A message from the Iowa Supreme Court

[ckd]

The Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous ruling on their same-sex marriage case just came out. (Thanks to tacithydra for pointing me at it.)

ETA: Of course, while I was reading it and writing this post, it's been mentioned a whole bunch of times on my flist. With, unsurprisingly, much joy.

There are some really good bits; I'm only going to quote a few of them, but the whole thing merits reading; it's written clearly enough for a lay audience.

A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.

and

We begin with the County’s argument that the goal of the same-sex marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu. In pursuit of this objective, the statutory exclusion of gay and lesbian people is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the sexual-orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or “overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences” of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial relationship to some important objective.

and

Gay and lesbian persons are capable of procreation. Thus, the sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome.

and

Indeed, under the County’s logic, more state resources would be conserved by excluding groups more numerous than Iowa’s estimated 5800 same-sex couples (for example, persons marrying for a second or subsequent time).

It's not quite as snarky as some judicial writing I've seen (like the one requiring two attorneys to play rock-paper-scissors to determine a hearing location IIRC) but there's definitely a taste of "WTF! Did you think that argument actually works?" at times.

This ruling really takes on all the anti-SSM arguments like that; I can see this being more influential in the long term than Goodridge.

Comments

[lbmango.livejournal.com]

And it will take at least 2-3 years for the Iowans to reverse it...

I have no doubt that they will, but 2-3 years of equality is better than nothing?

[ckd]

I'm cautiously optimistic on that one. I think that if Prop 8 had had to start the campaign after the ruling (delaying it by even a year), it would have failed. Yeah, Iowa isn't California, but looking at how the anti-SSM folks lost support over time here in Massachusetts I think there's a reasonable chance Iowa will turn out similarly.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Yeah, "cautiously optimistic" is about right; about the most I can manage, that is.

The more places that have had gay marriage, and the longer, the more examples can be exhibited that the world did NOT come to an end, that het marriage was not particular affected, etc. Even some of the strongest knee-jerk reactions can be overcome by enough years of actual data (*some*, I said; not "all", not even I'm afraid "most").

[lbmango.livejournal.com]

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm looking forward to being surprised, but ... yeah.

[ckd]

Massachusetts "lucked out" by having an extended amendment process, complete with a two-session legislative portion. Requiring at least 50 votes in a 200-seat combined session to continue (if it's an amendment by petition, as this was) is a sufficiently low bar to let things get on the ballot under most circumstances while still letting the legislature block measures with too little support to reach even that threshold. Note that nine legislators changed their minds, in addition to those seats that changed hands between the first and second votes. (Some of those seats changed from "pro-amendment" to "anti-amendment"; I'm pretty sure none went the other way.)

Apparently Iowa's process is similar, though it may require majority passes in each of two sessions rather than just a partial threshold.

California's amendment process is just insane.

[penknife.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic, because the process for amending the Iowa constitution is so hard -- they would need a majority vote in both the state House and state Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions to get a referendum on the ballot. The Iowa Senate is 32-18 Democratic, so it's going to be interesting for the anti-marriage folks to try to get a majority vote there two years running.

[dominika-kretek.livejournal.com]

The extra time allowed for political engagement and mobilization. The bar for getting on the ballot was pretty low, but with enough wheeling and dealing and some successful electoral challenges, activists persuaded enough legislators to keep it off. In 2004, it was considered a foregone conclusion that the constitution would be amended.

Several years of exposure to same-sex marriage without the sky falling also helped, without question. But nothing speaks to politicians like seeing electoral consequences.

It will take a SCOTUS ruling to get same-sex marriage in places like Alabama, though.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

The SCOTUS would only have to rule that the Full Faith and Credit Clause means precisely what it says.

[yarram.livejournal.com]

Don't bet on its current incarnation being unbigoted enough to actually do that.

[chenoameg.livejournal.com]

I don't consider it luck that the founders of our commonwealth made it difficult to amend the state constitution.

[ckd]

I don't really think it's luck, hence the scare quotes. I'm still glad that only one amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution has ever taken away rights. (2000's change that took the vote from serving felons.)

[marphod.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't bet either way, really.

Having lived there, I found a lot to complain about the state, but I don't recall that I found the state to lack a socially progressive attitude.

Also, currently, both houses have a democrat majority, and the governor is also a democrat. Which makes the introduction of an amendment less likely. As does Iowa's history of being socially progressive, which the decision calls out.

Nod to this

[drwex]

Iowa, despite being distinctly midwest and "corn belt" has had a long-standing progressive streak. Tom Harkin (in my mind) epitomizes that kind of Democrat.

The ruling is heart-warming. I do believe that each of these things is a small crack in the dam and that eventually the dam will burst.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Thank you for these excerpts. *makes a note*

[ckd]

You should read the full opinion; it's very well written. (And, as you can see from the third quote above, they correctly use the serial comma. Another reason to like them!)

[yarram.livejournal.com]

I agree, it's very well-written and clearly-argued (even if the incorrect use of "less" vs. "fewer" made me wince).

[julesjones]

Quite apart from the obvious reason to like this ruling, I am always up for a fine bit of entertainment from annoyed judges getting *snarky*. :-)

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

I really liked some of the excerpts you posted, especially the second one about under- and over- inclusiveness.