Bloggers who advocate special protections and rights based upon who someone sleeps with are throwing celebratory posts up all over the blogosphere - because an activist judge in Iowa has again usurped the will of the people.

In doing so the Iowa district court activist judge Robert Hanson stated:

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."

Of course what the brain-dead judge fails to see is that "same gender" peoples are not qualified to marry one another.

The ingredients that make a marriage are one man, and one woman. This particular type of union has specific merit to society... i.e. the creation of children. Society has recognized that because of this particular potential merit to society that the type of sexual union recognized as "marriage" might merit some state sanction or benefit.

To the best of my knowledge there is no other adult consensual sexual union banned by the state of Iowa, so in essence there is no threat to homosexuals per se in the allowing of society to continue to recognize the marital union as being one of particular merit to the society.

If the state so wishes to legally recognize other forms of sexual unions then THAT should be something because of its long-reaching controversial conditions that should be decided by the voters of Iowa - and not ONE ACTIVIST JUDGE.

The voters of Iowa mus feel rather victimized today knowing that one judge believes he knows better how Iowans must construct their culture and society than them.

Those involved in the case that defended the plaintiffs in the case falsely claimed that they could not be provided the protections needed legally for their unions - such as inheritance, hospitalizaton visitation rights. The reasons such claims are false is that they could reach their attorneys today, draw up the legal papers to cover such needs, and many, many, more - and thereby offer those the engage in certain types of sexual behavior with the "protections" they feel are so needed.

I predict the voters of Iowa will feel a tad outraged that they were stepped on in such a brutal fashion. I also suspect that the state's Supreme Court will find compelling interests to overturn the decision and at the end of the day - the institution of marriage will survive intact...