Iowa Supreme Court Mandates Same-Sex Marriage
Exclusion of Gay Couples Ruled Unconstitutional in Varnum v. Brien
Apr 3, 2009
The Iowa Supreme Court considered a challenge to Iowa's statutory exclusion of same-sex partners from the institution of marriage and agreed with the District Court that prohibiting same-sex marriage is contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. This opinion makes Iowa the third state in the nation that currently mandates the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Same-Sex Couples Are Similarly Situated to Opposite-Sex Couples
The Court initially considered some preliminary questions in its ruling, noting the Court's role in upholding the state constitution and the role of history in equal protection. "Our responsibility," the Court noted, "is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time." The Court also considered evidence offered by the parties that the District Court had excluded, including numerous affidavits considering the ability of same-sex couples to raise children.
The Court then considered its first major question: Are same sex-couples similarly situated to opposite-sex couples "with respect to the purposes of the law?" If no, an equal protection analysis would not apply. The Court found that the purposes of marriage apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, noting the benefits of "providing same-sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children" as well as other privileges opposite-sex couples enjoy.
Choosing the Level of Scrutiny to Analyze Exclusion of Same-Sex Marriage
The Court quickly decided that the law creates a classification, rejecting an argument that excluding same-sex couples from marriage has only an incidental impact. It pointed out that gay people have no interest in marrying someone of the opposite sex, and so it is no excuse to use this justification to claim that the law does not discriminate. It then considered the level of scrutiny to apply to the County's justifications, considering four factors:
- history of invidious discrimination
- whether characteristics of the class "indicate a typical class member's ability to contribute to society"
- immutability
- political powerlessness
The Court noted the importance of the first two factors, which were unchallenged, and the flexibility of the Court's approach in considering the factors. It noted the history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, as well as the lack of a relationship between orientation and ability to contribute to society, using statutory examples.
Turning to the challenged factors, it found that orientation is "central to personal identity" and that immutability is therefore not a factor that tends toward relaxing scrutiny in this case, since absolute immutability is not required. On political powerlessness, the Court recognized some advancements in LGBT rights but noted that civil marriage is often an exception. It then chose to apply heightened scrutiny in light of all four factors. It applied intermediate scrutiny, choosing not to reach the more heightened level of strict scrutiny as it was unnecessary given the result.
Intermediate Scrutiny Analysis: No Adequate Justification for Excluding Same-Sex Marriage
The intermediate scrutiny standard requires that the state proffer an "important" governmental objective for its classification and that the differential means it uses to achieve this objective be "substantially" related to the objective. The Court first dismissed the objective of upholding traditional marriage as circular, serving only to perpetuate traditional discrimination.
The Court spent more time on the justification of creating an optimal child-rearing environment, and found that the child's interests are important but that the means do not meet this end. The law both excludes gay couples who do not plan to parent, and includes straight couples who are not good parents. Same-sex couples also are able to parent without marriage. On the procreation justification, the Court pointed out that not all straight couples procreate, and that excluding gay couples does not actually increase procreation.
Finally, the Court dismissed arguments related to promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, because no reasons to support this argument were offered, and conservation of resources, because not all same-sex couples would use more resources if married and because there are other, larger groups to exclude if this is the real reason. It noted the religious arguments underlying the question, and pointed out that there is no religious agreement on this issue, and that religious marriage is unrelated to the question of civil marriage. The Court finally concluded that "gay and lesbian people [must be allowed] full access to the institution of civil marriage."
Source:
Varnum v. Brien, No. 07-1499 (Iowa 2009)
