You didn’t believe me that Iowa was progressive?
By now everyone knows about the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion invalidating our legislature’s gay marriage ban. This decision makes me proud to be an Iowan and reaffirms my inherent faith in humanity (and I say neither of these things lightly). While plenty in our state are already calling for a constitutional amendment (which Democratic governor Chet Culver said he is “reluctant” to entertain, and which is a rather drawn-out process, especially compared to California) and lamenting “activist judges,” I’ve been running across a fair amount of support for the validity of Varnum v. Brien [pdf] as the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion and a model opinion in its clarity of purpose. Some examples:
Constitutional Law Prof Blog
New York Times editorial
Religious Dispatches
Wall Street Journal “Why Gay Marriage Matters”
Since the Iowa ruling, Vermont and D.C. also took steps to recognize same-sex marriage.
A statement by Iowa’s Senate Majority Leader perhaps best sums up why I still stick up for Iowa:
“Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.
“In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.
“In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
“In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
“In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.
“In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.”
Finally, as a law student, it was pretty awesome, albeit a little nerdy, to read an opinion of such historic relevance and 1) understand what’s going on from a procedural standpoint and 2) recall that I had a chance to meet the opinion’s author, Justice Mark Cady last fall at a dinner party at a professor’s house. Sweet.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
My concern is over turning voters. This is a serious move for the judicial branch which is not to be legislative but uphold actual laws. This sends the message that a vote does not matter. This sends the meassage of a ruling class making decisions for the “little” people who do not know better. When votes and actual law are cancelled out by a “ruling” it leads to frustration and unrest.
Comment by Rebecca Renard — April 8, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Thanks for the comment. I understand your concern, but sometimes the job of the judiciary is to uphold rights that even a voting majority of average citizens would strike down. That’s why they are there – to interpret laws passed by the elected majority and see if they unfairly penalize the minority. And that’s what makes this decision progressive – much like early rulings on desegregation and courts that struck down bans on interracial marriage: these things were done at time when the will of the voters may have been to the contrary.
I don’t think that affirming a right that’s inherent in the words of our Federal Constitution infringes on others. Just like other equal protections, I am free to hold whatever views I want and express them as I see fit — there is no law against being racist or homophobic, only against acting on those beliefs in certain ways. What effects can this decision actually have on the heterosexual public? I don’t see the possibility of more openly gay relationships or more gay people in Iowa interfering with any of my or my family’s freedoms.
Comment by Laura Bergus — April 8, 2009 at 2:34 pm