The judges who imposed same sex marriage in Iowa did a terrible job in the case, Varnum v Brien. I had a couple of articles about the case when it came
out in 2009. Here they are again, to help folks make the case as to why this decision should be considered as poorly decided and disreputable as Roe v
Wade and Dred Scott. How Marriage Lost in Iowa:
the trial court refused to admit five out of the eight expert witnesses presented to them. These experts covered a wide range of issues, including the
ethics of artificial reproductive technologies, the rights of children to be raised by their parents, the procreative purpose of marriage, the history
and meaning of marriage, and the significance of gender differences in parenting. The trial court refused to hear the testimony of Allan Carlson, author
of five books on the history of marriage, Margaret Somerville, founding director of the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, and
Stephen Rhodes, political science professor at the University of Virginia. This is the very sort of evidence that courts in other states, such as New
York, have found persuasive. After refusing to hear their testimony, the court had the nerve to declare a whole list of facts were “undisputed.” Instead
of listening to both sides and deciding impartially, the court lifted the “facts” directly from the brief of the same-sex “marriage” advocates. …
The homosexual lobby continually hectors the rest of us about “fairness” and “equality.” But when they get the power, they ignore the most basic rules
of fair play. Whether you agree with same-sex “marriage” or not, you can’t possibly support these tactics.