More Iowa reaction: penal colonies and cow rights

And so the conversation turned
Until the sun went down
And many fantasies were learned
On that day

Human League, Fascination

It never fails. Whenever there is a major decision on GLBT rights, we learn the most outlandish fantasies of some of our opponents. Here's a lovely reaction to the Associated Press piece that appeared in the Tennessean:

Now that there are 3 states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, that should be enough to take care of all the abnormal gay people. Since there are 47 states who realize how this will decay our society, why don't all of you who have this lifestyle move to one of those states. That way you would be happy and those of us who do not want you here would be also. It would be somewhat like a penal colony. That way you could openly practice your sick lifestyle and no one would notice or even care.
I am not surprised at the 2 Northeastern states but am very surprised at Iowa. Since that state is loaded with cattle, wonder what the courts will do the first time a farmer falls in love with one of his cows and wants to marry her. After all, it is a living, breathing animal and should not be discriminated againist. Cows should have rights too.

Wow! A whole three penal colonies for gay people. Our own private Australia times three! Here the extreme right meets the extreme left who wonder why GLBT people stay in states like Tennessee. Ugh.

In the next argument we find animal husbandry gone awry. I tell you what, buddy, when there's a powerful lobby for bestiality and when cattle can consent, then we might have something to worry about.

Leaving aside the craziness on both sides, Family Action's David Fowler gives a more typical conservative reaction to the events in Iowa.

The Iowa Supreme Court decision and religious views on marriage

In a unanimous decision today, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The court's opinion is worth reading, but I was particularly interested in the court's position on religious opposition to marriage:

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

My hope is that our country is returning to a place where religious pluralism is allowed to flourish without the interference of the state adopting any particular religious point of view. The historic separation of Church and State is exactly why faith and religious life has thrived in the United States since our nation was founded. The return to this founding principle allows all people freedom to hold any religious belief. The decision to allow all dual- and same-sex couples access to civil marriage will not force any church or religious institution to bless a union it does not recognize.