The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that the state law excluding same-sex couples from marriage denies them equal protection. I've just read the opinion, and have a couple of preliminary thoughts.
This is the first opinion that has upheld gay marriage unanimously. All of the other state court opinions, from Hawaii in 1993 through California have been divided.
The opinion is a careful exercise in logic. It is easy for judges to get carried away with grand pronouncements and inflated rhetoric for the ages. Most issues that come before even state supreme courts tend to be mundane legal matters, and whatever can be said of same-sex marriage, it is not mundane - nor will the opinion go unnoticed. For the most part, the Iowa decision avoids the temptation to get stagey and grand, and that is welcome.
The core of the decision rests on this single paragraph, which sums up the reasoning lesbians and gay men have been offering for decades now:
"Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all."
This, of course, makes all the sense in the world to us, but the fact that it requires explaining to others shows why equal protection is a necessary constitutional protection.
We have come a long way since 1971, when the Minnesota Supreme Court decided, in a fourteen paragraph opinion, that no right to same-sex marriage could even be considered, because marriage is simply defined as a union between a man and a woman, period. Those brief paragraphs stand in start contrast to the 70 pages in this opinion, the 160 (including concurrences and dissents) of California, and the acres of paperage devoted to all of the other more recent cases on this issue.
From the unanimous rejection of our claims 28 years ago to today's unanimous acceptance of our arguments, this country (and, increasingly, the world) are seriously considering what marriage is, and what real reasons there might be for excluding same-sex couples from its legal obligations and protections. This opinion, like the others that have preceded it, will not end the discussion, either in Iowa or anyplace else. But the fact we are able to have the discussion now is tribute to a culture that is willing to think through its legal structures, and ask questions of itself.
The Iowa opinion not only asks those questions, but takes the time to think through the answers - and shows its work. You may agree or disagree, but unlike the first opinions on same-sex marriage, you have some reasoning to agree or disagree with. And for a group like gays where even today Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the law and practice in too many areas, this is progress.
***Correction***
I have had my arithmetic gently but firmly corrected in a Comment -- it's been 38 years since 1971, not 28. I'm leaving the original up to try and discipline myself.
8 Comments for “Iowa!”
posted by Bryan on
“From the unanimous rejection of our claims 28 years ago to today?s unanimous acceptance of our arguments…”
Don’t you mean 38 years ago? (Sorry for being a stickler!)
posted by David Link on
Obviously a spillover from the ten years that keep mysteriously disappearing from my own claims about how hold I am. . .
posted by TS on
I will be reading the entire constitution of the State of Iowa tonight. Unless I see something in there about equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation, I will declare this decision another disastrous attempt to circumvent the instruments of government. In the unlikely event that that their reasoning is the result of good, constructionistic constitutional logic, then I will point out that the justices have only been kind enough to point out to the good people of Iowa that they urgently need to change their constitution.
When the liberal experts of jurisprudence or social science and the authoritarian commanders of the state find themselves in disagreement, guess which side wins?
This is only a pathetic attempt to delay people’s learning that if they want what they want out of life, they need smaller and more decentralized government to provide a civilization that will allow them all to live how they like. Instead of helping us to re-learn the lesson of what constitutinal governance is really all about, these justices are just going to end up ensuring that we live in a world where the constitution is just a means to an end instead of an elevated charter specifying what domains Caesar can and cannot rightfully rule.
posted by Bryan on
I live in Minnesota and now we are in a very unique position: If we travel across our northern or southern borders, gays have full marriage rights. But the states on our eastern and western borders have discrimination enshrined in their state constitutions. I am just hoping that the Iowa decision will be the catalyst which will finally bring marriage equality to Minnesota for good.
posted by Carl on
Given the intense, very blatant, and very effective efforts in Hawaii to make sure the legislature didn’t even pass civil unions, and the apparently failed efforts to pass gay marriage in Vermont’s legislature, I’m growing more and more pessimistic that any legislature will ever pass gay marriage. If that can’t happen, then I’m not sad to see gay marriage in a state where the issue can’t come on the ballot for at least a few years.
posted by esurience on
Carl,
Vermont *has* passed a bill to allow gays and lesbians to marry (although I believe it needs to go through a reconciliation process now because the Senate/House bills differ), but unfortunately the governor plans to veto the bill and it appears the House may be just a few votes shy of being able to override.
Also, the California legislature has passed a bill to allow gays and lesbians to marry, but Gov. Arnold vetoed it on Constitutional grounds due to Prop 22 (“The Knight Initiative”, a law passed by voters in 2000).
AND, The New Hampshire House recently passed a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry, but the Senate has yet to vote on it (and it faces a likely veto by the governor there).
So, there’s been a lot of progress (not enough to have tangible results yet, but progress nonetheless), and not just judicially. But we certainly have a ways to go.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, I’ll read it and I hope you’re right. I really couldn’t stomach those sweeping pronouncement rulings.
If it’s true, could it be the start of a precedent that ends with the Supreme Court?
posted by jamesnimmo on
Marriage-equality Massachusetts withstood a similar process as will undoubtedly be the case in Iowa. We’ll have to do our best in making sure progressive candidates are elected to vote in our favor.