Iowa Legalizes Gay Marriage

[chadknowslaw]

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman.

The ruling, viewed nationally and at home as a victory for the gay rights movement and a setback for social conservatives, means Iowa’s 5,800 gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24.

There are no residency rules for marriage in Iowa, so the rule would apply to any couple who wanted to travel to Iowa.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art.../NEWS/90403010



This has worked its way through the Iowa courts almost under the radar, and Iowa is definitely Middle America, not the liberal east coast or crazy California. The Iowa Constitution cannot be changed without 2 consecutive sessions of legislature and a popular vote after that, so I think 2011 is the earliest it could come up and gay marriage will be legal until then.

[DrChango]

Holy shit. Never would have thought of Iowa as being progressive.

[Bec]

Wow, that is terrific ... and totally unexpected!

[chadknowslaw]

Here is part of the summary posted by the Iowa Supreme Court:

Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage:

Having addressed and rejected
each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final
ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate—religious opposition.
Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of
marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the
court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of
marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views
yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds,
explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of
Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute. “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 in this
case 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 . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task 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 a limited
class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”


Constitutional Infirmity.

In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally
infirm, the court stated:
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. Iowa Code section 595.2
denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law
promised by the Iowa Constitution.

[LAJ]

Having spent almost all of my childhood in the midwest, this news actually doesn't come as a shock to me. Iowa has always high importance on education and typically skews left of center as a whole which as far as I'm concerned means that they would be more open to Gay marriage there. Thanks for the update Chad and great seeing you last week!

[GayGeek]

Yah, I went to Iowa State University for four years and my husband grew up in Iowa. It's surprisingly progressive on civil rights. It's a very practical-minded state. Probably because it has a strong agricultural background but not a particularly strong religious or conservative bent to it. Farmers are practical -- if it works, they like it. If not, they scrap the idea.

So when it comes to gay marriage, the citizens of Iowa may not be thrilled about it as a group, but they generally don't buy into the "destroying the institution of marriage" bullshit.

Don't expect to see this reversed either. Unlike California, it is extremely difficult to pass an amendment to the state constitution. It has to pass the legislature two years in a row then be placed on a statewide ballot. The state government has a Democratic governor, Senate, and House. And the leaders therein have all agreed that they will not be advocating for the return of straight-only marriage. Matter of fact, I believe the head of one of the houses in the state legislature has already stated he will use his power to make sure that such a constitutional measure is never introduced/discussed/brought to a vote.

The state Attorney General (who argued against gay marriage in court) has also stated that the state Supreme Court has conclusively ruled and that he won't be asking them to reconsider.

I'm feeling rather proud of my former state right now. And wondering what my husband's parents are thinking -- they elected not to attend our wedding in 1999 because they "weren't comfortable" with the idea.

--Aaron

[Rich]

i do not think it will be much longer until it is legal all over america