Varnum v. Brien

Last updated
Varnum v. Brien
Iowa-StateSeal.svg
Court Iowa Supreme Court
Full case nameKatherine Varnum, Patricia Hyde, Dawn Barbouroske, Jennifer Barbouroske, Jason Morgan, Charles Swaggerty, David Twombley, Lawrence Hoch, William M. Musser, Otter Dreaming, Ingrid Olson, and Reva Evans vs. Timothy J. Brien,, In His Official Capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar
DecidedApril 3, 2009
Citation(s)763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)
Case history
Prior action(s)Judgment for plaintiffs, Polk County District Court
Court membership
Chief judge Marsha Ternus
Associate judges Mark Cady, Michael Streit, David Wiggins, Daryl Hecht, Brent R. Appel, and David L. Baker
Case opinions
MajorityCady, joined by unanimous

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), [1] was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The case had the effect of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. In 2007, a lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of six same-sex couples who sued Timothy Brien, Polk County Recorder, for refusing to grant them marriage licenses.

Contents

In 2010, Iowa voters defeated the retention of three of the judges responsible for the decision. However, in 2012, voters retained the one judge who participated in the decision and whose term would otherwise have ended, following various polls showing that a majority of Iowans support same-sex marriage.

Issue

Six same-sex couples went to the Office of the Polk County Recorder in Des Moines, Iowa, at various times between November 2005 and January 2006 in an attempt to apply for marriage licenses. Each couple's application was denied because in each case the couple was composed of two people of the same sex, and Iowa law only permitted couples composed of one man and one woman to marry. [2] The couples filed suit in Polk County District Court, arguing that this law violated certain rights guaranteed by the Iowa constitution. [3]

District Court ruling

Judge Robert Hanson of Polk County District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on August 30, 2007. He ruled that the marriage statute was unconstitutional, and that the Polk County Recorder was required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples who otherwise meet the requirements for marriage. Hanson's ruling states, in part, that: [4]

Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage... by reason of the fact that both persons comprising such a couple are of the same sex.

Judge Hanson issued a stay of his ruling on August 31, 2007, in anticipation of an appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. [5] [6] One same-sex couple was able to obtain a marriage license in the brief time between Hanson's ruling and the stay. [7]

Iowa Supreme Court ruling

A rally held in Iowa City following Varnum v. Brien. The purple placecard in the center shows Iowa's state motto. Iowa lgbt.jpg
A rally held in Iowa City following Varnum v. Brien. The purple placecard in the center shows Iowa's state motto.

Polk County appealed Hanson's ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on December 9, 2008. [8] There were 24 amicus curiae briefs filed with the court. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Mark S. Cady, the Court affirmed Hanson's decision on April 3, 2009. [9]

The Supreme Court initially stated its duty to protect the right of individuals: [10]

Our responsibility, however, 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 noted that Iowa has a long history of progressive thought on civil rights. Seventeen years before the Dred Scott decision, the Iowa Supreme Court "refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions." [11] Eighty-six years before "separate but equal" was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education , the Iowa Supreme Court ruled such practices unconstitutional in Iowa. [11] In 1869, Iowa was the first state in the union to admit women to the bar and allow them to practice law. [11] Three years later the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois's decision to deny women admission to the bar. [11]

The Court stated that the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution requires that laws treat alike all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law, [12] and concluded that homosexual persons are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons for purposes of Iowa's marriage laws. [13] The Court applied the standard of review known as intermediate scrutiny to assess the government's objectives as described by the county: maintaining traditional marriage, promotion of an optimal environment to raise children, promotion of procreation, promotion of stability in opposite-sex relationships and conservation of resources. [14] The Court concluded that: [15]

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.

But the court noted the national development of gay rights in both Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans , and it cited discussion in these cases as evidence of a history of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Because plaintiffs brought a state constitutional claim, the state Supreme Court was not constrained by federal precedents, and the decision was not subject to review by a federal court.

