Writing On The Wall - Irony?

I think I see the writing on the wall. Connecticut, Massachusetts, - now IOWA !!! The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on Friday that same-sex couples must not be denied equal protection of the laws, and must be entitled (like heterosexual Iowans) to obtain a state-licensed marriage. The remarkable aspect of this ruling was that the seven member court was unanimous. Apparently Iowa justices can smell the coffee as well as the roses. ( See more on this from Arthur S. Leonard at Iowa Supreme Court Rules Unanimously for Marriage Equality for Same Sex Couples )

Maybe I'm too childlike in my reasoning, but I don't see how the rest of the states can much longer hold off this inexorable tide of common sense. Marriage was traditionally the province of the local parish church. The betrothed couple would publish banns at the local church, and the vicar or parish priest would solemnize the nuptials. When the government conceived and commandeered the marriage licensing process, it must evidently not have been for spiritual and ecclesiastical purposes. Methinks the motives were more fiscal and political. The States oversee marriage from several secular standpoints:

Spousal immunity from testifying,
Immigration,
Taxation,
Probate,
Divorce and child custody,
etcetera

Let me just go on record here and now that I don't think that any of that civil stuff has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE SANCTITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY MATRIMONY !!!.

I know that, in the 1880's, many good Christian folk were eager to have the government get its fingers in the marriage pie so that it could bully the Mormons into jettisoning one of their core religious doctrines. Well, I'm sorry, it's coming back to bite. Now that government dispenses official matrimonial benefits, obligations, privileges and immunities, there is nothing "holy" about civil marriage. Whether or not you are a fan of the 14th Amendment, it plainly says that everybody is equal, and everybody has to be treated equally by the corporate United States of America.

The California Supreme Court is preparing to issue its opinion in reference to the recently passed Proposition 8. If it decides like it did in the case of Proposition 22, then California should soon be celebrating the permanent future of gay marriage. It's just a matter of time. I get steamed when I hear talk of the State's right to protect the institution of marriage. Should the State be protecting the institution of infant baptism, too?

Come on, folks, it's as plain as the nose on your face. The 2003 LAWRENCE v. TEXAS decision says that States cannot enact legislation to target the conduct of a specific minority, just because they happen to find that conduct to be morally repugnant. Now, I am a straight person so I am not attracted to my own gender. I think that one's attractions are immutable. That is why the court system doesn't believe that pedophiles can be re-programmed to prefer grown-ups over children. Sexual orientation appears to me to be a lifetime trait. With that in mind, I'd like someone to explain to me why the ability to love three women is any less a lifetime proclivity than same-sex attraction.

So, the writing is on the wall. Gay marriage is soon to be as nationally embraced as it is in Canada. Is it not lopsided that, while many states are openly embracing their gay citizens in the sacred, holy, government-sponsored rite of divine civil matrimony, we Utah polygamists are still struggling simply not to be thrown in prison and not to have our homes, trusts, careers and children be taken away by government thugs who just happen to find our lifestyle to be morally repugnant?

Irony?