The Road Less Traveled

Update (04.13.09):

—–>  .pdf copy of an anti-SSM petition from today’s meeting  <—–

During another town hall meeting today, I followed up with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) regarding his verbal attacks on the Iowa Supreme Court. Specifically, I asked if he felt it was responsible on his part to call for the resignation of all seven justices, in addition to calling on Iowans to rewrite their Constitution (banning same-sex marriage), when he had not yet fully read and understood the court’s opinion in the Varnum v. Brien case. Mr. King clarified that, at the time he made those comments (April 3, shortly after the ruling was announced), he was relying on the advice of legal counsel on his staff, who had reviewed the opinion.

Mr. King personally demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of the Varnum v. Brien opinion in today’s town hall meeting, as compared to last week. When a woman in the audience proposed a separate “cohabitation contract” for same-sex couples (which I presume is what we call a “civil union”), Mr. King clarified that the Supreme Court foreclosed that option, concluding that it posed similar problems as excluding gays and lesbians from state-sanctioned partnerships altogether. He also discussed in greater detail the court’s conclusion that “equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” Mr. King’s skepticism about such claims was clearly still apparent, but he understood the arguments better, which I appreciate.

In the end, I could take a more radical stance and unleash a verbal attack on Mr. King – others certainly have. But I just don’t feel like that would be productive. (To be fair, there is an element of “heterosexual privilege” at work, leaving me less compelled to take more aggressive steps.) I am pleased to see so many Iowans taking an interest in this debate over same-sex marriage, but I hope we can do the necessary mental and emotional work to ensure that our debate is informed, productive, and civil. As I indicated in the following email message to Mr. King’s office, I believe elected officials play a vital role in that effort:

I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. King for taking my questions recently at two separate town hall meetings, in Sioux City and in Ida Grove. Our views on marriage and family life are very different, and I don’t expect that to change anytime soon. However, I value the opportunity to open up a dialogue, in this case regarding the recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

In the future, I hope Mr. King will look for opportunities to engage others who think differently than he does, particularly those whom he represents. We can all benefit from such a dialogue. Plus, I believe this pursuit of common ground sets a powerful example for young people, demonstrating that civil discourse can truly make us better thinkers, better citizens, and better people.

Mr. King’s recent attacks on the Iowa Supreme Court, which occurred shortly after the Varnum v. Brien ruling was announced, did not reflect an appreciation for civil (or informed) discourse, nor did his actions encourage such appreciation among others. Instead of setting a positive example, Mr. King encouraged Iowans with similar views to merely parrot his rhetoric and ignore the importance of asking questions, checking for understanding, and dare I say it, actually reading the Supreme Court opinion. I ask that Mr. King keep that in mind as he continues in his political career, especially when he expresses his views publicly.

*

Original Post (04.09.09):

I don’t expect my representative, Steve King, to be an expert on constitutional law. I don’t expect him, as a heterosexual Christian man, to understand all the issues and challenges faced by gays and lesbians in our society, or completely understand all the reasons they often find what he says to be offensive. And I certainly don’t expect him to spend huge chunks of his time on a single issue – if the range in subjects discussed at today’s town hall meeting in Sioux City is any indication, it’s pretty clear Mr. King has a lot on his plate in Iowa, as well as in Washington.

What I do expect, however, is that Mr. King not attempt to speak authoritatively on an issue, as a representative of Iowans, when he doesn’t have the slightest idea what he’s talking about. That is irresponsible and embarrassing. And as we found in today’s meeting, it really makes debating important issues painfully difficult.

On the drive over, I contemplated the comments that Rep. King made almost immediately following Friday’s announcement of the Varnum v. Brien ruling, legalizing same-sex marriage. King called the ruling “unconstitutional” and “another example of ‘activist judges’.” For allegedly “molding the Constitution to achieve their own personal political ends,” King called for all seven Iowa Supreme Court justices to resign.

In a previous post, I criticized Republican leaders in Iowa, Rep. King in particular, for attacking the Supreme Court’s decision so quickly and without engaging the reasoning presented. I praised Gov. Vilsack, on the other hand, whose initial statement was fairly reserved, emphasizing the need to carefully review the decision before stating his position. Gov. Vilsack later, with guidance from the Iowa Attorney General, released a statement backing the Supreme Court decision, in spite of his personal beliefs against same-sex marriage. I find myself less concerned with what conclusion an elected official reaches and more interested in what route he or she takes to get there. And unfortunately, in Rep. King’s case, it seems like nothing but shortcuts.

