So, what’s so great about that? The man’s fiancé is also a man.

Of course, even that should be no big deal, since such matters are now legal in Iowa, but to a certain segment of the population, printing the engagement announcement of a gay couple was like inciting everyone in Indiana to fuck their cows and sheep and to sell their children into white slavery.

You think I am joking.

The backlash from groups who oppose marriage equality began 48 hours later. At first the announcement became fodder for local radio station, then the American Family Association of Indiana, according to Indiana reporter Bil Browning, e-mailed an action alert to its membership, suggesting that the paper would also soon print “anniversary announcements for polygamous marriages” and “incestuous birth announcements.” Conservative Indiana blogger Brian Sikma, citing the fact that Indiana law does not recognize same-sex marriages, encouraged readers to contact the The Elkhart Truth’s parent company, Federation Media, to launch a complaint.

Rightwingers responded to the call to action in droves. The reaction of the newspaper was at once professional and sharply critical of the rightwing fear-mongering. It represents what journalism should be. I’ve highlighted the best parts.


We had no idea that people in Fort Wayne, Lafayette, Warsaw, Kokomo, Indianapolis, Fishers, LaGrange, Muncie, South Bend and Syracuse cared so passionately about The Elkhart Truth. Not to mention our burgeoning fan base in Lawton, Okla.

Nonetheless, we appreciate the interest.

We published an announcement Sunday that two men, one a former Elkhart resident, plan to marry this month in Iowa. For more than 48 hours, readers barely uttered a word. We received four e-mails -- two against, one for and one that misspelled "disgusting" -- two phone calls, and no letters to the editor and roughly 10 comments on eTruth.com.

Readers either didn't notice the announcement among the other engagements Sunday or they made their peace with it. No big deal. That is, until a pair of family advocacy groups, abetted by a local AM radio station, organized a protest against The Truth.

People wrote and called from throughout Indiana. Many expressed their sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman. Others quoted straight from the Fred Phelps playbook, excoriating "fags" and "perverts."

Most asked the same questions -- why did you publish a same-sex engagement announcement when it's illegal in Indiana and why are you promoting the gay marriage?

Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, where the couple lives and plans to marry. Since one of the young men is originally from Elkhart and his family still lives here, we did the same thing we'd do for any other local family with a child getting married -- we published the couple's engagement announcement.

We fulfilled our role as a paper of record. We documented an engagement, something we do hundreds of times each year.

Protesters asked why we would publish a story about something illegal in Indiana. Basically, it's because an informed citizenry, a citizenry capable of thinking for itself, needs uncensored news from a variety of sources. That includes states and nations where the law does not conform to Indiana's.

Because after all, how would Hoosiers who oppose gay rights even know about Iowa's same-sex marriage ruling in April if news outlets hadn't reported it in Indiana -- where same-sex marriage is illegal?

Now, to address the accusation that we're promoting gay rights.

Protesters believe that every news story amounts to an official endorsement of its content. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We publish announcements every week about babies born to unwed mothers. Does that mean we approve of births out of wedlock?

It doesn't mean that we approve or disapprove. It's news.

If we ever decide to endorse gay marriage -- or to oppose it -- we will argue our case on this page in a clearly labeled editorial. This is where we state our opinions.

But our personal beliefs about homosexuality did not influence the decision to publish Sunday's announcement. They didn't even enter into the conversation.

We received an engagement announcement, and we decided to treat it like every other engagement announcement. We treated it as news.

Imagine, a newspaper staff that knows the difference between opinion and news, and the requirement that a news source be unbiased, regardless of the staff’s personal opinions.

News is news. Facts are facts. A newspaper is supposed to print them for the public to be informed, to form its own opinions. That’s really what, “we report, you decide,” should mean.

In addition, the court clearly restated the premise of the separation of church and state enshrined in both the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions. Christian Dominionists are bound to be unhappy about that part of the opinion, since they insist the USA is a “Christian nation” founded on Christian principles.

