Iowa Supreme Court upholds Hanson's ruling; marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays' right to marry. "The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," the justices said in a summary of their decision. The court affirmed a Polk County District Court decision that would allow six gay couples to marry. The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families. The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America. The Iowa Supreme Court's Web site was deluged with more than 350,000 visitors this morning, in anticipation of the ruling, a Judicial Branch spokesman said this morning. Steve Davis, a court spokesman, said administrators added extra computer servers to handle the expected increase in Web traffic. But "this is unprecedented," Davis said. Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, said today's decision could set the stage for other states. Socarides was was a senior political assistant for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin in the early 1990s. "I think it's significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought," Socarides said. "Unlike states on the coasts, there's nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, 'As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.'" It's probable that county and state governments in Iowa, as in other states that have passed gay marriage laws, will be given two or three months to put the change in place. That means that such unions won't begin today, said Justin Uebelhor, director of communications for One Iowa, the state's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered advocacy group. "Typically, it's not immediate, and that's most likely what we'd be looking at in Iowa," Uebelhor said. Opponents have long argued that allowing gay marriage would erode the institution. Some Iowa lawmakers, mostly Republicans, attempted last year to launch a constitutional amendment to specifically prohibit same-sex marriage. Such a change would require approval in consecutive legislative sessions and a public vote, which means a ban would could not be put in place until at least 2012 unless lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks. "If you'll remember when we proposed the Iowa marriage amendment, the Democrats' excuse for not taking it up was that it was in the hands of the Iowa Supreme Court," Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton said Friday. "It was implied that should they find against traditional marriage, that the Legislature would handle that. I would certainly hope they'll keep their promise." Until today, Iowa law said marriage could only be between one man and one woman. The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005 after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples last year but then suspended his decision pending a high court ruling. In Dec. 10 arguments to the high court, Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle said Hanson erred in his ruling, which declared the 1998 Iowa Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and threw out several expert witnesses that gay marriage opponents had hoped to use at the trial. Hanson ruled that the witnesses did not qualify as experts on issues relevant to the case. Brien, the Polk County recorder, rejected the marriage license requests because he "has no say in this law," Kuhle said. "He can no more give these plaintiffs a license than he could give a license to a man and three women," he added. Kuhle argued that same-sex marriage could loosen the definition of marriage to include polygamy. Future generations might discard the institution if they come to believe that opposite-sex parents are not necessary, he argued. A ruling favorable to gay marriage also could hurt children, who are best raised by a mother and father, he said. "One could easily argue, and we do, that fostering same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage as we know it," Kuhle said. "It's not going to happen tomorrow. We're not going to see any changes tomorrow, next week, next year, in our generation. But you've got to look to the future." Kuhle said state support for same-sex marriage would teach future generations that marriage is no longer about procreation despite thousands of years of history. Nor does the case belong in the courts, Kuhle said. The debate should fall to the Legislature.