Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down Iowa’s prohibition on same-sex marriage Thursday.
In his 63-page decision, Hanson wrote that the statute excluding same-sex couples from marriage “violates Plaintiff’s due process and equal protection rights for the aforementioned reasons including, but not limited to, the absence of a rational relationship to the achievement of any legitimate governmental interest.” Therefore the law is “unconstitutional and invalid.”
The case was filed by civil rights group Lambda Legal on behalf of six same-sex couples and their families. Each couple was denied a marriage license from Polk County officials on the grounds that they did not meet the gender requirements according to Iowa law.
Plaintiffs argued in court that the gender requirements violate the Iowa Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process and that they inhibit the couples from taking care of each other and their families.
The news was greeted with excitement in Iowa’s GLBT community. “All we can do is keep smiling,” said Robin Butler of Iowa City. She and her partner Janelle Rettig have long been active on the gay marriage issue and hold a marriage license from Canada. For that reason, they were not part of the lawsuit, as it would have presented a less clear legal precedent. “It’s unclear yet whether the state will just go ahead no and recognize ours,” she said.
“This is a huge first step,” said Butler. “We’re not New York, we’re not California, we’re middle of the road Iowa.”
Butler attended arguments in the case. “The Polk County Attorney’s arguments didn’t seem clear, and the plaintiff’s argument was to the point, so we thought, ‘how can you NOT win? But then we thought about all the politics involved.”
According to the AP, Polk County plans to appeal the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court. In the meantime, they will seek a stay of the court’s ruling to prevent same-sex couples from gaining marriage rights before the Supreme Court has made its decision.
“It’s a newer judge, and one thought was that he’d defer it up to the Supreme Court,” said Butler. “I haven’t read the case yet but people tell us it’s a strongly worded opinion. We assume it will not end here.”
Mona Shaw, longtime Iowa civil rights activist, was pleased with the decision. “There’s little that’s more thrilling than when justice and freedom prevail,” said Shaw. “Now we’ll have to wait and see if the hearts and minds of the Iowa’s appellate judges and her legislature will be ruled by bigotry or common sense.”
More analysis below the fold…
John Deeth contributed to this report.Judge Cites US and Iowa Case Law
Citing precedent in his decision, Judge Hanson’s first task was to determine whether the statute “excluding all but different-sex couples from being able to enter into a civil marriage” serves a “legitimate governmental interest.”
The defense presented five interests which they argued were “legitimate governmental interests” served by the current statute. Hanson’s decision rejected the fifth interest presented, which was “promoting the concept of fundamental marriage or the integrity of traditional marriage.”
Citing Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision handed down by the US Supreme Court (based on “its own case law,” not Iowa’s), Hanson noted that “neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.” Preserving tradition for tradition’s sake, therefore, is not a legitimate governmental interest.
Using US Supreme Court case law is justified, Hanson explained, “Because the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution are at least coextensive with those found in the United States Constitution.”
Therefore, the fifth of the interests presented by the defense — the protection of traditional marriage — is not “legitimate.” Hanson deemed the first three interests presented, roughly dealing with “responsible procreation,” and the fourth interest presented, roughly “the conservation of state and private resources,” to be legitimate.
For those interests, Hanson proceeded to the second task before the court: to determine whether the current statute “bears a rational relationship to accomplishment” of the said interests.
Plaintiffs offered admissible evidence intended to prove that denying same-sex couples the right to civil marriage does not bear a rational relationship to accomplishing responsible reproduction. According to Hanson, the defendant did not offer admissible counter-evidence and agreed with many of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Citing Iowa precedent, Hanson decided that “If responsible procreation is the goal, then the institution of marriage should be made available to all couples who can responsible procreate, regardless of whether the couple is traditionally recognized one. The traditional make-up of the family has changed.”
Further, “by excluding all same-sex couples from marriage, the statute actually defeats the purpose of responsible procreation by excluding qualified individuals from marriage,” Hanson wrote. “In addition, their exclusion defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit.”
Of note, Hanson quotes from controversial conservative Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.
On the fourth interest proposed by the defense, plaintiffs submitted affidavits to substantiate claims that there is no rational relationship between denying same-sex couples marriage rights and “conserving state and private resources,” while the defense did not submit any in support of its claim. Therefore Hanson concludes that exclusion of same-sex couples based on this interest “is, once again, arbitrary.”
Hanson’s conclusion states plainly the bottom line:
Couples, such as Plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons comprising such a couple are of the same sex.
Code 595.2(1) must be nullified, severed and stricken from Chapter 595 and all remaining provisions of Chapter 595 must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage pursuant to said chapter.
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter