Kate and Trish Varnum

Kate and Trish Varnum

Kate and Trish Varnum, Cedar Rapids residents and lead plaintiffs in a lawsuit that questions the constitutionality of the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act, are still shocked when they see their names in the newspaper. They have a difficult time grasping the fact that whether or not their case is successful in allowing same-sex couples to marry, their names have become a thread in the fabric of Iowa history.

“I knew that when we first started this that we were going to be making history, but I don’t think I’ve ever considered it since then,” Trish Varnum said.

“It was exciting and it was new. But now? I just want to get married. I don’t care about the history books — they aren’t my focus.”

The Varnums were two of many who spoke Wednesday night at a Cedar Rapids forum hosted by Lambda Legal, a national gay and transgendered legal advocacy group, and One Iowa, a statewide equality task force. The forum, one of many being held throughout the state, comes on the heels of oral arguments made before the Iowa Supreme Court on Tuesday morning in a case challenging the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act.

In December 2005, the Varnums joined five other couples who had been denied marriage licenses and filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court. Nearly two years later, in August 2007, that court ruled that wording within the Iowa Code that defined marriage as between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. Polk County attorneys appealed the decision, and a stay was granted the following day to preserve the status quo.

The status quo, according to the Varnums, is simply not working. Despite having gone through the legal system to set up Powers of Attorney and other documents intended to protect their relationship, the two described several instances in which the documents were either questioned or ignored– instances they believe would have gone routinely had they had a legally recognized marriage.

“Trish was sitting in the exam room in her hospital gown and pleading for the medical team to let me come in and be with her,” Kate Varnum said about her partner’s recent surgery.

“We spent so much money to get all of these little rights that other committed couples get with a marriage license.”

Linda and Dave Langston

Linda and Dave Langston

Linda Langston, a county supervisor in Linn County, waved off emotions as she spoke about the different futures she sees for her two sons if the current law stands.

“My marriage of 33 years is something that’s very important in my life,” she said. “So these discussions make me sad because I hope for both of my children that they have that same opportunity in life — to be married, to have that important, significant-other relationship. It also angers me because I can’t believe that anybody who has been a parent, or a brother, or a sister would say, ‘I don’t ever want you to be able to have this.’”

It’s bittersweet, Langston said, to watch as her sons have grown and are now embarking upon their lives as independent adults.

“I watch [my older son's] excitement and joy as sees his younger brother in a relationship that will likely lead to marriage,” she said.

“He talks to me about his own hopes and aspirations about someday meeting someone and having his own marriage. He desperately wants children … but he wants to be in a committed relationship before he takes that step.”

No one at the forum was willing to offer speculation as to how the court might rule, but most said they were optimistic.

“We were very encouraged by the justices,” Kate Varnum, who was in the courtroom during oral arguments, said.

“We feel that they gave us a very fair hearing and, of course, we are very excited about the possibility of being married.”