In a unanimous decision released this morning, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a law mandating that recognized marriage in the state be limited to one man and one woman. The Court ruled that the statute violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The court applied its own intermediate scrutiny test, which declares that the statute in question must be of substantive governmental interest. The arguments applied by the defendants suggested that regulating a child’s environment was related to a government interest, but the court decided against that argument, summed up here by the Iowa Independent:“The court agreed with Polk County’s argument that government has an important interest in promoting an “optimal environment to raise children,” but they concluded that Iowa’s definition of marriage was both “under-inclusive” and “over-inclusive” as it relates to that goal, because the statute disqualifies couples who would be good parents, and it allows two people who would be bad parents to marry, so long as they are not of the same sex. The Iowa law is therefore not “substantially related” to the government’s interest in raising children, the court determined.”
The issue of court action against anti-gay legislation holds special need for attention from me given my own experience in the issue. Nebraska’s courts laid aside a gay marriage ban in 2005 using similar reasoning, but using the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution instead, as Nebraska’s gay marriage ban was an amendment to the state constitution, and note a mere state statute as in Iowa. That ruling was overturned just a little over a year later. I was in high school when that first ruling was overturned, and I remember arguing against the conservatives all around me who condemned the decision as “activist judges.” I could fire off the same kind of arguments against judges using judicial restraint, but I would digress.
Representative Steve King (CD-5) has already voiced his displeasure:
“This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. … 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…Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.”
It has already been established that Steve King is one of the craziest wing nuts in the House, but I shall attempt to answer back some of his arguments in a calm and rational manner. First, he notes that it is an “unconstitutional ruling,” but cites no reasoning for which to support this charge. The court’s decision on the other hand (available here) that was handed down very clearly explains its reasoning, which we shall approach in a moment. Second, it is a popular attack against the judge that if they want to see gay marriage allowed, they ought to run for legislature. It is a nonsensical argument given that it refuses to acknowledge the judge’s decision, which should be taken all the more seriously in this case given that it was a unanimous decision from the Iowa Supreme Court. Bottom line is that King cannot prove that the judges used their own motivations to overturn the law, especially when the law has proven to be unconstitutional.
Then, King takes an unnecessary and dare I say racist jab at Muslim Americans, saying that Iowa will become a “gay marriage Mecca” thanks to the court’s decision. Given King’s past rants against Muslims, we can safely assume that he is more or less comparing gays and lesbians with Muslims as a means of drawing public opinion against both groups. It is shameful, to say the least.
But the Iowa Supreme Court seemed to pre-empt the King statement, and answered it back fairly well in its decision (from pages 12 and 13):
"The Iowa Constitution is the cornerstone of governing in Iowa... It establishes three separate, but equal, branches of government and delineates the limited roles and powers of each branch... Among other basic principles essential to our form of government, the constitution defines certain individual rights upon which the government may not infringe. See Iowa Const. art. I (“Bill of Rights”). Equal protection of the law is one of the guaranteed rights. All these rights and principles are declared and undeniably accepted as the supreme law of this state, against which no contrary law can stand… This case, as with most other civil rights actions before it, implicates these broad constitutional principles of governing. These Iowans, believing that the law is inconsistent with certain constitutional mandates, exercised their constitutional right to petition the courts for redress of their grievance. This court, consistent with its role to interpret the law and resolve disputes, now has the responsibility to determine if the law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution."
The possibility of a constitutional amendment may not be much of a possibility at all. Democrats in Iowa are already moving to shut out any possibility of an amendment. And as the New York Times article at the top of the page pointed out, in order for an amendment to pass in Iowa, both houses of the Legislature need to approve the amendment in succeeding sessions, and then the voters have to move to approve it as well. All in all, there are a great many hurdles for the social conservatives to overcome.
There are many broader implications of the decision besides its immediate impact on Gays and Lesbians living in Iowa. But that is for another day. Lets first sit back and bask in the glory of another progressive victory in the Midwest.
