Iowa Supreme Court on Homosexual Marriages
In a high profile decision the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously determined the state’s Constitution forbids the government from banning homosexual marriages. Here was the issue:
In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court.
The final paragraphs of the decision provide a nice summary of the Court’s conclusion:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.
The full opinion is available here. The process to amend the Iowa constitution requires a majority vote of two successive legislatures, followed by a vote by the general public. Thus, homosexual marriages will be permissible in Iowa for at least several years, if not indefinitely.
As noted on these pages at ITA before and in countless other publications, I still fail to see how a court could conclude the state has insufficient justification to discriminate against homosexual marriages but does have sufficient justification to discriminate against polygamous ones. For that matter, based on the analysis provided by the Iowa Supreme Court, the justification of discriminating against incestuous couples appears equally tenuous.
24 Responses to “Iowa Supreme Court on Homosexual Marriages”
Is this Heaven? No, It’s Iowa!
I think the SCoI has placed the burden on the state to show why they regulate marriage at all. I think in the end we will reach an equilibrium where states only use marriage licenses for revenue. Which in way is the previous equilibrium.
I think the SCoI has placed the burden on the state to show why they regulate marriage at all.
This may be your belief, but there’s really nothing in the opinion to suggest that’s the SCoI’s intent. They determined in their infinite wisdom that the people of Iowa were being silly for defining marriage as between a man and woman.
Having said that, if you’re suggesting the state should get out of the marriage business, I would have to agree wholeheartedly.
The SCoI has had a pretty good track record on civil rights. From page 17-18 of the opinion (citations removed):
In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly…we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law, and twenty-five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law. In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the “absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government.”
Iowa’s SC probably got to where it got because its citizens are now much more accepting of gay men and women than in the past (even recent past). A lot of that may have to do with many Iowans having openly gay friends or family members and the work of the Gay Rights Movement. It’s easier to disapprove of gays in the abstract, but maybe it’s not so easy if you have a kid who just came out to you or have a nice, well-adjusted gay couple living next door.
In the meantime, other than on Big Love, I’ve seen zero evidence of openly polygamous lifestyles and am totally unaware of any Polygamy Rights Movement. Maybe somebody can fill me in if I’m missing something.
Contraception and homosexuality are forms of child abuse. Contraception if gets pregnant will either kill the child or bring it up in a single home abd homosexuality there is no need to explain it. Children have no rights they are just trash today
I think your last point is powerful. It’s makes no sense that a court can decide if a State ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and yet uphold the State’s ban on polygomy. Their justification has no basis.
And?
What…the Iowa SC should allow the state continue to discriminate against gays because of the practically nonexistent threat of polygamy suddenly breaking out in suburban Council Bluffs?
Please, get real. When the RWers in the state legislature decide to come up with a way around the ISC ruling, you can bet the ranch the wording will include “between one man and one woman,” not “between two people.”
Iowa’s SC probably got to where it got because its citizens are now much more accepting of gay men and women than in the past (even recent past).
An interpretation of a Constitutional provision – which is what this case was – should have nothing to do with the given sentiments of the populace at that time, whatever they may be. That is the function of the legislature, not the courts.
With respect to the prevalence of polygamous relationships, that too should have no bearing on the interpretation of one’s rights under the Constitution.
I hope the citizens of Iowa will rise up and overturn this decision from the Iowa SC. For some reason I did not think that Iowa was a liberal state and I pray that Iowa’s citizens will rally to protect traditional marriage.
Apparently they are liberal in the real sense of the word, meaning one who loves liberty, and not in the idiotic talk radio sense of the word that is bandied about in the US.
Josh,
I don’t believe that SCs, state or US, exist in pristine legal vacuums. I think personal values, probably unconsciously, enter into the decision-making process. I also suspect that they are only too aware of majority opinion when it comes to big, conspicuous issues like this one. I doubt the justices would arrived where they did if it weren’t for the fact that there is greater acceptance of gays in Iowa today.
It is simple. Homosexuality is not illegal in the state of Iowa. Polygamy and incest are.
To justify the canard regarding incestuous and polygamous marriages, you must first show that the specific laws regarding their illegality are changing. Please provide references.
Off Colfax,
Then what you’re implying is that the Iowa legislature need only pass a law making homosexuality a crime, and then it would be OK for the state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages?
No, if the Iowa SC has ruled that banning gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the state Constitution, then surely making homosexuality a crime would also be unconstitutional.
Josh–I would be inclined to agree with you about getting the state out of the marriage business, so long as employers (including the state itself) would not be compelled to offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees. However, the federal and state governments are themselves employers, so if the government does not officially recognize any marriages, how would it decide who is eligible for spousal benefits?
