Iowa Supreme Court Re-Defines Marriage: Wake-Up Call for PA
April 3, 2009
NEWS RELEASE
Iowa Supreme Court Re-defines Marriage
Wake-up Call for Pennsylvania
For Immediate Release
(Harrisburg , April 3, 2009)
The Iowa Supreme Court today unanimously struck down as unconstitutional that state’s marriage law. Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act is similar to Pennsylvania’s; it defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the definition that has existed throughout the state’s history.
The Pennsylvania Family Institute said today’s ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court highlights the urgent need in Pennsylvania to pass a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage.
“The Iowa court’s activist decision overrules the will of the people and redefines marriage. If they can do that in the Heartland, it can happen here in Pennsylvania,” said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute.
“The court went out of its way to dismiss long-held evidence from the social sciences, history and major religious tenets, that children fare best in an intact, monogamous family, headed by a mother and father.
“This ruling is a wake-up call for Pennsylvania. Protecting marriage must now be front and center for Pennsylvania lawmakers. Without a state constitutional amendment, we are but one case away from radically changing marriage law against the will of the people and their elected representatives,” said Geer.
Just as in Iowa, Pennsylvania overwhelmingly passed a state Defense of Marriage Act more than a decade ago, but it remains vulnerable to the whims of activist judges without explicit language in our state constitution defining marriage between husband and wife.
Unlike most of the 30 other states that have amended their constitutions in recent years, Pennsylvania requires our legislature to act in two successive sessions before the people can decide in a referendum. In 2006, the Pennsylvania House of Representative passed a bill by a strong bipartisan vote of 136-61, only to see it get stripped in the Senate. In 2008, senate legislation moved through two committees, only to be stalled before it could reach the House.
Pennsylvania citizens have no say in what marriage will mean in the future unless Pennsylvania legislators act now to pass a Marriage Protection Amendment — before it’s too late.
Pennsylvania Family Institute is part of a statewide coalition working in support of protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman through passage of a constitutional amendment.
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
This is awesome news. Go Iowa! If it can happen in Iowa I know we can get equal rights in PA soon!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
The Iowa court decision says: “We acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”
The court claims that “dual-gender parenting” or traditional marriage, a centuries-long institution that has been the subject of thousands of child development studies, has no scientifically reliable study.
Studies on same-sex parenting are just starting to be done. According to The Stacy/Biblarz study (widely used by same-sex marriage proponents), “Thus far, no work has compared children’s long-term achievements in education, occupation, income, and other domains of life.”
You cannot draw reliable scientific conclusions on incomplete studies. To come up with definite answers before all the facts are in is prejudice; not science.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
We, as adults, need to do what is best for the children.
We cannot just whimsically overturn what has been in place throughout history — marriage between one man and one woman — and expect our culture to survive. Children will thrive only in a family where a father and mother are both involved in a strong family unit. Children need both parents. We are in a sad state of affairs when our needs as individuals are more important than the needs of those that are dependent upon us – our children.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I think it is good for the children. It exposes them to diversity. You who say we are prejudice do not take into account that genders are different. Men have testosterone and women have estrogen. It makes us different whether we want to be or not. If children have a good homelife and they are exposed to these differences it prepares them for the differences that are all around. Color, sex, religion. What better way to bring up a child.
As for health insurance and rights to be with the one you love. What about people who have no one. What rights do they have? You can get around all that with a power of attorney.
Thank you for listening.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
We need to look carefully at who we vote for. The marriage bill was stalled before reaching the House because of a threat to kill it, if I remember correctly. We need to closely examine what these representatives stand for and follow their actions while in office. If they pull stunts like this they should be voted out. “We the people” must get back the power granted us in our government.
By the way, Jarod, this has absolutely nothing to do with “equal rights”–it’s more about special rights and silencing those who disagree. That’s not very tolerant, and we need look no further than CA to see the real ugliness behind this push to redefine marriage.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Its not special rights Robin. It very basic; God made us gay, god loves us gay, and we have the same desire to commit ourselves to a relationship with someone else who we are attracted to in many many ways, just like heterosexuals do today. That is called being equal not special.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Please show me, Jarod, where God made you gay. I don’t find that in any Christian Bible I have read. And getting back to the basics, it seems to me, when God created Adam & Eve, that demonstrated what God intended for the propagation of humans. I believe the reason gay people are gay is because of the environment they lived through, and of course our human sin nature, which is part of all of us. I do believe God loves what He made, but I also believe He is Holy and cannot look upon sin. The only way He can love us is through His Son, Jesus, who is there for any of us humans to call upon, to help us overcome our sin nature. And remember, our Nation is founded upon a Judeo-Christian faith. By the way, the God I am talking about is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! I will pray that you see the LIGHT!
May 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I strongly believe marriage is between one man and one woman. To arbitrarily change the meaning of “marriage” is akin to saying black is white or leaves are blue and the sky is green.
How about some neutral but meaningful term such as “committed loving union” which would include all the legal rights and responsibilities of a traditional marriage?
Marriage is an institution ordained by God who said “A man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife.”
And in different vein, this mutilation is an affront to our glorious English language.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Thanks for the opportunity to sound another voice, and thanks to PFI for keeping us informed. Of course, everyone has a right to live the way they choose. The law of the land should not be changed to accommodate this era’s newest item. The difficulty is with candidates who try to appeal to all sectors. In today’s election it was particularly difficult to sort out positions.