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! ]