Recent bursts of legal provisions allowing same-sex couples to wed have taken America by surprise. The fact that Iowa became the third state to override this ban sent people parading down the streets of Des Moines to express their heightened states of arousal, whether it was anger or euphoria. The aftershock will be felt for some time to come, as the end of April will mark the commencement of lawful gay marriages in Iowa (out-of-staters are also welcome). No one, not even Iowans themselves, expected such a bold decision to come from the flyover, corn-interbreeding farm state.

Midwesterners are not known to be strikingly liberal – but why? The Midwest played a progressive role during the civil rights movement, allowing interracial marriages for almost a decade before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized them nationally in 1967. Couples raced from nearby states eager to marry, as will soon probably be the case again.

The Defense of Marriage Act (1996) does not recognize same-sex marriages on a national level, meaning that same-sex couples cannot be granted spousal benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, and various tax breaks. The complications they face as a result become not only problematic but unfair, even though GLBT couples live together and abide by the norms of heterosexual couples.

A New York Times Editorial calls Iowa’s latest decision “a refreshing message of fairness and common sense from the nation’s heartland.” This is very true – as a whole, our country lacks the fairness and common sense to permit (why does it matter what sex they are) couples to marry, and is blind to the conspicuous efforts of our lawmakers to avoid the matter. But the issue being avoided is one we ought to face now, and take matters into our own hands. Through the laborious efforts of enduring court appeals, we are shown what can be accomplished. A command that prohibits any couple, regardless of orientation, to proclaim their union is an immensely authoritative and unjust principle. The fact that discrimination plays another role in this hierarchy of matrimony is also upsetting, because quite frankly, I thought we already won the battle for civil rights.

Just four days after Iowa’s ruling, Vermont became the first state to constitutionalize same-sex marriages by legislation. Furthermore, New York and New Jersey both have pending bills that are awaiting governor’s signature. This uprising chain reaction has accelerated opposing turmoil just as well, so we must beware of the strong antagonistic forces. They fueled the efforts that made California’s Proposition 8 possible, proponents arguing that such a change would “result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay.”

Who is to say that it isn’t okay? The hostility toward homosexuality stems from religious doctrines, but not all marriages are religiously bound. To define a legal union based on such ideas is a blatant violation of our fundamentals separating church and state, and something that we are precisely doing. The notion that a union can only exist between a man and a woman has long since gone sour. Still, various groups are desperate to preserve this old mantra, deliberately hiding their true reasons as to why.

Who are we to deny any couple marital status? The term sexual preference implies an individual difference, which I may say, is the business of none other than the two involved. The struggle that many of these couples face parallel the challenges interracial couples met forty years ago as they also fought to gain legal and social acceptance. Looking at the civil benchmarks America has come across in the last century, I am almost confident that this too shall pass. But I cannot suggest a smooth transition. 

Mulatto children during the civil rights movement were either homeschooled or seriously ridiculed. As was the case then may unfortunately be true for children with two moms or dads. Some might say that comparing this issue to the pervasive violence of the civil rights movement is a bit of a stretch, but the premise stays the same: social inequality. Again, I hope I am wrong, but history speaks for itself.

Despite the success in Vermont, voters should not have the right to decide who can marry and who cannot. Putting this fate up for ballot is like asking the general public to choose your mate for you, which is why smaller-scale court rulings are more appropriate and efficient. Most big-time, overturning civil laws have been made by the judicial courts. Their small-scale intimacy makes them a viable medium for social change when a minority is oppressed, and sways the agenda into public focus. You need to start out small to grow big.

For the time being, I remain a proud Iowan (something I rarely say), but it still saddens me that our nation’s majority is reluctant to accept gay marriage and is at most indifferent. Moreover, I await the legislative decisions in Iowa and California with moderate discomfort – the stakes are immensely powerful. The right to love, and the benefits that come with it, are rightfully deserved by all. Who are we to deny it?