Problems with the Iowa Supreme Court Decision on Homosexual marriage

Voddie Baucham Ministries: "Right off the bat the Iowa decision jumps on the “Gay is the New Black” bandwagon."

"They do not ‘prove’ that homosexuality is a Civil Rights issue; they assume it. There is no Constitutional Right to sodomy. Moreover, homosexuals are not deprived of their Civil Rights in marriage, because they have the same rights in that regard as every American. That’s right... HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! What they don’t have the right to is same-sex marriage."

"The Supreme Court of Iowa is basing its opinion on what is “unappealing to a gay or lesbian person.” This is not jurisprudence; this is social engineering."

"In other words, a right that you cannot enjoy is no right at all. Imagine this phrase applied to other sexual deviants. “Thus, the right of a [pedophile] under the marriage statute to enter a civil marriage only with a person [of legal age] is no right at all.”"

"How do the Justices know that the plaintiffs’ relationships were committed and loving? How does a same-sex couple raise children “just like heterosexual couples” if they do not have the same male/female makeup? Can a mother function ‘exactly’ like a father? Can a father fulfill all the roles of a mother? Is the law in the business of defining love? What legal standard did the Justices use to define commitment? If one of these couples experienced adultery, separation, or divorce, would that have change the decision? If so, then the law is purely situational and there is no longer an objective standard. If not, then the statement is superfluous and has no place in a legal decision."