marriage? As I'm sure some of you are aware, a couple months ago the Iowa supreme court legalized gay marriage in their state by overturning the 170 year old definition of marriage deeming it as unconstitutional under the equal protection clause off their state constitution. My question is, was this the framers of the Iowa state constitution intentions in how the equal protection clause was to be used ?

How can the equal protection clause be applied here when there are no rights or privileges being denied homosexuals that were being granted to anyone else ? Keep in mind that marriage is not a right, nor does it apply to those of the same sex ,so basically what the court did was redefine a word to create extra constitutional or uber-rights for homosexuals. In light of this ruling, what's to stop the court from changing that definition awarding rights to pedophiles wanting to marry a child ?

Or a polygamist wanting to marry several wives ? Or someone wanting to marry an animal ? Is there any end to this madness ? . Were the Iowa supreme court judges doing their job, which is judicial review and interpretation of laws as they are written ? Or was this what's typically known as judicial activism and the court acting as an oligarchy ? Thanks in advance for your answers. God bless.