It’s been five days since the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously overturned the state’s same-sex marriage ban, and society has not yet collapsed.

So now that it seems less likely that the apocalypse will come in direct response to the Midwest’s first foray into acceptance of gay marriage, what does it mean for the rest of the country?

Iowa is the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriages, following Massachusetts, Connecticut and California (whose same-sex marriage era lasted six months, cut short by Proposition 8 — which faces legal challenge itself because it may have violated California’s constitution). Vermont’s legislature was quick to follow suit, overriding the governor’s veto on Tuesday. The state was the first in the nation to introduce gay marriage through legislative action instead of the courts. On the same day, the D.C. Council voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

The nation’s view on marriage appears to be changing, one day at a time. And judging by the current state of the economy, this shift couldn’t come at a better time. According to a study done by the Williams Institute of UCLA, the legalization of same-sex marriages could result in a net gain of at least $5.3 million per year for the Iowa State government — that’s $160 million in new wedding and tourism spending over the next 3 years.

But for some reason, despite predictions of economic growth, many opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the possible economic benefits should be ignored in favor of protecting their definition of marriage. Republican Rep. Steve King has expressed fear that the Iowa court’s ruling will result in the state becoming a “gay marriage Mecca” and asked Gov. Chet Culver to call for legislation requiring residency for marriage in Iowa and for the Legislature to pass a constitutional amendment measure nullifying the court’s decision. According to the Des Moines Register, King said “I’d rather work with Governor Culver on saving marriage than use it as a lever against him.”

Saving marriage. An admirable mission.

Of course, that’s assuming marriage needs to be saved. What exactly is it in danger of? We’re letting people in loving, committed relationships make legal commitments to one another. I guess that is pretty scary. The Sanctity of Marriage — a concept so idealized I feel like it should always be written in title form, with gilded letters, probably in a fancy script font — is most certainly in danger. Steve King, grab your cape and your Sanctity Scepter! Thank goodness you told the Des Moines Register this ruling has made you “more likely” to run for governor in 2010.

But wait. The sanctity of marriage? That has nothing to do with the rationale behind legalizing same-sex marriage in any of the states that have done so. Sanctity is a term that means “holiness,” which gives it religious implications. This almighty “sanctity of marriage” is purely a religious concept. So why are gay marriage opponents using its preservation as a reason to fight court rulings?

Religiosity and perceived morality have compelled people to fight same-sex marriage. But here’s the thing: the legalization of same-sex marriage is not a religious matter. It is purely constitutional. Marriage, in the civil sense, is a legal institution. Religious marriage is an entirely separate matter that can and will be left to the church’s discretion.

The legal and constitutional nature of the issue means there is no place for religious arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage. This has been made clear in the rulings issued by every court that has legalized same-sex marriage thus far. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California’s decisions all echo the sentiments expressed in Iowa’s decision:

“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 … secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage … 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.”

All of this goes back to the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That means our laws can’t discriminate against one group of people — or do anything else, for that matter — if the rationale comes from a religion. Any religion.

Go ahead and argue that allowing same-sex marriage will disrespect the Christian foundations of America — but America is not a Christian nation, and its founders did not intend for it to be one. Take a look at the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797 by President John Adams, with unanimous ratification by the Senate eight years after the Constitution went into effect. The Treaty states, in part, that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

But let’s consider for a moment what might happen if we did pretend to live in a Christian nation, and we let the “religious majority” — those opposed to same same-sex marriage — rule. What would happen?

There’s a good chance divorce rates would go up nationwide. According to a study done by the Associated Press, the highest divorce rates are found in the Bible Belt. Divorce rates in Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma tend to be 50 percent above the national average. These intensely religious states don’t seem to hold marriage in quite as high a regard as one might expect.

In contrast, Massachusetts — that’s right, a state that allows gay marriage — had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Those crazy liberals in the Northeast must know a thing or two about marriage. Incidentally, divorce rates in the Northeast are 19 percent, compared to 27 percent in the South and the Midwest, according to the Barna Group.

Could it be that piety and religiosity have nothing to do with the quality of, let alone the preservation of, marriage?

Looks like that could be the case.

On the “win” side for ending discrimination, Culver said on Tuesday, “I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.”

It looks like Iowa has a shot at maintaining a standard of equality. And even if the state becomes King’s nightmare — a “gay marriage Mecca” — I’m willing to bet the impact on society will be far from detrimental.

 — Jessica Opoien is a freshman in pre-journalism and mass communication from Marinette, Wis.

From the court rulings: Constitutional, not religious

Massachusetts, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, Nov. 18, 2003:

“Many people hold … religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to … one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that … homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. ‘Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.’”

California, In Re Marriages, May 15, 2008:

“[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Connecticut, Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, Oct. 28, 2008:

“Gay persons … cannot be deprived of suspect or quasi-suspect class status [affording heightened scrutiny of laws affecting their rights] merely because others may find their intimate sexual conduct objectionable, repugnant or immoral. In fact, after Lawrence [v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned anti-sodomy laws], the social and moral disapprobation that gay persons historically have faced supports … that they are entitled to heightened protection under the state constitution.”

Iowa, Varnum v. Brien, April 3, 2009:

Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them … The statute at issue … does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract … In pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate … and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies … secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage … Civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines … This approach does not disrespect … the religious views of … Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers … only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.