On April 27, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a procedendo directing the Iowa District Court for the County of Polk to "proceed in the manner required by law and consistent with the opinion of the court." [16] The court's decision became effective with the issuance of the procedendo. [17]

Reaction

In a joint press release on April 3, Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal welcomed the court's decision, saying "When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today's events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency. Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights." [18] Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy, who is openly gay, welcomed the decision, calling it "a red letter day for the state of Iowa." [18]

The state Senate Republican leader, Paul McKinley, expressed disappointment and called for a constitutional amendment that "protects traditional marriage." [18] Iowa Governor Chet Culver stated that he was "reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory." [19] [n 1]

Critics contended that court rulings that grant same-sex couples the right to marry overstep the constitutional authority of the judicial branch, that such decisions should be left to more representative processes such as legislation and ballot-initiatives. Others contended that equal treatment under the law and due process with respect to denying same-sex couples the right to marry unequivocally deserved a response from the court. In declaring the DOMA statute an unconstitutional violation the Iowa's equal protection clause, the court referred to the constitutional provision declaring such statutes "void."

Following the decision, groups opposed to same-sex marriage organized a campaign against Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, Justice David L. Baker, and Justice Michael Streit in their subsequent retention election, "with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups." [20] All three were dismissed by Iowa voters on November 2, 2010, marking the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice was not retained since the retention system was adopted for Iowa justices in 1962. [20] In 2012, the three of them received Profile In Courage Awards from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. In presenting the award, Caroline Kennedy said: [21]

The three judges are interesting and courageous on many levels, ... Like many of the people who get this award, they don't consider that they are doing anything particularly courageous, they just feel they're doing what's right, they're doing their job.

In the November 6, 2012, election, voters retained Justice David Wiggins, the one judge who participated in Varnum whose retention was on the ballot, by a 54% to 46% margin. [22]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ There are two ways to amend the Iowa constitution. One way is for an amendment to pass the legislature in two successive sessions, then be approved by a popular vote. The other is for a popular vote to convene a constitutional convention and then have any amendments approved by a popular vote. The people of Iowa are given the option of forming a constitutional convention every ten years in Iowa. Elizabeth Ahlin (April 8, 2009). "Culver won't back same-sex marriage ban". Omaha World-Herald. Retrieved April 8, 2009.[ permanent dead link ]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in the United States</span> Marriage between members of the same gender within the United States of America

The availability of legally recognized same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state (Massachusetts) in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various court rulings, state legislation, and direct popular votes. States each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognize marriage as a fundamental right guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.

<i>Goodridge v. Department of Public Health</i> 2003 US state court case which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, is a landmark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in which the Court held that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state to legally recognize same-sex marriage. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry. Despite numerous attempts to delay the ruling, and to reverse it, the first marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004, and the ruling has been in full effect since that date.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Utah Constitutional Amendment 3</span>

Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 was an amendment to the Utah state constitution that sought to define marriage as a union exclusively between a man and woman. It passed in the November 2, 2004, election, as did similar amendments in ten other states.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iowa Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Iowa. The Court is composed of a chief justice and six associate justices.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Oregon since May 19, 2014, when Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Oregon ruled in Geiger v. Kitzhaber that Oregon's 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A campaign that was then under way to win voter approval of a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage was suspended following the decision. In July 2015, Governor Kate Brown signed legislation codifying same-sex marriage in various Oregon statutes. The law change went into effect on January 1, 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Hawaii</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii since December 2, 2013. The Hawaii State Legislature held a special session beginning on October 28, 2013, and passed the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the legislation on November 13, and same-sex couples began marrying on December 2. Hawaii also allows both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to formalize their relationships legally in the form of civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary relationships. Civil unions provide the same rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage at the state level, while reciprocal beneficiary relationships provide a more limited set of rights.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Iowa since a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court on April 3, 2009. Marriage licenses became available to same-sex couples on April 27. In 2005, six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Iowa filed a lawsuit in Polk County. In 2007, the Polk County District Court ruled in favor of the couples in Varnum v. Brien. On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling, making Iowa the third U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.

