Following Suit

I am a big fan of logic.  It is always good to have a valid argument; it’s even better if it’s sound.

Speaking of a valid argument, Iowa recently made gay marriage legal [click here for the actual court document].  This particular article quotes the court saying,

On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution … A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.  

This succinct description of why this law was put into affect is logical. 

A state’s marriage statute violates its equal protection clause.  The state’s equal protection clause is for the good of all peoples.  Therefore, the state’s marriage statute must be changed to cohere with the state’s equal protection clause [i.e. same-sex marriage].

This is a valid argument.

If any system of law [or beliefs] lacks coherence [i.e. is not valid], then it’s not logical.   

Many conservative Christians have strongly opposed legalizing same-sex marriages, and, despite it being acknowledged or not, can present an equally valid argument to do so. 

So, who wins?  We’ll in Iowa, the state won.  In following suit with a handful of other states that have gone before it, the justices in Iowa seemed to have caught on to the logic [and other things, as well] behind making this law.  What we see before our eyes is, on one hand, a coherent system being [re]established [or maybe re-created], and on the other hand, another instance where rulers are “framing injustice by statute” [cf. Ps. 94:20].

It’s one thing to have a valid argument; it’s another to have true premises in order to make it sound.  

So, rather than act like homosexuality is the only sin Jesus died for, perhaps we should entertain the question that Pilate asked:

“What is truth?”

[This post (and the next few to follow) is for a class assignment.]