Des Moines, IA— The Iowa Supreme Court has unanimously upheld gays´ right to marry.
"The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," the justices said in a summary of their unanimous decision.
The April 3, 2009 ruling calls for gay marriage to be legally established by the state in three weeks, starting April 24.
The Iowa State Supreme Court has ruled that the state's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, The Des Moines Register reports. That makes Iowa the first state in the Midwest and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages.
The court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that would allow six gay couples there to wed.
Until today, Iowa law said marriage could only be between one man and one woman.
The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005 after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling.
In Dec. 10 arguments to the high court, Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle said Hanson erred in his ruling, which declared the 1998 Iowa Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and threw out several expert witnesses that gay marriage opponents had hoped to use at the trial. Hanson ruled that the witnesses did not qualify as experts on issues relevant to the case.
Sandi Patton-Imani, a lesbian parent and professor in Des Moines, Iowa reacted to the ruling by saying
"Our family is celebrating with great joy at finally being granted full civil rights by the state we live in! My partner, Melanie, and I entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2000. We have two children together, but because Iowa has not recognized our union, we have not been able to fully protect our family. We look forward to having both of our names listed on our children´s birth certificates, as they should be, as their parents. Now we move forward, working to ensure equality for families in all fifty states."
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.
The Politico of Washington DC has called the ruling "A sweeping, total win for the gay-rights side, rejecting any claim that objections to same-sex marriage can be seen as "rational," rejecting a parallel civil union remedy, and pronouncing same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian couples essentially normal."
A couple of excerpts from the ruling:
This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto.
|
Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex. The twelve plaintiffs comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa.
|
In short, for purposes of Iowa´s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation. As indicated above, this distinction cannot defeat the application of equal protection analysis through the application of the similarly situated concept because, under this circular approach, all distinctions would evade equal protection review. Therefore, with respect to the government´s "purpose of "providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons," same—sex couples are similarly situated to opposite—sex couples.
|
The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization. The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and the issue should be left to the Legislature.