In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407, is a 2008 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court holding that allowing same-sex couples to form same-sex unions but not marriages violates the Connecticut Constitution. It was the third time that a ruling by the highest court of a U.S. state legalized same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) and California in In re Marriage Cases (2008). The decision legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut when it came into effect on November 12, 2008. There were no attempts made to amend the state constitution to overrule the decision, and gender-neutral marriage statutes were passed into law in 2009.

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">One Iowa</span>

One Iowa is a statewide LGBTQ equality organization. The organization works to preserve and advance equality for LGBTQ individuals in Iowa through advocacy, grassroots efforts, and education.

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Iowa</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in the U.S. state of Iowa have evolved significantly in the 21st century. Iowa began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on April 27, 2009 following a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, making Iowa the fourth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples may also adopt, and state laws ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations.

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case concerning same-sex marriage. The Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Cady</span> American judge

Mark Steven Cady was an American jurist. He served on the Iowa Supreme Court for 21 years from 1998 to 2019. From 2011 to 2019, he was the chief justice of the court. He was the author of the court's opinion in Varnum v. Brien, which legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

In the United States, the history of same-sex marriage dates from the early 1940s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful. However marriage wasn't a request for the LGBTQ movement until the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Washington (1987). The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act.

References

  1. ↑ Varnum v. Brien, 763N.W.2d862 (Iowa2009).PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  2. ↑ The Iowa legislature amended the marriage statute in 1998. Iowa Code section 595.2(1) provided "[o]nly a marriage between a male and a female is valid." See Iowa Supreme Court decision, p. 8.
  3. ↑ See Iowa Constitution, Article I, Section 6: Archived 2011-07-03 at the Wayback Machine "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."
  4. ↑ "Judge Overturns Iowa Ban on Same-Sex Marriages". The New York Times . Associated Press. 2007-08-31. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
  5. ↑ "Iowa Gay Marriages Abruptly Halted". 365Gay.com . Associated Press. 2007-08-31. Archived from the original on 2007-09-11. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
  6. ↑ Henderson, Kay (2007-08-31). "Ruling briefly allows gay marriage in Iowa". Reuters . Retrieved 2007-08-31.
  7. ↑ Miller, Kyle (2007-09-04). "A window of opportunity". Iowa State Daily . Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
  8. ↑ Greg Schulte (10 December 2008). "Gay marriage: History, emotion collide in court". The Des Moines Register . Retrieved 2008-12-10.[ dead link ]
  9. ↑ Des Moines Register staff (2009-04-03). "Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman". Des Moines Register . Archived from the original on 2012-06-29. Retrieved 2009-04-03.
  10. ↑ Iowa Supreme Court decision, page 15.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Iowa Supreme Court decision, page 17.
  12. ↑ Iowa Supreme Court decision, page 27.
  13. ↑ Iowa Supreme Court decision, page 28.
  14. ↑ Iowa Supreme Court decision, pages 52-63.
  15. ↑ Iowa Supreme Court decision, page 67.
  16. ↑ Humpal, Donna M. (April 27, 2009). "Procedendo" (PDF). iowacourts.gov. Iowa Supreme Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 31, 2010. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
  17. ↑ Attorney General issues statement on gay marriage ruling Archived 2009-04-06 at the Wayback Machine . Radio Iowa Blog, April 3, 2009.
  18. 1 2 3 Iowa Supreme Court: Gay marriage ban illegal Archived 2013-01-11 at archive.today , Southwest Iowa News, April 3, 2009
  19. ↑ Elizabeth Ahlin (April 8, 2009). "Culver won't back same-sex marriage ban". Omaha World-Herald. Retrieved April 8, 2009.[ permanent dead link ]
  20. 1 2 Schulte, Grant (November 3, 2010). "Iowans dismiss three justices". Des Moines Register. Archived from the original on December 27, 2010. Retrieved June 6, 2013.
  21. ↑ "Iowa judges ousted after legalizing same-sex marriage to receive Profiles in Courage Award". CBS News . May 7, 2012. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
  22. ↑ "Voters Retain Iowa Justice Who Backed Gay Marriage". KCRG-TV . November 7, 2012. Archived from the original on November 9, 2012. Retrieved December 22, 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.