Interestingly, the decision was unanimous. Of the seven justices, two are Republican appointees and the rest are Democratic appointees. Had the decision been split 5-2, critics could cry “liberal bias” and “activist judges.” A unanimous ruling speaks volumes for the power of the law.

The issue of course was whether the civil marriage statute in Iowa’s books discriminated against same-sex couples who wish to marry. The Court carefully examined whether same-sex couples were “similar situated” as opposite-sex couples, that is, are their circumstances the same? And does the law as worded specifically create two classifications of couples to be regulated by law?

Same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are similarly situated, but for their sexual orientation, the Court held.

… the similarly situated requirement cannot possibly be interpreted to require plaintiffs to be identical in every way to people treated more favorably by the law. No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could run aground onto the shoals of a threshold analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another. Such a threshold analysis would hollow out the constitution’s promise of equal protection.

… In other words, to truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike.

Later in the ruling, the Court states:

… Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.

The very same arguments advocates of same-sex marriage have been saying for years.

The court then found that existing civil marriage laws are specifically worded to differentiate between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, “placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals” by forcing them to marry someone of the opposite sex. Such wording essentially discriminates against gay and lesbians, excluding them from a limited class of citizens intending marriage, the Court held.

Pointing out that same-sex marriage offends some religious beliefs, the Court then stated categorically it had to hold itself separate from such debates. The law in question regulates “civil marriages,” placing a secular question before the Court.

Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage. … State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. … This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state.

As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strong believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.

As notable as the decision to enable same-sex marriages in Iowa is, this particular section clearly reiterates one of the fundamental principles of United States law. Despite all allegations to the contrary, the US has a secular law system. Religious principles and beliefs are not enshrined or regulated or proscribed by the Constitutions of Iowa or the nation. Thus, the religious beliefs of one segment of the population cannot legally be imposed as civil law on everyone else.

The Iowa Court was bold in bringing under its public scrutiny the “unspoken” religious basis for the Iowa marriage statute. One wonders how many other state Supreme Courts will be as brave or as clear.

The bill purportedly would have protected instructors from punishment or job loss if they presented “scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution.” In fact, it was a ploy to enable suitably minded instructors to teach creationism or ID alongside evolutionary theory. Wording that is almost identical appears on a web page sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a pro-ID “thinktank.”

Full details are at The Panda’s Thumb.

Lest you think the bill might have had merit, allow me to provide a brief introduction to “creation science.” ID is just a variation of creationism, accepting an older age of the universe.

Creationism holds that:

• The account in Genesis is literal and true.
• God created everything in six days, about 6,000 years ago.
• Before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, all animals were vegetarians, death was non-existent, and predation/parasitism were unnecessary.
• God got pissed at Adam and Eve, and that wily serpent in the Tree, and cursed them with unending toil, mortality, and slithering on the ground. With the Fall, God also rebooted Creation 1.0 to introduce carnivorism, predation, parasitism and all the unhappy biological problems all His creatures now face.
• At this time, dinosaurs and other now-extinct organisms co-existed with humans. (The Fred Flintstone Hypothesis). They were wiped out, and the fossil record created, with the Great Flood that chased Noah, et al., into a big boat. Instead of rebooting Earth, God just wiped the hard drive and reinstalled Creation 2.0
• The organisms now living have always existed in their current forms since Creation 2.0. Evolution does not exist, and Earth’s organisms do not have a common ancestor. It goes without saying that humans and apes are not related at all.

Believe it or not, some teachers in the US have actually managed to teach this nonsense in public schools. Ohio’s John Freshwater is but one notable example.

So, if your legislatures are considering similar “academic freedom” measures, be forewarned. The wolf is wearing sheep’s clothing.

On the face of it, “academic freedom” would sound like a good thing, but in today’s world of newspeak, this kind of “academic freedom” is shorthand for “let’s allow the public schools to teach creationism or Intelligent Design ideas alongside the scientific theories of the Big Bang and evolution.” Similar bills have been proposed in several other — mostly Bible Belt — states, and all have the same chance of success. None — except of course in Louisiana, where one actually passed.

