As Iowa Shows, Marriage is Important to Both Sides of Debate

On August 30th, a Polk County, Iowa, judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act in that state was not in line with the protections set forth in the Iowa constitution. Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten says in her latest column, "As Iowa shows, a marriage law isn't enough", the Iowa decision is sufficient cause to push for a constitutional amendment in Minnesota to ban civil unions and same-sex marriage, and her column marks the beginning of more divisiveness to come in 2008.

Kersten argues that "activist judges" and marriage equality advocates deny the importance of heterosexual marriage, but there simply isn't sufficient evidence to back her argument.

"Many folks in our state believe that heterosexual marriage is a bedrock social institution. It connects fathers and mothers to their children and provides an essential framework for reconciling men's and women's sometimes different but complementary needs," writes Kersten. "For those reasons, many Minnesotans will tell you, marriage has been embraced across the world and through the centuries."

She continues, "But if a few people here hold a different view and they happen to wear black robes, they can trump the will - and the accumulated wisdom - of the rest of society."

The problem with Kersten's commentary on this issue is that no one argues that heterosexual marriage isn't a "bedrock social institution." No one in any news reports, press releases, or commentary pieces has held a "different view" on the importance of heterosexual marriage. Not even the judge in Iowa that overturned the law. Heterosexual marriage will remain important in Iowa, and it could be complemented by same-sex marriage as well depending on how the appeal process unfolds.

Kersten's straw man argument continues, implicating supporters of marriage equality in smear campaign against heterosexual marriage. Kersten mentions the first court opinion on same-sex marriage in the United States which was made right here in Minnesota. That judge said no to same-sex marriage, but for Kersten that decision was made too long ago. Kersten writes, "[T]hat case, Baker vs. Nelson, was decided 36 years ago -- long before judges dreamed that elite opinion-makers would one day denounce male-female marriage as mean-spirited bigotry."

I don't know who the "elite opinion-makers" are; Kersten doesn't provide any details. I tried Google to see if anyone had actually ever denounced male-female marriage as either "mean-spirited" or "bigoted" and I couldn't find any references. No "elite opinion-makers" could be found making those or similar claims. Several people referred to the amendment that Kersten is pushing as "mean-spirited," and a couple a quotes denounced Defense of Marriage laws as veiled bigotry, but none of those search results state that heterosexual marriage is bigoted or is inherently mean.

Marriage equality advocates view heterosexual marriage as having vital importance to families and society, hence the push to have the societal benefits bestowed upon their own families. In addition, the vast majority of marriage equality advocates are themselves products of heterosexual marriage, and have love and respect for their heterosexual parents.

Kersten is correct that the Iowa decision will change the definition of "marriage" in that state; it will hopefully include a whole new set of families who will enjoy the stability and protection afforded by marriage. Kersten is dishonest in the assertion that the definition of "heterosexual marriage" will change, or that those that disagree with her position on the issue denounce heterosexual marriage or don't view it as a vital part of society.

Despite the spin, both sides of the debate agree: marriage is important.