Iowa Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer Amy Lorentzen, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 49 mins ago

DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage Friday in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.

Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.

The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.

The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which could take years to ratify.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," the Supreme Court wrote.

Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."

The Iowa attorney general's office said gay and lesbian couples can seek marriage licenses starting April 24, once the ruling is considered final.

Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who represented gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa."

At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs and said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream."

Plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."

"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.

Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.

"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."

In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.

The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.

The case had been working its way through the courts since 2005, when Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples in Iowa.

"Today, dreams become reality, families are protected and the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality and fairness has been fulfilled," Lambda Legal attorney Camilla Taylor said.

John Logan, a sociology professor at Brown University, said Iowa's status as a largely rural, Midwest state could enforce an argument that gay marriage is no longer a fringe issue.

"When it was only California and Massachusetts, it could be perceived as extremism on the coasts and not related to core American values.

"But as it extends to states like Iowa, and as attitudes toward gay marriage have evidently changed, then people will look at it as an example of broad acceptance," Logan said.

Polk County Attorney John Sarcone said his office will not ask for the case to be reconsidered.

"Our Supreme Court has decided it, and they make the decision as to what the law is, and we follow Supreme Court decisions," Sarcone said.

Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case, Sarcone said.

Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.

"This is an issue that will define (lawmakers') leadership. This is not a side issue."

Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.

Todd Pettys, a University of Iowa law professor, said the state's equal protection clause on which Friday's ruling was based is worded slightly differently than the U.S. Constitution. But Iowa's language means almost "exactly the same thing."

Still, he said, it's difficult to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court would view the issue the same way as the Iowa justices.

Linda McClain, professor at Boston University School of Law, said she doubted Iowa's ruling would be "a realistic blueprint" for the U.S. Supreme Court," particularly considering the court's conservative leadership.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.

Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session.

Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.

___

Associated Press writers Nigel Duara in Urbandale and Marco Santana, Melanie S. Welte, Michael Crumb and Mike Glover in Des Moines contributed to this report.

Now Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage.

to each their own........

It's about time Iowa did something right!

live and let live...i have a two gay male couples that are good friends and both have been together over or near twenty yrs...lol which is longer than any except one of my hetero couple friends...their main concern about not being able to be married in indiana is that in case of a serious health issue, is that someone outside their relationship will most likely make the decision on the care they will or won't recieve...

Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage, said many Iowans are disappointed with the ruling and do not want courts to decide the issue.

"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," English said. He said the group immediately began lobbying legislators "to let the people of Iowa vote" on a constitutional amendment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Isn't this kinda what happened in California. The court ruled in favor and the people then voted to ban?

After what happened there I don't know that I would be all that encouraged just yet. This Mr English says he did not want the courts to decide? Why? because they would be forced to go by the constitution, and not the whim and prejudice of the people?

Would any gay want this to be left up to the people, when straights that support us dwarf those that would sooner see us in hell?

Of course he wants the people to vote on a constitutional amendment. It blows me away how mean spirited people can be and the lengths they would go to prevent gays from marriage.

Their MOURNING? Shaking my head!!

What happens when tons of couples marry now in Iowa, and then since an amendment could take several years, that amendment get's passed? What then, all the couples that were married are no longer married and we start this crap all over again?

Tell me what I am missing and why I should be encouraged about this, if the people can turn around and create an amendment. This sounds a bit angry, but I am not angry, just skeptical.

Government has no business whatsoever, to dictate by the use of a deadly force, who should screw who.

I am glad for the victory of the people in Ohio.

I don't think an amendment like that should be allowed. Who cares if 2 same sex people wish to get married, it doesn't hurt any of them.

Danged good thing I ain't gay.
After all these years of not getting married, having the excuse it wasn't legal. Now they either gonna' have to shlt or get off th' pot.

I'd love to get married someday...Just have to find the right guy.

Bloody hell, before you know it they are gonna give women the right to vote as well!

*sarcasm noted*

Hopefully the people of Iowa will vote to have a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a man and a woman.If they voters of ultra liberal California can do it I am sure Iowa can as well.

Why does it matter? How does it affect anyone in a physical or personal state? Isn't the point of this country freedom and happiness?

Oh, wait...that's right, we are a prison state.

It is about time they suffer like the rest of us.

I've had gay people in my house.

They are not an unwelcome presence into our towns and cities. They are people's children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, brothers, and sisters.

It is good. Finally religion will be taken out of the definition of marriage and all can live happily ever after with whoever they choose or fall in love with as long as they are of age and willing.

I've had gay guys and lesbians for dinner, and went to their house for dinner as well. Seem like normal, fine people to me. But no, we don't want them shoving their tongues down each other throats (much like straight people do daily) or drinking beer with short hair (again, straight people do this)...why not let your children learn about anal sex and every kind of sex the same way all children do...TV...

why should what you (or anyone else) wants out weigh what they want