Iowa Supreme Court Rules for Marriage Equality

[Tracer Bullet]

This is a crappy article and I can't really tell what the decision actually says, but it's the only one I can find:

Iowa gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
State supreme court says law violates rights of gays and lesbians

DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.

In 2005, Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, sued on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples in Polk County who were denied marriage licenses. Some of their children are also listed as plaintiffs.

The case was appealed to the state Supreme Court in 2007, after Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson agreed with the plaintiffs and ruled that the ban was unconstitutional.

Hanson's ruling prompted nearly two dozen people to apply for marriage licenses in the county, Iowa's most populous and home to Des Moines. Only one couple, Sean and Tim McQuillan of Ames, managed to get married before Hanson stayed his decision the next day. Their marriage stands, but its validity could depend on whether the state's high court sides with the Polk County judge.

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in December, Des Moines lawyer Dennis Johnson argued the ban violated his clients' due process and equal protection rights.

"We are suggesting that everybody be able to participate equally in an institution that has existed since the beginning of this state," Johnson said during arguments.

Separation of powers issue?
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the lower court's ruling for the plaintiffs violates the separation of powers and that the issue should be left to the Legislature.

"We are not here opposing the individual plaintiffs' sincerity. We are here because, in our view, the issue is one for the Legislature to decide as a matter of social policy," he told the seven-member Supreme Court.

During oral arguments, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus explained that the high court would determine whether the district court erred by finding that the same-sex marriage ban violated the state constitution, and whether it erred by not allowing the county's expert witness testimony.

The timing could be awkward for state lawmakers who are on track to end the legislative session in coming weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, told reporters that it's "exceedingly unlikely" the Legislature would deal with the gay marriage issue this year, regardless of the court's ruling.

"This is the final step in a lengthy legal proceedings," said Gronstal. "We're going to wait and see that decision and review it before we take any action."

Around the nation, only Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage. California, which briefly allowed gay marriage before a voter initiative in November repealed it, allows domestic partnerships.

New Jersey and New Hampshire also offer civil unions, which provide many of the same rights that come with marriage. New York recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and legislators there and in New Jersey are weighing whether to offer marriage. A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont is before the state House.

[wendersfan]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...1fYTQD97B16UO0

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi..._marriage.html

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Opinions/

[wishbone]

Does this article needs its own thread?

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...-part-2-a.html

[orangecrush]

Interesting. I work with a bunch of people who live in Iowa. I will have to ask them about this.

[Pharoh]

Originally Posted by wishbone

Does this article needs its own thread?

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...-part-2-a.html

I know. After all, there is so much activity going on in the forum right now and we wouldn't want to clutter up the front page with a thread that folks might actually read.

[Pharoh]

My fear would be that it might be one of those cases of one step forward, one and a half steps backwards.

[wendersfan]

Originally Posted by Pharoh

I know. After all, there is so much activity going on in the forum right now and we wouldn't want to clutter up the front page with a thread that folks might actually read.

Somebody always has to be "that guy".

[Tracer Bullet]

Originally Posted by wishbone

Does this article needs its own thread?

Because you said that, I'm definitely going to start a new thread every time another state legalizes same-sex marriage.

Also, thanks for shitting on my good mood.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by wendersfan

Somebody always has to be "that guy".

SEARCH
It's usually a good idea to do a search before starting a new thread.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/forum-feedb...questions.html

wenders, has this changed recently?

TB, sorry I will not bring it up again.

[Red Dog]

The court applied intermediate scrutiny to strike down the statute. That's always the key - for the citizens challenging the government to get above the rational basis test (aka "anything goes") standard.

[Nausicaa]

A summary of the decision:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ass...D213209143.PDF

And it looks like this one won't go the way of Prop 8 so easily:

Lobbying began immediately for lawmakers to launch the long process of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. No such legislation will be approved this session in the Iowa Senate, McCoy said. Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal won’t allow it, he said. Such an amendment requires the votes of a simple majority in both the Iowa House and Iowa Senate in two consecutive sessions, followed by a passing vote of the people of Iowa.

And:

Opponents have long argued that allowing gay marriage would erode the institution. Some Iowa lawmakers, mostly Republicans, attempted last year to launch a constitutional amendment to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage.

Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks.

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

The comments from those opposed to this decision are just as selfish, non-sensical and ignorant as one might expect.

But anyway, congrats to all those couples in Iowa, and congrats to others around the country who are one step closer.

[superfro]

Very proud of my state at the moment. Sometimes the middle of nowhere gets the important things right.

[Venusian]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

The court applied intermediate scrutiny to strike down the statute. That's always the key - for the citizens challenging the government to get above the rational basis test (aka "anything goes") standard.

can you explain that for us nonlawyers?

[Artman]

Originally Posted by wishbone

Does this article needs its own thread?

