed health insurance at an incredibly low rate.  We have the highest literary rate in the nation, the fourth highest SAT and fifth highest ACT average scores in the nation among high schoolers, and boast the city with the greatest density of Ph.D. holding citizens in the world.

Even when Republicans controlled the legislature, anti-gay legislation had been decisively refused (despite the 1998 restriction on marriage) because, as one legislator put it, "That doesn't make any sense, now does it?" and "Ain't hurting me and I reckon it's not hurting any of my constituency."

Iowa works hard against corporate farms and has installed legislation designed to help organic farmers, co-operative farming organizations and small farming operations. There are efforts across the board to control urban spraw.  And there are protecetions on the basis of gender identity state-wide (thanks, Addy).

Plus, we have the Lincoln Cafe.  So put that in your back pocket and slap it.

Anyway.  Still trying to get my hands on the actual Iowa Supreme Court opinion, which I imagine is inspiring.