Whodathunk a solidly Midwestern state would be the next one whose High Court would rule banning gay marriage is unconstitutional? But Iowa’s done it.
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 violated the state constitution.
That was a unanimous ruling, folks.
I haven’t found a breakdown of the makeup of the Supreme Court of Iowa, but I can’t imagine it’s a hotbed of liberality and libertinism. And they basically saw the matter as a straightforward violation of the state’s “equal protection under the law” constitutional provision:
[C]ivil 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. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.
I find it interesting, as well, that the key argument before them was that the lower court judge’s ruling was incorrect, but that it for the legislature to make such a decision, not a judge. The Supremes noted that it was, in fact, their job to determine whether
… a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. The court reaffirmed that 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.
Yup.
The opinion is actually a very good summary of the arguments against gay marriage, and their polite but clear demolition by the court. It’s worth reading.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the Iowa legislature (which in 1998 passed the law explicitly defining marriage as one-man-one-woman) will let the ruling stand. Though it seems unlikely they’re going to get a new constitutional amendment passed any time soon.
The timing of the decision 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.”
Which could set up a California-like situation, where gay couples wed before the legislature (or popular initiative) can act to stop them.
Stay tuned.
(via Doyce and Ginny)
On that last note, evidently in Iowa a state constitutional amendment requires passage by two successive legislatures before it goes to a referendum — meaning no referendum on the matter until 2011 at the earliest. The Democrats currently control the state legislature.
Go go Gadget Legislative Inertia!
This would be a very good issue to see stalled in their legislature by a ‘no action’ action.
Their constitutional amendment process is certainly admirably prone to not willy-nilly using it to make knee-jerk uber-laws (unlike, say, California).
Hooray!