These bills are merely a veiled attempt by Christian kooks to subvert the US Constitution (and proper science education) by suggesting that creationism and ID are really scientific theories, not religious ideas, and therefore should be taught as valid alternatives to evolution. Trouble is, the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that creationism was religious in nature, and cannot be taught in public schools, and in 2005, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that ID was also religious in nature, meaning the Dover, Pennsylvania, school system had violated the Constitution by permitting it to be taught in science classes.

Yet, the kooks persist, in a quixotic attempt to find some state stupid enough to pass so-called “academic freedom” legislation, so like-minded instructors can slip in so-called scientific alternatives to evolution.

Here is the wording of the Iowa bill:

EXPLANATION
4 5 This bill establishes the “Evolution Academic Freedom Act”.
4 6 The bill includes the general assembly’s findings and
4 7 declarations related to its intent to protect the right and
4 8 freedom of public school teachers and public postsecondary
4 9 instructors to objectively present scientific information
4 10 relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding
4 11 biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching
4 12 any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological
4 13 evolution.
4 14 The bill defines “scientific information” to mean germane
4 15 current facts, data, and peer=reviewed research specific to
4 16 the topic of chemical and biological evolution. For
4 17 elementary and secondary schools, the definition is linked to
4 18 the state’s core curriculum for science.
4 19 Pursuant to the bill, the general assembly finds and
4 20 declares that current law does not expressly protect the right
4 21 of instructors to objectively present scientific information;
4 22 that instructors have experienced or feared discipline,
4 23 discrimination, or other adverse consequences as a result of
4 24 presenting the full range of scientific views regarding
4 25 chemical and biological evolution; that existing law does not
4 26 expressly protect students from discrimination due to their
4 27 positions or views regarding biological or chemical evolution;
4 28 and that the topic has generated intense controversy about the
4 29 rights of instructors and students to hold differing views.
4 30 The bill prohibits an instructor from being disciplined,
4 31 denied tenure, terminated, or otherwise discriminated against
4 32 for objectively presenting scientific information relevant to
4 33 the full range of scientific views regarding biological or
4 34 chemical evolution.
4 35 The bill requires students to be evaluated based upon their
5 1 understanding of course materials through standard testing
5 2 procedures. Students shall not be penalized for subscribing
5 3 to a particular position or view regarding biological or
5 4 chemical evolution.

The key words here are “scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding
biological and chemical evolution.” The bill mentions nothing about creationism or ID, but the language contained therein is a dead ringer for similar language proposed by the ID “thinktank,” the Discovery Institute. Here is the wording of a petition on a DI-sponsored website:

“We, the undersigned American citizens, urge the adoption of policies by our nation’s academic institutions to ensure teacher and student academic freedom to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Teachers should be protected from being fired, harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for objectively presenting the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory. Students should be protected from being harassed, intimidated, or discriminated against for expressing their views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory in an appropriate manner.”

Like the fictional “war on Christmas,” the persecution of Christians who dare challenge the horrible monolith of evolution is a lot of hot air. It’s a meme fostered by the simply awful movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, that essentially bombed in the box office last spring. You can count the number of instructors fired or harassed for teaching creationism/ID on your fingers. In fact, in many cases they lost their jobs for other extenuating circumstances. (See the John Freshwater case for a recent example.)

Creationism and ID are religion, folks. In their current forms, they are clearly Christian-inspired. According to the Constitution and all subsequent court interpretations of the same, publicly funded schools cannot teach one particular religion to students. It is a very simple idea, which some legislators are apparently too thick to understand.

Dressing the wolf in sheep’s clothing fools no one, really. Iowa’s scientists are circulating a petition against the bill, which will probably die in committee anyway. Meanwhile, we (actually, you) will get to hear the same tired arguments about evolution, men are not monkeys, the word of God, blah, blah, blah.

It’s a lot of crap, and embarrassing to realize it is coming from the most powerful nation in the world (well, maybe not in economic terms, anymore …).