Iowa Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
 

Big news from Iowa today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040303761.html

Hate to be a pessimist here, but politically speaking, the Republican Party of Iowa has just set itself up for a sweep. Not only will they shortly gain complete political power in this state, but they'll also pass a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage.

Don't look for anyone to want to appeal that one to the SCOTUS with the 5-4 that'll probably happen.

That will take until 2010 at the earliest. It has to go through two votes in the legislature and then be put on a ballot for the people to vote on.

I have heard some negative comments, but most people I know have reacted positively. I consider myself to lean more on the conservative side politically, but I wouldn't vote for an amendment to the state constitution making marriage legal to heterosexual couples only.

I feel the same way, but realize that this is a huuuuuuuuge wedge issue. Republicans will do a really good job of getting the church vote out and this thing will pass with flying colors like it did in California. I think here in Oklahoma it passed with 70%+ of the vote. It was kind of embarrassing finding out what a bigoted state I live in.

Congrats, Iowa.

It passed in Michigan too and we're a pretty blue state. Out state (not metro-Detroit) is really red, but this passed by far more than other margins and during a gubernatorial election where we re-elected the female Democrat. This bias against homosexuality is far deeper than party lines. Nonetheless, I'm glad Iowa made some inroads.

I'm pretty indifferent to same sex marriage. I voted against the Georgia Amendment that banned it, but I think there are reasons other than simply a bias against homosexuality that cause people to oppose it. It's a huge social and traditional shift, and some people may simply be uncomfortable with it purely on that level.

While it may seem convenient to frame the issue as purely about bias and hate in hopes that people will support gay marriage because they don't want to be bigots, I think the reaction to prop. 8 in California probably caused more people who were on the fence to turn against SSM than to come around in favor of it.

I think that SSM advocates may be doing more long term damage by pressing the issue now while the reaction to the wedge issue is less likely to be in their favor. In Iowa for instance, I don't think that the people who oppose it will say to themselves, "hey this will take two years to address, let's just forget it." Instead, I think they'll come back in two years with something much more scorched earth on the issue that, if it passes, will set SSM advocates further back than they were today.

I think Americans are becoming gradually more accepting of homosexuality and SSM in particular so waiting ten to 20 years, rather than forcing polarization now, just seems to make sense. Of course, I'm not the one waiting to marry my long term partner.

I don't think this is possible, though, for the reason you mentioned. I can see how it's difficult to be "patient" (using your word) when you're looking for equality. In that instance, patience is equal to more years of feeling like a second class citizen, simply because you were born a certain way.

I'm "indifferent" to the issue, from a political standpoint (it won't cause me to vote or not vote for a candidate based on their beliefs), but again, I can see where people want to advocate for the issue as much as possible.

Yeah, and maybe I'm wrong about how it's affecting public opinion at large. I find myself growing less sympathetic to the issue with the reaction to prop 8, but maybe I'm wrong to generalize.

ETA: I was thinking more about this today and saw this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us...ge.html?ref=us

In these states, public opinion seemed to have shifted and then the legislatures responded. I don't expect there to be much if any backlash, so great.

But when the change is not a reflection of a pervasive change in public opinion but instead, dare I say, judicial activism (isn't "judicial activism" always in the eye of the beholder"), I think there's going to be backlash that causes even worse public reaction.

I was reading earlier about how a pro-prop 8 ad used the language of the San Franciso mayor saying that this is coming "whether you like it or not" to great effect.

I don't think this is unique to SSM. Would abortion have remained an ever present political issue had it been resolved legislatively?

The Equal Rights Amendment for women never passed. We're still waiting to be considered equal citizens. I hope that gay marriage doesn't take as long, but once a state has a constitutional amendment against it, I think it's pretty tough to get rid of that amendment.

Are you seriously comparing women's rights to gay rights?:rolleyes:

Maybe it's just because I work in a male-dominated field and still make more than most of the men I work with, but I don't really see women "suffering injustice" the way I see it for gays...

Admittedly, I can't seem to get my panties in a bunch either way over the issue (I wouldn't care if they legalized gay marriage, but I'm not out crusading for it), but I really think it's unfair to categorize women's rights and gay rights together.

AGDee,

We already are equal citizens which is probably why it never passed. By the time it would have passed, we didn't need it. Can you think of one area that the ERA would have covered that isn't already protected?

In Georgia, our state constitution is apparently pretty easy to amend. I think in a lot of states amendments are pretty common.

I'd just be wary if I were a SSM advocate of pushing the issue too hard while, I think, a federal constitutional amendment banning it could still pass. Sure, it could be repealed later, but it would probably be easier to go a little slower and affect the change state by state once the popular majority was in favor.

If this is something forced on the majority, which I think still oppose it (This article put the percentage favoring it at 30% http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4180335.shtml), I think the backlash will be harder to overcome.

I think there's room for reasonable people, regardless of religious affiliation, to understand that government regulation of marriage isn't exactly important or necessary. In fact, I can't think of one compelling reason for the government to deny or approve of anything marriage-related unless it deals with corner-case wrongs like bestiality or incest. To me, this is supported by the fact that about double the number of people according to national polling support "civil unions" when compared with "marriage."

I'm sure the Iowa GOP will use this as a rallying cry when the issue can finally come to a head (which, given the current legislative calendar, will likely be 2011) - I can't blame them. It'll be interesting to see the Democratic response - the Republican parts of Iowa tend to be heavily of the "get the government smaller and out of my life/personal responsibility/buy American" ilk rather than the Evangelical/religious ilk, and Democratic farm subsidies and pro-union measures made some inroads for them in these areas too. If there's too much bluster, I could see a simple "it's not marriage, it's a civil union, and it's not like there has been a huge influx of gay people anyway" argument carrying the day, even in rural parts of the state.

Much like in California, the GOP will have to rely on a heavy misinformation campaign - with at least two years to see the effects (and time for other states to follow along), that campaign's success is far from guaranteed, especially since there are entirely different sets of motivating characteristics at play in IA compared with CA's prop vote.

The Iowa State Daily had a decent editorial about the issue: here.

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.

Well, i think it is awesome, but it is definitely not over. If enough signatures are gathered in maine, the legislature could be halted until a state-wide vote occurs to see if the people wish to veto the legislature... so it is not all dandy yet...

That is great. Tyra had an amazing show about Gay and Lesbian Rights in America. Definitely a start, I agree.

WOOT! I love it!

California disappointed me today.

Same...

It would have been scary if it had gone the other way. Imagine a court saying that the Constitution was unconstitutional. How absurd would that be? Where do you think the bounds of judicial power should be?

ditto that

I do understand why the justices upheld Prop. 8. and I do understand that it was virtually their only choice. And no, I don't think that judges should be legislating from the bench. But at the end of the day, it still makes me pretty sick that bigotry is constitutional. Maybe disappointed wasn't the right word...because really, who could have expected otherwise...but it was still a sad reminder of the state of the situation.

my thoughts exactly...

Word.

Here's the thing, guys - most of us think that people deserve the same rights across the board. That's cool - however, we also agree there are exceptions . . . felons, the mentally deficient, minors, etc. Each state has the right to decide those exceptions via their own Constitution - and amendments define these things. It would have been puke-inducing to see judges go "nope, the will of the people is stupid, GTFO dorks" - right?