When the Iowa Supreme Court issued the Varnum marriage decision, it severely tied the hands of the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature. Any legislation related to marriage that distinguished between heterosexual and same-sex couples was considered unconstitutional. This left members of the Legislature with one option, offering the voters a chance to decide on the definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment.
Putting the decision in the hands of the citizens of the state is the essence of democracy – an opportunity to recognize that on certain issues we must defer to the people of Iowa. That opportunity is not without its hurdles, however. Thus far, the voter’s opportunity has been denied by the leaders of the Legislature uninterested in letting the people vote.
A key characteristic of that hurdle to the process is that it is something we can understand and elections can overcome. That differs from a potential hurdle developing in the Federal court system however. I am speaking of the decision by a judge in the 9th Circuit District Court to overturn California’s 2008 marriage amendment to protect traditional marriage.
As it stands right now, the decision of one federal judge has attempted to nullify the will of the people of the State of California to decide that marriage should be limited to its traditional boundaries. What does it mean for the efforts of Iowan’s and those in the Legislature who feel the people should decide the issue of marriage?
The short answer is that we must now accept that there is a possibility that despite what Iowa does, the Federal government may ignore all previous deference to the states on the issue of marriage and decide for us. This is exactly the situation Californians find themselves in.
While this is a possibility, its likelihood is another thing. First, it must be understood that the decision in California has absolutely no bearing on Iowa. That lower court and its court of appeals have no jurisdiction over Iowa. The only way that particular case affects Iowa is – the United States Supreme Court hears the case and rules in favor of the plaintiffs.
There really is no way of knowing how the Supreme Court would rule on the case if it were placed on the Court’s agenda. What should be known, however, is whether there is a significant amount of precedent at the federal level that considers marriage a state issue. To decide otherwise would represent a significant departure from how marriage has been handled.
Iowa is covered by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Federal court system. It is highly unlikely that a legal challenge to a successful marriage amendment in Iowa would be overturned in the 8th Circuit. In 2005, an 8th Circuit District Court overturned Nebraska’s marriage amendment in Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning. This was quite similar to what happened in California recently. However, in 2006 the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decisively overturned that decision and ruled the Nebraska amendment constitutional.
In that case the court clearly spoke in support of Nebraska’s marriage amendment and noted that “the institution of marriage has always been, in our federal system, the predominant concern of state government.” In regards to an equal protection challenge, not too unlike the one brought in California, the court quoted the Supreme Court when it said “the Equal Protection Clause is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of the voters’ choices.”
The strong ruling in Iowa’s federal jurisdiction should give proponents of a vote on marriage relief. That effort can proceed with little likelihood of the federal court intervening. Nonetheless, a Supreme Court ruling does remain a possibility. Iowans should not be discouraged by what has taken place in California. Rather, they should be motivated to continue on with their efforts and make clear the will of the people of the State, so that if a case does make it before the Supreme Court, the justices will be forced to recognize that we have not been silent on this issue.
(Iowa State Representative Dwayne Alons Capitol Comments 8/20/10)
Burton Van Antwerpen on 08.23.2010
You are sadly mistaken — Our Tea Party stands for individual freedom — from government programs, taxes, and from the government telling us what to do in the family home. The Iowa Supreme Court stands for this freedom. They are our last hope to stand up against government overreaching. That is their job. Anyone who grew up eating ice cream from the Hull Creamery should know this.