This just happened. I haven’t read the opinion, but here is a release from the Court (pdf) summarizing it. The full opinion is here. I don’t know anything about the procedure to amend the Iowa Constitution (or to replace Supreme Court justices); I suspect we’ll all learn more about that quite soon.
Money quote:
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 legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution.
laurel says
love it.
<
p>as for amendments, iowa is like mass. an amendment would need approval of 2 legislatures, then go to the vote. so even if they promoted one this session (NOT going to happen), the earliest it could get to voters would be 2012. i’d say iowas is pretty safe. the dems are in power and so far have shown no interest in the gop gotv circus called hate amendments.
christopher says
From the Iowa Constitution:
<
p>”Terms–judicial elections. SEC. 17. Members of all courts shall have such tenure in office as may be fixed by law, but terms of supreme court judges shall be not less than eight years and terms of district court judges shall be not less than six years. Judges shall serve for one year after appointment and until the first day of January following the next judicial election after the expiration of such year. They shall at such judicial election stand for retention in office on a separate ballot which shall submit the question of whether such judge shall be retained in office for the tenure prescribed for such office and when such tenure is a term of years, on their request, they shall, at the judicial election next before the end of each term, stand again for retention on such ballot. Present supreme court and district court judges, at the expiration of their respective terms, may be retained in office in like manner for the tenure prescribed for such office. The general assembly shall prescribe the time for holding judicial elections.”
<
p>They can also be impeached and removed similarly to federal procedure.
southshorepragmatist says
Another case of those Godless, East Coast-liberal elites destroying the fabric of this country.
<
p>Wait… Iowa?
<
p>Cornfields, flannel shirts, middle-America Iowa?
<
p>Well as a wise man once said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
<
p>:)
sabutai says
Oddly gratifying to see Iowa slip ahead of California on the leading edge of history.
eury13 says
Vermont’s house passed gay marriage 95-43. However, to override an expected veto from the Governor, they need 100 votes.
<
p>A few Dems have said they would vote to override a veto even if they didn’t vote for the bill. I wonder if this move from Iowa will provide them with a little more political cover?
laurel says
it is up for 3rd reading today, so there are still opportunities for moving more votes over to our side. also, they only need 2/3 of legislators present to override a veto. so 100 will assure us of a veto-proof vote, but it may not be necessary if fewer than 150 are present for “the” vote.
laurel says
<
p>h/t Pam
christopher says
…that the Speaker and Senate President are asking why it took so long. If they are as supportive as the statement makes them out to be, certainly they were in a position to act legislatively. Would legislation have been vetoed or did they fear political backlash?
theopensociety says
And I am proud to say I went there. As someone who grew up in so-called liberal Massachusetts, Iowa in the mid-1980s was like a breath of fresh air to me. It seemed far more progressive in so many ways than back here at the time. Good for the Iowa Supreme Court.
stomv says
afertig says
Incidentally, the same day in history as when in 1968, Martin Luther King gave his “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech. (n/t)
bluefolkie says
One of the interesting pieces of this story is that the ruling was unanimous, unlike court rulings in other states considering the issue. I hope the decision will give courage to legislators in Vermont,New Hampshire, Maine and New Jersey-it’s powerful stuff, full of Iowa common sense and decency.
city-councilor-mike-ross says
The Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling has brought legal gay marriage to the Midwest. I am encouraged to see this great victory come to a place not considered one of the “blue” states. Maybe this will be the step that America needs to realize that equal marriage rights is not the purview of so-called “activist judges,” but rather is a basic human right, a source of dignity, justice, and basic fairness. I hope more courts and more legislators around the nation begin to realize this.
<
p>Like in Massachusetts, change came to Iowa because of the courage of those couples who filed the original lawsuit. They stood up and fought for equal rights in the face of intense pressure. Those couples who stood up for their rights here in Massachusetts have set an example nationwide, and I sincerely applaud and thank them for their contributions to the nation. I hope that this decision by Iowa’s court shows the rest of the country what we here in Massachusetts already know: That there is no reason that gay couples should be denied the right to marry their partner and have all the rights that heterosexual couples take for granted.
ryepower12 says
this ain’t going away, folks.
<
p>Like Massachusetts, it’s a two year process to change the constitution. I also believe that it requires a majority of the vote, whilst the House and Senate in Iowa are controlled by Democrats, who have voted unanimously against constitutionally banning same-sex marriage in the past, with several moderate Republicans joining them.
<
p>So, no matter what, Iowa has marriage equality for two full years – so they’ll be able to see the sky won’t fall. More likely, it’s there forever.
ryepower12 says
I meant to include this video on my previous post. whoops.
<
p>
stomv says
I know the law strike-down is effective in 21 days, say April 24. I also know that the Iowa leg is in session and could try something between now and then. The Democratic IA House and Senate leaders have indicated that they don’t plan on anything coming through over the next three weeks…
<
p>Still, I don’t believe that it’s as simple as marriage licenses being approved in late April. At the risk of sounding naive, it just seems too easy when viewed at 10,000 feet.
<
p>On another note, what about legislative backlash? Does it look like the Dems will lose a large number of seats in 2010? IA ain’t MA, after all. Also, what about the Iowa Supremes? Are they elected? If so, when’s their next race?
<
p>
<
p>The longer between the issuance of the first marriage license and the next election, the better. After all, the longer people have to adjust to the reality that gay marriage doesn’t have a negative societal impact on heterosexuals, the less energy the antis- will be able to muster in that next election. Of course, if Iowa politicians survive gay marriage, it will give courage to more politicians in other states.
<
p>FYI, the IA Senate has 4 year terms, elections for 50% of the body every two years. The Majority Leader was elected in 2008, so he’s got some time. Same with the Senate President. The IA House has 2 year terms, so there’ll be a 2010 battle.
<
p>The IA Senate is 32:18 D:R. By my count, in 2010 there will be 19 Dems and 6 GOPs up for reelection in the Senate. The IA House is 56:44. Now I have no idea what the folks in Iowa are saying or thinking, but if there’s widespread unhappiness with the ruling, I could imagine the Dems losing both the House and the Senate. Of course, the governor is also up in 2010. If folks are generally unhappy with Obama two years in (not unusual historically speaking) and unhappy with the ruling, we could see Iowa turn really red in state politics in 2010.
<
p>That’s not to say that I’m upset with the Dems; quite the contrary. I can only hope that assorted Dem/Lib/Prog groups can offer the Iowa Dems some serious support in 2010… I’ll bet they’re gonna need it.
joeltpatterson says
Scott Lemieux points out the Iowa Court’s response to Nino:
This is awesome. The Iowa Court has called out the circular logic of “the government must protect a bigoted tradition by writing a bigoted tradition into law.”
<
p>Of course, for bigots, bigotry is is own reward.
<
p>And that’s why it’s nice to have an equal protection clause… to keep the bigotry out of the laws.