IOWA!

Boy, is Iowa looking progressive today!

Aravosis: Joint statement from the Iowa legislative leadership on today's same-gender marriage decision
Wow. Apparently all Dems are NOT spineless wonders.News Release
For Immediate Release: April 3, 2008
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal
House Speaker Pat Murphy

Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing civil rights

This is a joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy on today's Supreme Court decision:

"Thanks to today's decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens' equal rights.

"The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

"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.

"Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.

"Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.

"In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

"In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

"In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

"In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

"In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

"Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws."


Benen: 'GAY MARRIAGE MECCA'....

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), easily a #1 seed in my brackets for Congress' Most Embarrassing Members, is not at all pleased that the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that consenting adults can get married in his home state. From his press release:

This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. [...]

Now it is the Iowa legislature's responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court's latest experiment in social engineering.

Hmm, "gay marriage Mecca." I can see how Iowa might become a regional "gay marriage Mecca," but the truth is Massachusetts and Connecticut already permit same-sex marriage, so it's not as if Iowa would suddenly have some kind of lock.

I should add that I haven't the foggiest idea what a "gay marriage Mecca" even is, or what it might look like, but Alex Koppelman noted that it might not be such a bad thing for Iowa: "The state can use all the help it can get in attracting new people to the state, especially young people, and it needs to work on retaining them as well. Iowa has a very serious brain drain problem; only North Dakota's is worse."

I'd add, by the way, that Iowa's new system of allowing consenting adults to get married is going to be around for at least a few years. While California was only able to allow marriage equality for a few months, Iowa makes it difficult to get constitutional amendments onto the ballot: "Iowa's unusual system requires that constitutional amendments have to be approved by two different legislatures (which meet for two years) before going to voters for approval. The 2009 session is nearly over, and no one believes a constitutional gay marriage can be acted upon until 2010. So that means 2012 is the earliest point at which Iowa voters could be considering a ban. And if nothing happens in next year's state legislative session, a vote to overturn today's decision couldn't happen until 2014."

Plenty of time to set up that "mecca."

Update: Ali Frick raises a good point: "King is so upset that he’s using rhetoric that combines what may be his two worst fears: gay people and Muslims."

I do like the idea of combining different aspects of King's paranoia. I wonder what would happen if, say, King heard about two gay Muslims who wanted to get married in Iowa. And what if the two gay Muslims were also immigrants! The poor schmo would probably have some kind of breakdown.

• More Benen: WHAT THE 'JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS' HAVE IN COMMON...

  In recent years, four state Supreme Courts have ruled in support of same sex-marriage.

  In Massachusetts, the ruling was written by Justice Margaret Marshall.

  In California, the ruling was written by Justice Ronald George.

  In Connecticut, the ruling was written by Justice Richard Palmer.

  And in Iowa, the ruling was written by Justice Mark Cady.

  And what do all four have in common? Each was appointed to their respective state Supreme Court by a Republican governor.

  Given this, I suspect many far-right activists will interpret this as evidence that the Republican Party isn't nearly right-wing enough. GOP governors must find more rigid ideologues for state judiciaries!

  The fact that "equal protection" doesn't mean what they think it means, and that even GOP-appointed judges can't rationalize the legal position of anti-gay activists, continues to elude them.

  In the not-too-distant future, Americans are going to look back at this era and wonder why on earth there was even a debate about allowing consenting adults to get married. It no doubt makes conservatives uncomfortable, but the right, historically, has consistently been on the wrong side of social justice issues of the day -- equality for African Americans, equality for women, equality regardless of religious belief -- and in every instance, their hostility for basic fairness looks absurd in hindsight.

  The fight for marriage equality will, I suspect, be no different.

Anonymous Liberal on Marriage Equality in Iowa

Today the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling recognizing the right of gay couples to marry. The court held that the Iowa statute prohibiting same sex marriage violated the state's equal protection clause.

When you take a step back and look at the basic legal argument behind these cases, the correct answer is remarkably clear. So clear, in fact, that I'm quite certain that future generations of lawyers and law students will look at these cases and wonder why it took so long for the courts to reach such an obvious conclusion, particularly in light of the extensive (and directly analogous) case law dealing with miscegenation laws and segregation. Once you accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with being gay (a premise which, I think, the vast majority of people--especially educated people like judges--accept), it becomes nearly impossible to make a principled legal argument in defense of laws that prohibit gay people from being married. It's just such an obvious and straightforward violation of equal protection.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that--within 10 years--the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, will issue a landmark ruling striking down prohibitions on gay marriage. I also believe that the next Democratic presidential nominee will be unapologetically pro gay marriage, and it's not inconceivable that at some point during his time in office, President Obama himself will publicly reverse his position on this issue. The political and legal trajectory of this issue is pretty easy to chart out at this point. And when it reaches its logical endpoint, with full marriage equality across the country, we're all going to look back and wonder why it took so damn long to recognize something so obvious.