As expected, the editorial board of the New York Times is delighted by the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court that the Iowa constitution requires that two men or two women be allowed to marry. (Why not three or more adults? Where is the logical stopping point?) Key paragraph:
A unanimous decision by the seven-member court on Friday approved marriage for couples of the same sex and brought the nation a step closer toward realizing its promise of equality and justice.
Ha! Thirty of the 50 states define "marriage" in their constitutions as the union of one man and one woman. This can be changed only if (1) the state constitution is amended or (2) the United States Supreme Court rules that the United States Constitution requires homosexual "marriage." Neither is going to happen, thankfully. As for the other 20 states, most define "marriage" by statute as the union of one man and one woman. The problem with a statute is that a state supreme court can rule that it violates the state's constitution. That is what happened in Iowa. Eventually, all 50 states will prohibit homosexual "marriage" in their constitutions. No statewide vote has supported it—even in California. The American people know that, far from being required by justice, allowing two men or two women to marry is unjust. To repeat something I have said many times: Justice consists in treating likes alike and unlikes differently, in proportion to their differences. Allowing two men or two women to marry is like allowing dogs to vote.
