Iowa Court Rules In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriages

An Iowa trial court ruled today that same-sex couples in that state were deprived of their right to due process and equal protection under the Iowa Constitution when the state refused to issue them marriage licenses. An Iowa state law specifically provided that "only a marriage between a female and a male is valid." The trial court found that the state law excluding same-sex couples from marriage stigmatized their relationships and families and made them more vulnerable in comparison to heterosexual couples. "Through the marriage exclusion the State devalues and delegitimizes at the very core of the adult Plaintiff's sexual orientation and expresses, compounds, and perpetuates the stigma historically attached to homosexuality, for them and all gay persons," the trial court judge ruled. "Plaintiffs are continually reminded of their own and their family's second-class status in daily interactions in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools and other arenas in which their relationships and families are poorly or unequally treated, or are not recognized at all," the court said.

Under Iowa's Constitution, the trial court determined that marriage is a fundamental right, which requires a strict scrutiny analysis, unlike the less rigorous rational basis analysis applied under Indiana's Constitution. Strict scrutiny shifts the burden of proving the constitutionality of the law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples to the state. The trial court judge noted that Iowa courts have been at the forefront in preserving civil rights of their citizens in areas such as race, gender and sexual orientation. The court analogized its ruling extending the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples to similar court decisions striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriages, noting there had not been a historical tradition of interracial marriages either before miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional. Arguments that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was necessary to promote procreation, stability in opposite-sex marriages and preserving traditional marriage were rejected by the court as a compelling state interest in the state's law. Accordingly, the state law failed on due process grounds.

Similarly, the court found the state's marriage law violated the equal protection rights of Iowa's same-sex couples. The language of Iowa's equal protection clause is nearly identical to Indiana's equal protection clause. It reads, "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens." Again, unlike Indiana, Iowa applies a more stringent standard in its equal protection cases. Specifically, it applies an intermediate scrutiny analysis, which too shifts the burden to the party seeking to uphold the constitutionality of the statute. The court found that the statute's classification of same-sex couples was not substantially related to an important state interest. Even if it applied a rational basis analysis, the court held that the statute would still fail to pass muster under Iowa's equal protection clause because it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Invariably, folks like Eric Miller and Micah Clark will jump on the Iowa decision as further evidence a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is needed in Indiana. If you take a look at the Morrison v. Sadler decision, a Court of Appeals opinion upholding Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act, you will understand why these folks would be wrong to conclude this. Marriage is not a fundamental right according to the Morrison court. As noted above, Indiana neither applies the strict scrutiny analysis nor the intermediate scrutiny analysis as Iowa courts do when reviewing the constitutionality of a state statute on state due process or equal protection grounds. Instead, Indiana applies a rational basis analysis, which imposes a very heavy burden on a party to prove a state law is unconstitutional under either due process or equal protection grounds. If you look at the case law in this area, you will find only a handful of cases which have ever ruled in favor of a party seeking to overturn a state statute, which is quite striking considering the number of discriminatory laws our state legislature has enacted during its checkered history.