Iowa Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

[ThetaDancer]

Big news from Iowa today:

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

"We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded."

[Kevin]

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.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[CutiePie2000]

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

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.

[Taualumna]

Congrats, Iowa.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

[KSig RC]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

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! ]

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Are homosexuals a protected class in Iowa? [ETA: I guess this seems silly after this ruling because clearly they are now but was there precedence for that position in Iowa before this ruling? EATA: Nevermind, I looked and they were 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.]

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

[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.