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...-part-2-a.html

Agreed, the correct thread is right there. This isn't worth it's own topic...

[Red Dog]

can you explain that for us nonlawyers?

EP jargon.

Under rational basis scrutiny, the burden is on the citizen challenging the statute - they basically have to show that every single reason that the government can offer up is not rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest. It's a heavy burden, and why I call it the "anything goes" test because it's damn near impossible for the citizen to win such an argument.

To withstand intermediate scrutiny (which is triggered when the 'class' challenging is considered a quasi-suspect class (such as gender)), a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective. Under this test, the burden is shifted toward the government. In this case, the government offered up 5 objectives: (1) tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5) preservation of state resources.

The Court didn't buy any those objectives.

Had they applied the rational basis test, they probably would have found that one of those reasons would pass the test (although 'tradition' alone sometimes isn't enough).

[Xander]

So proud to be from Iowa today. YAY!

[Nausicaa]

To elaborate on Red Dog's post, this is from my first link above, explaining the court's rationale:

Intermediate Scrutiny Standard: Governmental Objectives.
Based upon the above analysis, the court proceeded to examine Iowa’s same sex marriage ban under an intermediate scrutiny standard. “To withstand intermediate scrutiny, a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.” In determining whether exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage is substantially related to any important governmental objective, the court considered each of the County’s proffered objectives in support of the marriage statute. The objectives asserted by the County were (1) tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5) preservation of state resources. In considering these objectives, the court examined whether the objective purportedly advanced by the classification is important and, if so, whether the governmental objective can fairly be said to be advanced by the legislative classification.

Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.

Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children. The second of the
County’s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and oppositesex parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court concluded the classification employed to further that goal—sexual orientation—did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to 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, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.

Promotion of Procreation. Next, the court addressed the County’s argument that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court concluded the County’s argument is flawed because it fails to address the required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and lesbians from civil marriage.

Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships. The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex marriage more stable.

Conservation of Resources. Finally, the court rejected the County’s argument that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective. Here again, the court found it was over-and under-inclusive and did not substantially further the suggested governmental interest.

[lordwow]

The right decision for a court to make.

[CWFreeze]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

EP jargon.

Under rational basis scrutiny, the burden is on the citizen challenging the statute - they basically have to show that every single reason that the government can offer up is not rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest. It's a heavy burden, and why I call it the "anything goes" test because it's damn near impossible for the citizen to win such an argument.

To withstand intermediate scrutiny (which is triggered when the 'class' challenging is considered a quasi-suspect class (such as gender)), a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective. Under this test, the burden is shifted toward the government. In this case, the government offered up 5 objectives: (1) tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5) preservation of state resources.

The Court didn't buy any those objectives.

Had they applied the rational basis test, they probably would have found that one of those reasons would pass the test (although 'tradition' alone sometimes isn't enough).

I just had a flashback to the bar exam.......

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

EP jargon.

Under rational basis scrutiny, the burden is on the citizen challenging the statute - they basically have to show that every single reason that the government can offer up is not rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest. It's a heavy burden, and why I call it the "anything goes" test because it's damn near impossible for the citizen to win such an argument.

To withstand intermediate scrutiny (which is triggered when the 'class' challenging is considered a quasi-suspect class (such as gender)), a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective. Under this test, the burden is shifted toward the government. In this case, the government offered up 5 objectives: (1) tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5) preservation of state resources.

The Court didn't buy any those objectives.

Had they applied the rational basis test, they probably would have found that one of those reasons would pass the test (although 'tradition' alone sometimes isn't enough).

1 - see 14th amendment, you can't use that reason.
2 - over the last 30 years i've seen almost no stories of gay couples abusing children compared to single or hetero couples abusing children
3- wonders of modern technology
4 - i don't get it
5- see #4

[Breakfast with Girls]

Originally Posted by Xander

So proud to be from Iowa today. YAY!

Why? The VOTERS were the ones who tried to make it illegal. If anything, you should just be proud of the Iowa Supreme Court.

[Red Dog]

Actually, it was the legislature, not the voters. This was a statute, not a referendum/ballot initiative like California.

Now the next step is whether the voters will directly decide the issue.

But yeah, it doesn't negate that it is the Court alone that deserves thanks.

[classicman2]

IMHO, equality is a wonderful thing.

[classicman2]

Originally Posted by CWFreeze

I just had a flashback to the bar exam.......

That's all we need - another lawyer on the forum.

Welcome!

[Breakfast with Girls]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

Actually, it was the legislature, not the voters. This was a statute, not a referendum/ballot initiative like California.

Now the next step is whether the voters will directly decide the issue.

But yeah, it doesn't negate that it is the Court alone that deserves thanks.

Ah, my mistake. I seriously doubt the result would have been any different if it were decided by referendum, though.