What's in a word...

Apparently the Supreme Court in Iowa has the elderly population up in arms and calling their Representatives.

One such Representative - Clel Baudler, who represents the 58th District in Iowa wrote to his constituents the following: "...all Republicans are standing up for marriage with the majority of Iowans. We cannot wash our hands of this and say this is over. We need to amend Iowa’s Constitution. We must allow the will of the people to prevail and give them their say. The ramifications of this issue go far beyond our time in history. This issue and these choices are making history for our state and nation."

Now, you may say...oh, he's a Republican! - That may be, but once that Republican is elected to office, they are beholden to the entire electorate - not just the Republicans. That electorate includes Gays and Lesbians.

The problem with using a popular vote for this type of issue harkens back to the time of women's suffrage and the time of slavery. Had there been a popular vote about slavery, slavery would not have been abolished when it was, nor would their have been the option for women to vote as early as they were afforded the right had the option been left up to the electorate which at the time consisted primarily of rich white men. Dare I say that they would not be quick to allow anyone else to enjoy that right along with them...

No, this issue is ripe for the judicial system - necessary. Marriage is a contract between two loving adults - the commitment to be with and care for each other. Children may or may not fit into the equation. What gender the two loving adults happen to be, makes no difference nor will it in any way shape or form, weaken the idea of marriage. Civil marriage is different from holy marriage and the church can have their ceremony but the state will still have to collect the fee for the license. Keep the church and state separate or start taxing the churches as every other business is taxed.