Iowa gay-marriage decision does a good job of explaining its constitutional reasoning

Written by

I thought the Iowa Supreme Court’s (unanimous) gay-marriage decision did a good job of explaining the constitutional analysis in understandable terms. Read especially:

• the discussion of the separation of powers starting at page 12, recapping the crucial role that courts play in protecting individual rights by moderating the raw power of majority rule;

• the summary of the standard way of analyzing constitutional equal-protection questions, starting at page 19. The opinion explains that normally the courts use a deferential ‘rational basis’ test to judge the constitutionally of legislative classifications, but that sometimes ‘strict scrutiny’ and ‘heightened’ or ‘intermediate’ scrutiny are applied in certain important cases to protect individual rights;

• the court’s application of those analytical principles to the Iowa ban on same-sex marriages, starting at page 31 and picking up steam at page 37;

• the court’s sober rejection, as insufficiently supported by evidence, of the usual proffered policy justifications for banning same-sex marriage, starting at page 51 — at pages 52-54, the court points out that the preservation of tradition for its own sake is not enough; “we must determine whether the reasons underlying that tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements.” (Emphasis by the court, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)

• Because the U.S. and Iowa constitutions guarantee freedom of religion for all and prohibit state endorsement or enforcement of any particular religious beliefs per se, ”civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.” Page 66 (emphasis mine).

See Varnum v. Brien, No. 07-1499 (Iowa Apr. 3, 2009).

Comments

5 responses to “Iowa gay-marriage decision does a good job of explaining its constitutional reasoning”

2009-04-04

patrick land

you must be joking. the will of the people overwhelmingly decided to keep marriage as being defined as one man and one woman. it is not the judges role to make laws. i am very sick of the liberal judges thinking that they can overrule what the people want. this is a major problem in our country today!

Reply
2009-04-04

D. C. Toedt

@Patrick, the Iowa judges weren’t overruling the will of the people, they were enforcing it, as previously expressed in the Iowa constitution’s equal-protection clause.

Reply
2009-04-07

Dave Kelsen

One aspect of what made this country great, as well as unique, is that we are not a democracy, subject solely to ‘the will of the people’. We are a representative republic, and as DC directed in his presentation, we should read the court’s discourse on the value of protecting individual rights from majority rule.

Reply
2009-04-08

William Dawson

Whats wrong with gay mariage? How will it harm us? What sickens me is how people can accuse and deny a group of people hapiness. Mariage doesn’t have to be between a man and a woman, and I see no reason why it should be restrcited as such. There are two reasons why Gay Mariage arn’t accepted, 1. Tradition, which is crap because “traditionally” only white land owning males could vote, and “traditionally” the jews were prosocuted by the church. Now the church is prosocuting the gays and it is just as bad. The second argument is religion which is also crap because of the seperation between church and state. What the bible says is irrelivent in a secular government. Please keep your blatent hatred and discrimination to yourself. For all you know you might be the next group of people to be discriminated.

Reply
2009-04-08

D. C. Toedt

William Dawson, it would help if you clarified to whom you’re addressing your screed.

Reply