Same-sex marriage: The Emperor and the Big ‘D’

By Merlin Bartz

In case you hadn't noticed, the latest twist by those in favor of same-sex marriage in Iowa has been the contention that “we should not write discrimination into the Constitution of our fine state.”

The homosexual advocacy community has latched on to the big “D” (discrimination) word and wrapped our state's flag around its cause.

Advocates hope a firewall of opposition will be created to those who would dare to “degrade” our state's 153-year-old governing document with an amendment banning same-sex marriage.

This - in addition to the demonization of those supporting traditional marriage as religious fruit cakes, uncompassionate and bigoted - is an overt attempt to shift this political arena exhibition from one of extremism vs. mainstream to underdog vs. indefensible status quo.

The challenge for Iowa citizens is to not let the “D” word accusation cloud nor color the true picture of the issue before us.

Discussion and debate should aim at what we want our government to promote, what we wish our government to prohibit, and the reasons why.

Ironically, a basic precept of law is that it indeed does discriminate. The litmus test, therefore, is not a question of discrimination or non-discrimination, but whether the discriminatory nature of the law is justifiable.

If the justification is rational, defensible, and promotes an outcome that we as a society seek and cherish, the answer should be affirmative. The answer should also not fixate on the question of perfecting equality in society (noble, yet achievable only in theory). Instead, it should focus on the basic tenet of fairness, a much more recognizable and realistic goal.

Take tax law for example.

In this arena, we find some of the most blatant discriminatory practices that can be found anywhere in government. We discriminate in favor of homeownership by allowing the deduction of mortgage interest. We discriminate in favor of individuals with less income in a multitude of ways, ranging from college student financial aid to exempting sales tax on food.

We discriminate in favor of parents with children by allowing additional dependent credits. These and a myriad other examples of discrimination are commonly defended as basic fairness precepts, even though they are far from achieving equality.

Social discrimination is also a societal norm. Most people I know are extremely discriminatory (protective) when their sons or daughters start dating. Parents understand the lifetime ramifications to their children in regard to choices made. They try to promote discrimination in ways not only selfishly beneficial to parental levels of stress, but also unselfishly beneficial to the success of their progeny.

The rationale that gay civil rights are being violated under a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and that this societal discrimination is unjustified is a misnomer.

This rationale is as flawed as that of a partisan political candidate with a “D” or “R” behind his or her name claiming unjust discrimination by individuals of the opposite party. Both cases involve self-identification, and that self-identification elicits responses that will certainly range from promotive to antagonistic.

Both types of responses are discriminatory, but that doesn't mean one is right and the other is wrong.

Iowans are not easily fooled. Claiming no bias and no discrimination is both biased and discriminatory. Claiming that one does not want to write discrimination into the Iowa Constitution is a ruse indeed, intended to wrap the Iowa flag around the bait-and-switch promoter in an attempt to block the right of the people to improve our governing mantra.

The red and blue of Iowa's flag may be opaque, but the emperor still has no clothes.

Merlin Bartz is a Republican state senator from Grafton in Northern Iowa.