What misinformation was used in California? I didn't pay that much attention until after the vote.

ETA: I think civil unions for everyone makes a lot of sense. But I was never really bothered by the idea of gay marriage either. Judges finding new applications of civil rights in documents that previously weren't thought to contain them and that go against both tradition and the opinion of the majority is unsettling however. While I agree that the outcomes of such actions previously generally yielded outcomes, like integration of schools, that I view as necessary and positive, other issues like abortion are less clear cut. I don't think courts being out in front on this is a good thing. While the political parties can get a lot of mileage out of this wedge issue, I don't think that it's good for the rest of us.

When I get more time, I'll link some of the commercials on YouTube - essentially it was public fear-mongering, including the implication that the wording of the law would prevent churches from doing church-like things, or require them to participate in things they weren't comfortable doing, or that it would lead to disastrous implications in things like educational planning. Very bizarre stuff, only loosely tied to an insane reading of the law as written.

I don't see the Court as "out in front" on anything here, because the Court's job is to determine matters of law, not matters of opinion or societal drift. Here, it's pretty basic that homosexuality is a covered class, and that banning marriage by a protected class violates the plain language of the law.

For me, the Court is the body that doesn't have to pay attention to polls or society's development or leanings - it has the text plus common sense plus precedent/implication to inform itself. There's an entirely different body meant to be responsive to the whims of the population: the legislature, who can decide that 30-some% of Iowans (the number who actively oppose gay marriage in all forms) should carry the day, and as such, the law should be changed accordingly.

Remember too that the law is organic - it is a living document, and new challenges and applications will arise all of the time. Interpreting how laws interact with these new challenges is one of the very basic duties of the judicial branch. Maybe the Iowa civil rights laws weren't passed with homosexuality in mind, but under the definitions used, homosexuality fits, so there's no choice but to make a determination of law, regardless of the popularity of the interpretation. Without a single dissent, this one seems less like activism and more like common sense.

Maybe I'm misreading, but is seemed like the issue in Iowa was specific to marriage, which the majority do oppose. The editorial suggested people think of what is being offered as simply civil unions, but that wasn't the language of the ruling, and it's the language of "marriage" that seems to be so critical to whether it's supported by a minority or a majority.
[EATA: Nevermind, I looked and homosexuals were a protected class before this case. I basically take back what I said about the Iowa court being out in front. The ruling seems pretty in keeping with the laws people in Iowa already passed, even if they didn't realize they would extend to SSM. I love the table provided here of protected classes:http://www.state.ia.us/government/crc/ Go straightforward Midwesterners! Putting a table out of exactly who and how you can't discriminate against! ]

The ruling definitely uses "marriage" - likely because that's what the law current uses as its language, rather than with any intent on the part of the Court other than reflecting the wording of the law.

The nature of the beast, as it were, is that there is probably no functional difference between how the ruling uses this term and how everyone else uses the term "civil union" casually. Whether the Democrats can defend this view and convince people, versus the Republicans' ability to hammer away at that large 30% caught in the middle of a semantic crossfire, will be fascinating.

Ultimately, though, I can't see the relatively laissez-faire population of the state, which is surprisingly heading Libertarian on the whole, getting all that riled up over what are effectively religious connotations, especially with civil rights kind of in "vogue" among semi-urban and suburban populations.

Yeah, exactly - reasonable people can certainly disagree over terminology or whatever, but the ruling is so straight-forward it's astounding. Common sense, almost.

I'd agree with what you said about the role of the courts and the legislature. But I'm having a little trouble with the above.

The Iowa case didn't arise under Iowa civil rights law, nor is it basic that homosexuality is a "covered class." (Do you mean "suspect class" or do you mean "covered/protected" under Iowa civil rights laws?) Courts have gone both ways on whether it is a suspect or semi-suspect class, and the many pages devoted to showing how the Iowa Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to "heightened scrutiny" (without deciding whether they belong to a suspect class as such) suggest that it isn't clear. (In other words, why would it take so many pages to explain a conclusion that is "basic"?)

The court's decision is that the same-sex marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution, not the Iowa civil rights law, and it doesn't rely on the plaintiffs' status as members of a "protected" class. Suspect or semi-suspect, yes, but "protected" under civil rights laws doesn't translate neatly to an equal protection analysis. At most, it may be a factor to take into account in determining what level of scrutiny applies.

While the Iowa Supreme Court's opinion appears to be well-reasoned and was unanimous, it is not difficult for me to imagine that the supreme courts of other states might, in well-reasoned and unanimous decisions, reach exactly the opposite conclusion in interpreting their own equal protection clauses.

Yeah, I was using shorthand, which is poor form when describing a legal ruling - running into terms of art is poor, and wasn't my intention. Homosexuals do have a good number of rights under IA civil rights laws, but that clearly wasn't the basis for this decision. It's also obviously unique to Iowa.

However, I'm not sure that the large amount of text isn't simply CYA for a hot-button issue, but I'll admit to having only scanned it and will reserve the right to change my mind based on close reading.

And I have absolutely no problem with that - in fact, I both agree totally and have no problem with states amending their Constitutions and EPCs to avoid this very reading. I'm just saying that in this case, with the specific EPC in question, it seems like a very straight-forward interpretation, even without much in the way of historical precedent.

Iowa does seem to have a . . . uniquely worded . . . equal protection clause, at least as compared to others with which I'm familiar.

(NOTE: This is purely anecdotal, so I don't want anyone to take it as gospel . . . )

There's always been some impression/speculation that certain key members of the legislature with much more . . . sophisticated (and, potentially, legal) backgrounds have pushed through wording on certain issues that took advantage of a relative lack of foresight by other members of the assembly, many of whom have traditionally been rural businessmen or one-issue community leaders.

I'm not saying that is what has happened here, but the wording is hilariously inclusive, almost "feel-goody" in a sense.

Add Maine to the list, with New Hampshire's House passing gay marriage today... If the governor of NH signs it (it already passed in their senate) then Rhode Island will be the last New England state to have not legalized Gay Marriage...

However the NH governor is against the bill, he might still sign it since it passed with majority or let the bill sit until it automatically passed without his signature...

Unfortunate.

Nice work, Maine!!!

Agreed!

Lastly Rhode Island...
 

If New Hampshire passes, then that leaves Little Rhody all alone in New England...

Rhode Island is actually one of the few states left that really haven't changed *anything* legally in the last 10 years on the subject. About the only thing they've had is an Atty General stating that Gay marriages in Massachusetts would be recognized in Rhode Island.

I just realized that, Rhode Island is the last one. In some ways it kind of makes sense...Rhode Island is one of the more conservative of the New England states (although probably not as conservative as Maine).

ETA: Of course, gay marriage isn't really a conservative/liberal issue, but it's still kind of interesting how it's all played out.