Iowa Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

. . . 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.

. . . 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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

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...

[deepimpact2]

Unfortunate.