In April 3’s unanimous decision by the Iowa State Supreme Court, that state’s law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman was judged to be a violation of the constitutional rights of equal protection.

In writing for all of the court, Justice Mark S. Cady ruled:

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important government objective. We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.”

This will not only result in legal appeals, it provides also an enormously significant opportunity for other alternative sexual orientations to claim – under this Iowa assurance of equal protection – that they, too, have a right to marry.

For if all those Iowa Supreme Court justices really believe that there is a constitutional right for men to marry men and women to marry women if they choose, how can a man who wishes to marry two (or three, or more) men be denied such equal protection of the law?

Don’t miss David Kupelian’s culture-war classic, “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom”

If sodomist marriage is OK in Iowa, why not polygamous marriage – or marriage which is polyandrous (one woman married to multiple husbands)? In addition to the possibility of a polygamist’s lawsuit demanding the right to multiple marriage in Mason City, what if another lawsuit is filed in Sioux City demanding the right of a sadist to marry a masochist?

Don’t stop there!

Surely at some time in Iowa history in the vicinity of either Burlington or Bloomfield there have been cases of bestiality.

What will the Iowa Supreme Court do if people involved in this sexual orientation also file suit?

And suppose that such a lawsuit filed by the R.A.L.L. (Real Animal Lovers League) notes to the court: 1) that they are asking for the equal protection of the law to have coitus only with freely consenting beasts (i.e., those animals who neither resist nor run away – by choice), 2) there are no medical records that the sexual orientation of bestiality has anything comparable to promiscuous homosexuality’s AIDS and syphilis death rates.

And one other sexual orientation to which the Iowa Supreme Court has not (yet) provided equal protection of the law: necrophilia.

Every major city has a potter’s field, for burial of unclaimed corpses with no known relatives.

If Iowa should allow same-sex marriage to a sexual orientation that leads the nation in cases of deaths from AIDS, why in the name of reason and equal protection should there be any denial of necrophiliac nuptials to those who desire to wed unclaimed cadavers?

The Washington Post, in reporting this Iowa Supreme Court ruling, noted that this decision is certain to have an impact on Iowa’s critical Republican caucuses in 2012.

Think about that earliest-of-all states where voters cast ballots for their choice for president.

Just imagine Iowa TV, radio and Internet flooded with alternatives to the same Big Question:

“How is it equal justice under law to legalize same-sex marriage – but NOT to legalize marriage which is polygamous, or polyandrous, or sado-masochist, or bestial, or necrophiliac?”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.