DES MOINES, Iowa (ABP) — Iowa will soon join the ranks of states that allow same-sex marriage, thanks to a unanimous April 3 ruling by the state’s highest court.
The Iowa Supreme Court said a law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the Iowa Constitution’s equal-protection provisions. The justices said their decision would take effect three weeks from the date it was handed down, meaning same-sex couples will be able to marry in the Hawkeye State beginning April 24.
“Our responsibility … is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time,” wrote Justice Mark Cady, in the seven-member court’s opinion in Varnum v. Brien (No. 07-1499).
“The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that ‘times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,’” Cady continued, quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down a state sodomy law.
The justices determined that a 1998 Iowa law liming marriage to heterosexuals denied gay couples equal protection under the law, thus violating the Iowa Constitution. “A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion,” Cady wrote.
The case began in 2005, after six gay couples were denied marriage licenses by officials in Polk County, where Des Moines is located. They sued, and a lower court found in their favor. County officials appealed to the state's highest court.
The justices rejected several arguments by county officials defending limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, saying they were not sufficiently rational nor tied to a legitimate government interest to justify treating gay Iowans differently from their straight fellow citizens.
“While the [government’s] objectives asserted may be important (and many undoubtedly are important), none are furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage,” the court said. “Our equal-protection clause requires more than has been offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban under the statute.”
In regard to one of the chief arguments attorneys for Polk County marshaled — that heterosexual-only marriage benefits children — the court said neither scientific evidence nor reason bear that assertion out.
“Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents,” the court said. “If the statute was truly about the best interest of children, some benefit to children derived from the ban on same-sex civil marriages would be observable. Yet, the germane analysis does not show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban. Likewise, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage does not benefit the interests of those children of heterosexual parents, who are able to enjoy the environment supported by marriage with or without the inclusion of same-sex couples.”
The court also discussed an argument for heterosexual-only marriage not raised by Polk County in the case: the religious argument. The justices noted that, while the sanctity of marriage is very important to many religious believers, neither the state nor federal governments have any business sanctifying marriage.
“This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state,” the court said. “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. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.”
The opinion noted that its decision does nothing to affect religious marriage. “A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution,” Cady wrote. “The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.”
He concluded that the court was simply doing its job. “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.”
Predictably, the decision met with immediate disdain from religious conservatives.
U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) released a statement shortly after the decision was handed down saying the decision was “another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same-sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench.”
King urged state legislators to pass a proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution to ban same-sex marriage permanently, “to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa.”
Last fall, California voters narrowly approved an amendment that upended the California Supreme Court’s earlier decision to legalize gay marriage. Critics said the amendment’s success owed to the millions that conservative out-of-state groups — most notably the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — had poured into a campaign to support the amendment. They also argued that the campaign was misleading and frightened many voters into thinking same-sex marriage would somehow be imposed on unwilling churches and synagogues.
But the constitutional-amendment process in Iowa is more cumbersome than California’s, and any amendment would take several years to pass — including approval by two consecutive sessions of the state’s legislature, followed by a public vote.
Iowa State Sen. Matt McCoy (D-Des Moines), the state’s first openly gay legislator, posted a YouTube video April 3 in which he noted that the previous, Republican-controlled Iowa Senate had already rejected a similar amendment once.
“Now Democrats control the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate, and legislative leaders say the issue won’t come up for a vote,” he said. “But even if it does, constitutional amendments must be approved by two different two-year General Assemblies before they go to the people for a vote. In short, there’s no way a flood of out-of-control money can be used to scare Iowans into going backwards on civil rights. I believe marriage equality is here to stay, and Iowans will quickly realize that it’s no big deal.”
Iowa will join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states with legalized same-sex marriage. Legislators in Vermont — which already allows same-sex couples to enter into “civil unions” virtually identical to marriage — recently passed a same-sex marriage bill by wide margins, but the Republican governor has promised a veto.
Rob Marus is managing editor and Washington bureau chief for Associated Baptist Press.
Related ABP stories:
Connecticut latest jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage (10/10/2008)