As Goes Iowa…

by | Dec 2, 2014 | 0 comments

How did our neighboring state 90 minutes west achieve marriage equality? Tamara Packard reviews their Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion.

Real estate just got hot in Iowa! Wisconsin same-sex couples wishing to relocate to where they may legally marry might consider hopping the border, saying “I do,” and settling down. On April 3, 2009 the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health that the Iowa Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the laws entitles same-sex couples the right to civil marriage. By the time you read this, gay and lesbian couples will likely be exercising that right, a mere 90 minutes from Madison. How did this happen, and what does it mean for Wisconsin same-sex couples?

In 1998, the Iowa legislature amended Iowa’s marriage statutes to define marriage as a union between only a man and a woman. Unlike Wisconsin, however, Iowa’s legislature left intact its Constitution, including its promise of equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Six Iowa same-sex couples petitioned the Iowa courts, asserting that the 1998 statute violated the Iowa Constitution’s centuries old guarantee of equal protection.

The Iowa Supreme Court agreed and issued a unanimous decision written for regular people, not just lawyers, to read and understand. Most importantly, the Court’s opinion elegantly and convincingly rejects the usual arguments we often hear from our opposition. It is such a pleasure to read this opinion! I urge you to do so (it is available on the internet, including at www.ourlivesmadison.com). Here is a small taste of what you will find:

Addressing the oft-heard claim that marriage bans don’t discriminate against gays and lesbians “because they are allowed to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex,” the Iowa Supreme Court said this:

It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all.

In order to prove that the 1998 statute was not merely borne of prejudice and stereotype against gays and lesbians (and therefore in violation of Iowa’s equal protection clause), the state had to show that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage is substantially related to an important government objective. One claim made by the state was that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was substantially related to the important government objective of ensuring optimal rearing of children. In other words, denying us the right to marry would somehow be good for kids. The Court rejected that claim, and made this beautiful observation:

If the statute was truly about the best interest of children, some benefit to children derived from the ban on same-sex civil marriage would be observable. Yet, the germane analysis does not show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban.

The Iowa Supreme Court deserves special praise for addressing the pink elephant in the room: religious opposition to same-sex civil marriage. The state was not foolish enough to advance this as a reason for the statute, but the Court recognized that much citizen opposition to marriage equality is fueled by religious sentiment. The Court also recognized, however, that many other equally religious Iowans support marriage for same-sex couples. The Court explained that neither religious perspective had a place in its resolution of the dispute: “Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them.” It explained that constitutional principles, not religious principles, must resolve the debate:

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. … civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.

For those of us staying in Wisconsin*, civil marriage equality in Iowa means little more than it does in California, Spain, or Sweden: big picture progress, but no concrete changes. While Iowa has no residency requirement (although it does have a 3-day waiting period to obtain a marriage license), Wisconsin’s government will not recognize a same-sex marriage formed in Iowa. And, in theory, Wisconsinites who to go Iowa, marry, and then return home could perhaps be charged with a misdemeanor for violating Wisconsin’s “marriage evasion” statute. This is a law that, especially now, should be repealed. Those in Wisconsin who oppose marriage equality are well-protected so long as Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment remains in place. We should be able to travel in Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa with the legal protections those states would provide with an Iowa marriage license without fear of doing time at home.

*Editor’s Note: This article was written in 2009. Since then, marriage for LGBT people has become legal here in Wisconsin and several other states.

 

Article Tags

Rutabaga - Memorial Day
Rutabaga - Summer

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Rutabaga - Memorial Day
Rutabaga - Summer

Latest News

Still She Rises

Still She Rises

Treated as a “bad Black girl” in school, Shyra-Sekani Adams found her voice and purpose by leading Freedom, Inc.’s Freedom Youth Squad.

Taking a Swing

Taking a Swing

Badgerland Softball Women’s+ Commissioner Jess Wreczycki recounts finding the league before she was out and how it contributed to her growth as a person and in community.

Our Readers: Neal Ellis

Our Readers: Neal Ellis

Hi! You look familiar. Have we met before? If not, my name is Neal. My pronouns are he/him. You may have seen me either at your local gay watering hole, jogging around the city, or on a volleyball court in a park near you. I am so pleased to be featured here because...

Sashe Mishur

Sashe Mishur

Sashe Mishur was a fierce femme who was never afraid to fight for a just cause or to defend the butches that she loved. Her organizing started in the 1940s with a petition on a roll of cash register tape, protesting the raising of Saturday matinee prices at the Coral...

Money Where It Matters

Money Where It Matters

As Dane County’s first and only funder dedicated to supporting LGBTQ+ projects, the New Harvest Foundation has been advancing LGBTQ advocacy for 38 years.

Donna Biddle

Donna Biddle

Donna Biddle died on February 24. She was my friend of almost 50 years. If my memory serves me, I first met Donna and her partner Phyllis Andersen at Lysistrata. Lysistrata played a large role in Donna’s life, especially after the feminist restaurant cooperative...

Latest News

VIEW ALL LATEST NEWS

Vivent Health - PrEP
Quigley
Atlas Counseling
Forward Fertility

Events

SUBMIT AN EVENT

Sat 28

Madtown Scrumdown 2022

May 27 - May 30
Sat 28

HOT SUMMER GAYS – y2queer

May 28 @ 10:00 pm
Sun 29

Drag Bingo for OutReach

May 29 @ 2:00 pm
Sun 29

VIEW ALL EVENTS

Jobs

SUBMIT A JOB POSTING

VIEW ALL JOBS

Popular Tags

Pin It on Pinterest