Nope, not me. The outcome is good, the precedent towards greater scrutiny of orientation-based discrimination is good, so what’s the problem?
The arc of history bending towards justice? Anyway, what’s to stop them even if this court had upheld the anti same-sex marriage law?
Does anyone seriously believe that author intent is the only conceivable basis for interpreting a law?
Or, as Stephen Colbert said in one of his “The Word” segments:
“Which is why gay marriage is only an issue in even numbered years!” At which point the “Wordover” noted: “How odd!”
As an Iowan, as a lawyer, as a person who is at least professionally acquainted with the members of the Iowa court and a fair number of the people who were involved in the case, as a person who despises Rep King and holds the horse he rode in on in contempt, let me suggest that the tone and content of this little discussion would be considerably improved if some of the people posting here would read the court’s opinion and consider the merits of its equal protection analysis.
Right now we are being deluged by Focus on the Family types, and of course our resident reactionary, Rep King, who somehow think that constitutional analysis is subject to some sort of popular referendum on a case by case basis. The crazyness will continue for a while, the world will not end, the old lesbians from Ida Grove and East Harnessbuckle will formalize relationships that have been ongoing for 20 years and more and the mail will still be delivered.
This may be a good thing for Iowa. We have suffered from a flight of young, educated Iowans for many years. If this encourages creative youth to stay , return or immigrate it is to the State’s advantage.
As far as Rep King is concerned, I don’t even want to think about the hissy fit he would pitch if we were dealing with immigrant homosexual marriage.
That may be all very well for the sophisticated salons of Des Moines, or the degenerate undergrounds of Ames, but Minnesotans are rather more restrained. You might do well to consider what sort of border restrictions this sort of unhygenic policy will require. No doubt, if any of our citizenry wish to flee to the depravity of Council Bluffs, no one will hinder them. But I hardly think the more flamboyant denizens of Sioux City will find themselves welcomed here.
Seems like a reasonable decision, based on a constitutional provision that applies (not one that they sensed floating in the ether). Equal protection laws demand heightened scrutiny, by definition and precedent, and the law in question could not withstand that scrutiny. It’s hard to envision the counter-argument. The compelling argument against SSM, one that overcomes the heightened scrutiny hurdle, is…what? I agree the law meets the demands of the rational basis test, but that’s not a terribly difficult task.
What am I missing? Are the Iowa Justices misstating the strict scrutiny requirement? If not, how have the misapplied it?
I realize the USSC is not restricted at all by Iowa’s decision, but as a matter of logic, why doesn’t this argument apply at the Federal level?
Because Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and probably Roberts are douchenozzles when it comes to social issues.
The very short, very unnuanced answer is that Iowa recognized sexual orientation as a “suspect class”, which is subject to a heightened level of scrutiny under the equal protection analysis. SCOTUS hasn’t done that, and federal courts have been … reluctant to do so also.
After Bowers (where the Supreme Court upheld a ban on sodomy), federal courts were pretty uniform in their rejection of sexual orientation as a suspect class. When Bowers was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas (which didn’t offer any substantitive guidance on whether sexual orientation is a suspect class), state courts became more likely to grant suspect (or quasi-suspect) class status to issues of sexual orientation.
Well, because either the statute law itself or the state-level jurisprudence in several states has recognized sexual orientat6ion as a protected class, entitled to some degree of heightened scrutiny.
And that is emphatically not the case as regards the Federal constitution. The reasons behind this are not hard to elucidate, and are probably well summed up by Captain Carrot’s analysis.
To add to Captain Carrot’s analysis:
Scalia has said that gays cannot be a suspect class because one factor in determining that a group is a suspect class is political unpopularity, and it is “nothing short of preposterous to call ‘politically unpopular’ a group which enjoys enormous influence in American media and politics.”
And Scalia argues that these kinds of laws aren’t even discriminatory, much less unconstitutionally discriminatory, because everyone–gay, straight, men, women–is prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. In the context of outlawing gay sex, he writes that it isn’t discriminatory because “men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to its prohibitions of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex.”
In short, gays control the media and banning gay marriage affects everyone equally, therefore the equal protection clause doesn’t apply.
Well, I’m happy to argue that the drafters’ intent is an entirely sensible source of guidance as to how to interpret a law. It is by no means the only source of such guidance (other examples inlclude how the words in question fit into the law as a whole, how they are used elsewhere in the law, and so on).
That being said, what most people arguing that point don’t admit is that there’s only a need to interpret a law when its text is unclear in the context of deciding a legal issue.
The Iowa supreme court did not use the drafters’ intent because the text of Art.I, Sec. 6 of the Iowa constitution was clear. It says:
“Laws uniform. SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
That is why the decision in Varnum was unanimous–because you’d have to be an activist judge to read beyond the plain meaning of the iowa constitution. [I hate the term, but if it means anything, it would apply to a judge rejecting the majority’s extraordinarily clear and thoughtful opinion]
The bulk of the opinion was determining (1) that gay couples are “similarly situated” to straight couples [so they could point to the fact that the straight couples were getting privileges they were not, and claim that equal protection clause mandated they be treated similarly], and (2) rejecting the justifications offered for the law’s discriminatory nature [even a strong equal protection clause is not ironclad–there are some compelling state interests that will always justify different treatment-say, denying drivers’ licenses to the blind], by holding that some of the offered justifications for the law were simply not valid reasons to set aside the Iowa constitution’s clear mandate for equal protection [e.g. preserving tradition], while other justifications were not reasonably furthered by the statute in question [for example, the contention that barring gay marriage would help stabilize opposite-sex relationships–the county offered no support at all for the conclusion that excluding same-sex relationships from civil marriage in any way affected the stability of other marriages].
Prime examples offered why “Justice Scalia” is such an odious oxymoron. He offers us coy and precious rationalizations, a repulsive perversion of reason. He reminds of the famous adage as to the law forbidding both the poor and the rich from sleeping under bridges, and thus treating both equally.
He makes contempt of court a positive duty.
That, sir, was just a very nice, coherent, lucid explication of what equal protection does and does not entail, and what judicial activism is and is not. Kudos!
Jumping George Mason! If this is at all a reasonable summary of Nino’s position on this issue, he is a sophomore. The world’s oldest most influential sophomore, but a sophomore none the less. :rolleyes: x 9
His position could be stated more charitably. But those are accurate quotes and comprise a partial list of the reasons he would find prohibitions on gay marriage constitutional.
As always, you should read the wider context for yourself (both quotes are taken from Scalia dissents):
A third Scalia quote, for fun, from Romer. A law prohibiting any government action designed to protect gays is a “modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws.”
As a fellow Iowan do I need to remind you that there is no residency restriction upon marriage licenses? Are you suggesting that our young’ins leave becaue they can’t be gay AND get married here? There is no new reason for gays to stay here in our fertile fields after their license has been approved. They can return to their home states and continue to wonder why anyone would choose to live here.
Ninoy is, to be frank, a fine example of judicial activism. Given how the term is misused by one side, however, he is very seldom labelled – accurately – with it. (And yes, Bricker, I’m aware he’s consistent in his philosophy. So is Rand Rover – and I have little respect for either;s philosophical views.
Quoth Richard Parker:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
–Anatole France
Um, in most of their home states those marriage certificates won’t be of any use.
It has this semi-yungin’ seriously considering taking his Pharmacy degree and (hopefully future Medical degree) to Iowa out of Ohio precisely because I actually don’t mind a lot about Midwestern states (including the cost of living compared to the only states that have allowed gay marriage up to this point) but want to live in one that isn’t out and out discrimanating against gays with impunity.