In Iowa, the Constitution Trumps Religion
As many of you have probably already heard, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is protected under the Iowa Constitution. Significantly, the opinion references both the Federal Constitution and SCOTUS case law.
Contrasted w/the CA Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage, I would say that the Iowa decision is much better. The CA Supreme Court based their decision on a state constitutional quirk that the Federal Constitution does not have. In CA, marriage is considered a fundamental right. As a fundamental right, the CA Supreme Court was able to apply a higher level of scrutiny.
On the other hand, the Iowa Supreme Court based its decision on the idea of “suspect classes.” A suspect class is one that has been severely mistreated in the past (this is a gross oversimplification of what it takes to qualify). For example, race has been categorized as a suspect class. Once a group has been categorized as a suspect class, the law(s) in question are scrutinized using a much higher standard.
So what’s the significance of this difference? For one, the Iowa decision is far easier to relate to SCOTUS’ decisions. They based much of their opinion on standards that SCOTUS itself uses on a regular basis. In addition, the Iowa decision serves a much better basis for persuasive authority. Since Iowa based its decision on a sort of “one glove fits all” type of legal analysis, other supreme courts of other states can look to Iowa’s constitutional law for guidance. Finally, the most significant thing about this opinion is the fact that the opinion is practically pure legal reasoning. It analyzes all the issues presented by both sides in a no nonsense sort of way. Here’s a squib from the unpublished opinion:
If a simple showing that discrimination is traditional satisfies equal protection, previous successful equal protection challenges of invidious racial and gender classifications would have failed. Consequently, equal protection demands that “ ‘the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay [persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself.’ ” Source: Des Moines Register.
Completely unadulterated legal analysis. No dealing with the touchy-feely garbage of “their love is just as special.” The court was unafraid of stating the law as it is and dryly analyzing the issue without being bogged down by partisan politics. There is barely any dicta (stuff judges say for the sake of saying that holds almost no legal significance, but gives insight into their belief system). The opinion doesn’t mention religious objections until the very end, but deftly refutes and reassures religious objectors:
In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires. Source: Des Moines Register.
In one swift move, the court reaffirms the difference between the legal definition of marriage and religious definition in addition to the myriad of religious views on marriage. Needless to say, I am thoroughly impressed w/Iowa’s decision. Hats off, Iowa. Hats off.