Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Richard Land’s Ignorance-Based Argument

Timothy Kincaid

April 14th, 2009

It is embarrassing to write an opinion piece only to find out that you’ve gotten a fact wrong. If you’re lucky it’s only an incidental point and not the thesis of your argument; to discover that your entire opinion is premised on an inaccuracy is mortifying.

So Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is probably not going to be very proud of his article in the Baptist Press entitled The poster child for marriage amends. In it he argues that every state needs to enact an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, in large part because:

With no residency requirements, the court’s opinion means at the end of April when the order goes into effect, same-sex couples will be free to travel from other states to exchange “vows” in the Iowa heartland.

This ruling turns Iowa into a destination for “same-sex marriages.” No doubt, there are weekend travel packages already being planned. Iowa will soon be the Las Vegas of “same-sex marriage” for America. And you know those folks won’t be resettling in the Hawkeye state, but will be heading back home — perhaps to your state to sue for recognition there.

Oh my, that’s certain to startle some who fear that now, starting on April 27, same-sex couples will be able go get married somewhere else and import that marriage right back to your own state. After April 27, the world will be a very different place.

Scary!!!

The problem is, of course, that this is nonsense.

First, same-sex couples can already marry elsewhere and return back home.

Connecticut has no residency requirements and in July of last year Massachusetts repealed the law that restricted same-sex marriage to residents. After September 1, Vermont also will happily accommodate out-of-state marriages.

So with all due respect to Iowans, it is extremely unlikely that Iowa will soon be the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage for America.

Second, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) currently exempts states from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. And here is where Land’s argument falls completely apart.

Your state is protected by federal law from recognizing a same-sex marriage in Iowa. Any attempt to force them to do so would be by means of a federal lawsuit, not a state lawsuit. And should the Supreme Court of the United States determine either that gay people cannot be restricted from the rights and privileges grated to heterosexuals, OR that the US Constitution’s ‘full faith and credit clause’ invalidates DOMA, it doesn’t matter how many anti-gay amendments you have cluttering up your state constitution.

Conversely, if a gay couple sues in your state for marriage rights, it will do so under your own state’s constitution. Whether they went to be married in Iowa or Canada or just to their local United Church of Christ minister, the legal argument is the same.

The only states that could even begin to be impacted by Iowa’s decision are New York, Rhode Island and perhaps Wyoming, states in which there is some legal opinion that out-of-state marriage is recognized. And the only impact is that Iowa is now added to the list of marriage venue choices.

Richard Land wants his readers to be frightened that the decision in Iowa has changed the marriage landscape because now same-sex marriages will be exported to your state.

But when it comes to the facts about the current status of same-sex marriage, Richard Land is startlingly misinformed. Or he hopes that you are.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Erica
April 14th, 2009 | LINK

Now, now, let’s not bring logic and legal facts into the discussion — it ruins the SCARY GAY AGENDA EVIL vibe he’s got goin’ on.

SharonB
April 14th, 2009 | LINK

A perfect storm of couples in love, and bound to each other in bonds of marriage, is coming to your state.

Be afraid, be very afraid!

Or not. What a homophobic farce!

Brady
April 14th, 2009 | LINK

I’m not really that shocked. They’ve been doing these sort of half-truth scare tactics for quite a while.

Now that I think about it, I’m actually kind of looking forward to this. He’s basically promising the world as we know it will end. What a predicament he’s going to be in in 5 years when everything is still going along fine?

John
April 14th, 2009 | LINK

Even if it DID become the Las Vegas of Gay Marriage, doesn’t Iowa need some color?

David C.
April 14th, 2009 | LINK

What a predicament he’s going to be in in 5 years when everything is still going along fine? —Brady

Umm, not really much of a predicament. Winger memories are about as long as a male gnats’ genital. They quickly look for the next boogyman or make one up out of whole cloth to trot out for alms. In a few years (decades?) the only thing left of resistance to gay rights will be some grumbling among a few die-hards. For the most part, after same-sex marriage becomes an accepted norm, these nut-cases will be out of a job or off to some other mischief.

Emproph
April 15th, 2009 | LINK

Is he really missing the big anti-gay picture?

It has been my contention for some time that each state needs to have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Without such an amendment, a state’s activist Supreme Court can overturn a law adopted by the legislature, declaring it to be unconstitutional.

The only way to stop another state’s judges from trumping the people’s elected representatives is to pass an amendment to that state’s constitution. Thirty states have already done this and are at least protected from the overreach of their state’s Supreme Court.

I mean I thought “Winger memories are about as long as a male gnats’ genital” was hyperbole, but now I’m beginning to wonder.

Why is he talking about state constitutional amendments? What happened to the holy grail of amendments, the Federal Marriage Amendment? That would instantly do away with all marriage equality laws across the land, and finally and once and for all, put every pro-gay activist judge in the country in their rightful place – forever beholden to the US anti-gay Constitution.

Or is he preparing for a reality in which that might not occur?

To repopularize it, maybe they could call it TFEMA, The Federal Emergency Marriage Amendment.

Their tagline could be: Call your congressman… while your marriage is still valid.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.