I would agree with Jerry that the Iowa SC is basing their ruling largely on their own opinions and that of a growing number (though probably not a majority) of Iowans, however I agree with Josh that this is not how a court ought to make decisions. In a free society, democratically elected legislators ought to be able to decide family policy issues. (Note carefully that I’m not talking about bringing back anti-sodomy laws. Consenting adults ought to be free to live in whatever romantic arrangements they desire, but the particular institution of marriage ought to be defined as one man and one woman.
I agree with just about all of Eric’s comment with the exception perhaps of this: “In a free society, democratically elected legislators ought to be able to decide family policy issues.” I think the legislature can decide such things, but in the majority of instances I don’t think they should decide them.
The question of benefits is an interesting one and really gets to the heart of the matter. Why are we offering benefits at all? There are plenty of good reasons, but I don’t think there’s much agreement on what those reasons are.
I think the legislature can decide such things, but in the majority of instances I don’t think they should decide them.
I agree with that. I should have written that when there is a need for the government to be involved, it should be the legislature and not the courts. But far better for the government not to be involved at all.
Why are we offering benefits at all?
We’re mostly talking about health insurance here, and frankly it would be better if that weren’t linked to one’s job. It would be even better if we could switch from covering all medical care through insurance to covering most medical care through medical savings accounts, and perhaps only catastrophic medical expenses through insurance. Not only could that help control medical expenses, as we can see through this discussion it could make the issue of same-sex marriage somewhat less controversial.
Eric,
I’m not remotely suggesting that the ISC came to the decision it did because it’s the what the majority of Iowans favor. I’m not even sure that the majority of Iowans even favor what the court decided.
I’m suggesting that I suspect that SC judges might sometimes be constrained by popular opinion when it comes to big opinions like these. That current attitudes in Iowa made it politically feasible for the Court to come to the correct decision that it did, despite slippery slope arguments from social conservatives.
Here’s the actual back and forth on polygamy between the Court and the lawyer repping the gay couples, former Iowa Solicitor General Dennis Johnson, who
Jerry,
Thank you for clarifying. It is theoretically possible that popular opinion might constrain the Iowa SC as you postulate, since its justices serve terms of 8 years (or as little as 1 year after their initial appointment), then must be retained in a general election. However, it is extremely difficult to mount a campaign to “un-retain” a justice. It would surely be easier and faster for opponents of same-sex marriage to amend the state constitution than to replace SC justices based on how they ruled on the issue.
Regarding Johnson’s argument against polygamy, I don’t believe it would hold up in an actual challenge against laws banning polygamy. If marriage is a fundamental right as same-sex marriage supporters argue, then surely the necessity of modifying laws to accommodate plural marriages would not be a compelling reason to deny polygamists their rights.
Eric,
I don’t think any of the Iowa SC justices are worried about getting reseated in elections. That’s not what I meant about being “constrained by popular opinion.” I suspect that the US Supremes feel similarly constrained by big rulings like this too, in spite of having life tenure. Like it or not, state and US Supreme Courts probably consider their own institutional authority when it comes to deciding these kinds of huge, highly charged cases. We accept Brown v. Board of Education as a correct decision now, but would the SCOTUS have gone the way it did at the time if there wasn’t fairly widespread acceptance of desegregation outside of the Deep South? Additionally, I don’t believe that Supremes (state and/or US) have the power on their own to carry out their judgements. They have to rely on the exec branch to do that, and the execs ARE subject to the electorate.
I should have written: “I suspect that the US Supremes feel similarly constrained when deciding big rulings like this too, in spite of having life tenure.”
What are the implications for the smothered debate here in the Indiana Legislature? As I recall, we don’t need no stinking Amendment to the Indiana Constitution because we already have a law on the books that covers the situation?
Jerry,
I’m not convinced that judges feel constrained to respect widespread popular opinion when deciding major rulings even when their appointments are secure. The principle of stare decisis does constrain the court from rocking the boat too often, but I don’t know if that was a factor in Iowa or not. (Anyone know when the last time a challenge to the ban on gay marriage made its way to the Iowa SC?)
What are the implications for the smothered debate here in the Indiana Legislature? As I recall, we don’t need no stinking Amendment to the Indiana Constitution because we already have a law on the books that covers the situation?
The implications are such, some Republicans will use this to bang some political pots and pans and resubmit the amendment in some fashion,, some Democrats will offer support for the bill, then some Democrats will stall, big businesses will get involved if it restricts them from offering same-sex benefits, and the bill may or may not pass one year, but will fail in the second.
The endgame to that process will be that generation X and Y will eventually makeup more of the populace than the Boomers and Busters and legislation will pass allowing same-sex unions or the Equal Protection Clause will be expanded to include homosexuals as a “suspect class”.
I heard the director of NOM talking about how one of the paragraphs even says that it is stereotypical to suggest that a child needs both a mom and a dad. Where is this country heading?