By Lisa Keen
"When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about
today's events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency. Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan." -Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Speaker Pat Murphy
In an enormous victory for equal marriage rights for gay couples, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that gay couples should have the right to marriage licenses the same as heterosexual couples.
The decision represents the first time a state supreme court has ruled unanimously in favor of equal marriage rights for gay couples, and it is the first time a state in America's "heartland" has done so. The decision, which goes into effect in 21 days, will make Iowa the third state to be currently offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
"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," wrote Justice Mark Cady, for the seven-member court. "The legislature has (with its 1998 law banning marriage) excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
The court said the law violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law and that the court's own constitutional duty "requires" it to strike the law down.
Noting that other supreme courts have allowed legislatures to provide "equal benefits" of marriage through civil unions, the Iowa court said such a "new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution." The state's marriage law – minus the ban for gay couples – must now be applied, said the court, "in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."
"When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about
today's events will be why it took us so long," said Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Speaker Pat Murphy, in a joint statement. "It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency. Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan."
The Des Moines Register put a different spin on it. The paper – which published procedures for how to impeach a judge after the district court judge ruled in favor of gay marriage – today "reported" the ruling was "a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families."
"There is no doubt that the decision is a victory for people seeking equal treatment of gay people under the law," the paper reported.
"Today's victory is a testament to the strength of love, hope and courage – our clients have shown an abundance of all three for many years and now at long last they will be able to marry," said Camilla Taylor, an attorney at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund that spearheaded the lawsuit. "This will go down as another proud day in Iowa's long history of protecting individual rights."
Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry group, said: "There's a rainbow over Iowa today and equality in marriage has come to America's heartland."
The case, Varnum v. Brien, originated with six same-sex couples in Polk County, Iowa – including Kate and Trish Varnum – who sought but were denied marriage licenses by the county registrar, Timothy Brien. The lawsuit, filed in 2005 by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, challenged a state law banning same-sex marriage in 1998.
A state district court judge ruled on behalf of the couples last year but delayed enforcement of the ruling until the state supreme court could weigh in. Even so, one gay male couple was able to obtain their marriage license before that suspension went into effect.
The Iowa high court heard oral arguments in the case last December.
Polk County assistant attorney Roger Kuhle relied heavily on arguments frequently used by other states to justify a ban on same-sex marriage: to create a stable environment for procreation and to provide an "optimal" family environment for children.
Eight other state supreme courts have weighed in on same-sex marriage bans: Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California, in split decisions, have said their state constitutions required equal treatment of gay couples in marriage licensing. (California voters last November amended the constitution to ban same-sex marriages; a state supreme court ruling on the validity of that vote is expected by June of this year.)
Vermont (in a unanimous decision) and New Jersey said equal benefits are required but that the state legislatures could provide for those benefits through civil unions, which both legislatures did. (Vermont's legislature, however, has just passed legislation to provide for equal marriage rights. The governor is expected to veto that legislation over the weekend and the legislature will attempt to override that veto early next week.)
The state supreme courts in New York, Maryland and Washington State have ruled that laws banning gay marriage are rational even though the states' reasons wouldn't pass many people's laugh test. New York, for instance, said banning gay marriage provided an inducement for straight people to marry. Washington said it "furthers procreation" among straights.