As it turns out, I wasn’t too far off when I guessed that the Republican leaders hadn’t actually read the full 69-page opinion before condemning it. Rep. King openly admitted today – six days after his initial criticism – that he hadn’t read the full opinion. Maybe a third of it, he estimated. Later, when a member of the audience raised concerns about his tax money supporting marriage benefits for same-sex couples, Rep. King actually joked about having not read the opinion, asking, “If I read the rest of this, I’m really gonna be wound up, aren’t I?”

Yes, Mr. King. If you read it.

But frankly, I think more Iowans ought to be “wound up” by Rep. King’s willful ignorance. Don’t get me wrong – I appreciate the charm of down-home, folksy anti-intellectualism, but not when we’re discussing serious political issues, especially when they involve discrimination. So, after scratching off my list the questions pertaining directly to the court opinion Rep. King didn’t bother to read, I gave him an out. Before and after my question – short and sweet, “What is the legal basis for your argument against same-sex marriage?” – I encouraged him to withhold comment if he would prefer to read the entire opinion first.

I would have been okay with, “You know, I’ll have to take a closer look at that and get back to you.” I even would have gone for the cop-out answer of, “I believe that question deserves a more detailed answer than I can provide in the time remaining.” That’s cool. But it was not Rep. King’s day to be humble and think carefully about what comes out of his mouth.

Rep. King summarized the Supreme Court decision as asserting their role to “protect constitutional rights that were once unimagined.” I assume, based on the gasps from others in attendance, that Rep. King implied this to be some sort of outrage, judges overstepping their authority and such. In any event, this interpretation of Varnum v. Brien was enough for Rep. King to call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Iowa, along with a residency restriction. The full paragraph from which that snippet derives is as follows (full 69-page opinion here):

Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “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,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.

Even without the full paragraph, the notion of rights that were once unimagined being protected under the law is not exactly a radical idea. In fact, if you are reading this (and are a U.S. citizen), you are living and breathing the benefits of such protection. As I pointed out to Rep. King, just to give a couple examples, if we as citizens could only count on rights that were imagined centuries or even just decades ago, we would very likely still have legal racial segregation, and perhaps even legal slavery (I emphasize legal here because we still have illegal varieties of both in the United States). And of course, this question of whether or not a right is imaginable seems irrelevant to the process of judicial review. If it’s brought up in a lawsuit, consider it imaginable.

Rep. King referred to a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases, most notably Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which overthrew a Texas anti-sodomy law, and expressed concern about a “progression” of cases that undermined the government’s ability to legislate morality.When asked if he was concerned about the Iowa Supreme Court setting up a “slippery slope,” paving the way for legalizing currently illegal pairings (e.g. polygamy, incest), Rep. King responded, “The Iowa Supreme Court has declared they can imagine anything to be a right.”

That’s right, folks. Anything. Better scrap the judicial branch altogether, eh?

Regarding Varnum v. Brien, Rep. King told his audience that the Iowa Supreme Court declared that Iowans (presumably just the heterosexual ones) have “no vested interest in protecting marriage.” For this comment, I will commend Rep. King for at least getting it close to right – having not read the opinion, he made a good guess. The Iowa Supreme Court did not declare that Iowans don’t have a vested interest in protecting marriage; in fact, it’s not far off to call the Varnum v. Brien decision a protection of marriage (injustice puts a damper on things), as well as a protection of the Constitution. They did, however, assert what I can only hope Rep. King will soon realize – excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not “significantly further any state interest.”

Rep. King will be stopping in my hometown next week, and I look forward to visiting with him again. I hope, if he plans to discuss same-sex marriage at all, that he will have read and understood the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion in Varnum v. Brien. That foundation will make a world of difference for those in attendance, and it might stir up some provocative dialogue. Perhaps most importantly, it will help Rep. King send a message to his constituents that, in addition to being a charismatic and talented public speaker, he cares about their concerns enough to get informed and come to a town hall meeting prepared.