News » April 3, 2009 » Web Only

Same-Sex Marriage in the Heartland

Iowa becomes the first state in the Midwest to extend the right to marry to gays and lesbians.

By Jessica Pupovac

Kathryn Varnum (left) and Trish Hyde, plaintiffs in the case that led to the historic ruling, are now free to marry in Iowa.

Rallies and celebrations are being planned throughout Iowa to celebrate a historic court decision approving same-sex marriage.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruling, announced April 3rd, overturns a 1998 Iowa law limiting marriage to a man and a woman. It will make Iowa the first state in the Midwest—and the third in the United States—to allow same-sex marriage. According to the decision, county recorders can start issuing marriage licenses on April 24.

“Today’s ruling is an historic victory for fairness and equality,” said Carolyn Jenison, Executive Director of One Iowa, the state’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization.

“Marriage and commitment are important values in our family and when we marry we’ll be able to show our children just what that means,” said Chuck Swaggerty, a plaintiff in Varnum v. Brien, the case that led to the historic ruling.

Varnum v. Brien was filed in 2005 against Polk County, Iowa, where six same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses, and were denied. The suit argued that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa Constitution. In August 2007, a lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered Polk County to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Polk County appealed the ruling and the case went before the state Supreme Court. Closing arguments were heard in December.

Today’s decision upheld that ruling and drew parallels between this and others cases in which Iowa law has led the nation.

“Our responsibility,” reads the court’s decision, “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.”

Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal, a New York-based firm that litigated on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the court’s ruling marks another “proud day” of Iowa’s history of protecting individual rights.

“Today’s victory is a testament to the strength of love, hope and courage—our clients have shown an abundance of all three for many years and now. At long last they will be able to marry.”

Those plaintiffs include retired schoolteachers who were fearful of how the medical establishment would view their union in their old age; young parents who say their children have experienced discrimination at school because of their unconventional family structure; a lower-income couple who say they can’t afford individual healthcare plans; and two couples who say they were denied bereavement leave, normally granted to spouses, when one of their partner’s parents died. All of the six couples say they want the responsibilities and protections—for themselves and their families—that only marriage can guarantee.

One of the couples, Kate Varnum and Trish Hyde Varnum, held a commitment ceremony in 2004 but said they didn’t want to travel out of state to marry.

“We’ve always said if it would become legal in Iowa, we would pursue that,” said Varnum. “Iowa is our home and we want to be married in our home state. This is where we live. We don’t live in Massachusetts; we don’t live in Canada. Our day-to-day lives are here in Iowa, and being able to be treated fairly is so important.”

Varnum said her father, who passed away last summer, said at their commitment ceremony that, “in another time and another place, he would have called Trish his daughter-in-law, but at this time and this place, he would call her his daughter-in-love.”

Today’s ruling makes Iowa the third state in the country—following Connecticut and Massachusetts—to recognize same-sex marriage. (Another five states offer civil unions or legally protected domestic partnerships to same-sex couples.)

Justin Uebelhor, spokesperson for One Iowa, the leading lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization in the state, says he has been fielding calls from around the nation from people eager to celebrate Iowa’s victory, and learn from it.

“There is a saying, ‘As Iowa goes, so goes the country,’” he says. “A lot of people in the movement feel that same rule could apply as far as gay and lesbian rights are concerned throughout the nation. It’s a real exciting time here in the heartland and here in the Midwest.”

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
• Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

  What is 6 - 3?  

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I am an Iowa native although living elsewhere now. What the writer neglected to report in her extremely one sided piece is that 65% of Iowans expressed opposition to same sex “marriage” as recently as in a 2008 poll. Iowa did not vote to allow it. Seven judges on a court did, evidently convinced they know better than their fellow citizens. Read the 65 page opinion by the majority and marvel at how vacuous and juvenile their “reasoning” is. Evidently, they justified their decision on the basis that societal norms change with generations. The law they overturned was passed as recently as 1998. Generational change must come faster in Iowa than elsewhere.

  What they did not bother to address is why and how a court feels justified in redefining an institution 5,000 years old that no court, no state, no government created. Government can regulate marriage laws. Government cannot define what marriage is. It predates every government and court, including the Supreme Court of Iowa. Given the chance, the people of Iowa will overturn this decision with a constitutional amendment. I suspect many or all of the seven judges will face fierce opposition if and when they run for reelection.

  Posted by Arnold on Apr 5, 2009 at 3:59 PM

  You’re correct, Arnold. No state or government created marriage. However ,those states and governments created benefits that heterosexual people in a committed ceremony receive, and for those same sex partners in a committed relationship/ceremony, they cannot receive those benefits—income tax returns, hospital visitation rights. Call it whatever you want to to preserve YOUR definition of marriage, but then give the exact same benefits administered by the government to those who are also in a loving, committed partnership. That’s what equality under the law means. And as for the 65% of Iowans opposed to same sex marriage, we know that if they had glbtq children, and loved them, they would want every happiness for them as well. Of course, that’s if they’re honest and loving enough to admit it publicly.

  Posted by Miriam on Apr 5, 2009 at 4:34 PM

  Arnold,

  Wonderful comment with great analysis! The problem with much of the civil rights angled arguments made by the LGBT and pro gay marriage community is that it rests upon the assumption that homosexuality is an innate trait and not a behavior. Despite two decades (if not more) of television and films attempted indoctrination on the issue, many Americans do not view homosexuality as a group of people and instead view it as behavior. In addition neither nature or science has validated the claim that homosexuality is an innate character trait. Since it is not an immutable trait (using some SCOTUS language there) it should only be analyzed under the rational basis standard (as was the case when the Massachusetts Supreme Court overruled the ban), and, in my opinion, the issue of gay marriage should be left to the voice of the people and not the tyranny of the judiciary.

  In the end the people of Iowa will likely amend their state constitution to overrule the judiciary. This amendment will likely set gay rights movements even further back then where they would have eventually evolved too such as civil unions (which I prefer) via the democratic process.

  In the end, whether 5, 10 or 20 years down the road, this issue will be posed in front of SCOTUS. However I doubt we will see it done so before the court is made more liberally lopsided.

  Posted by Nathan Petersen on Apr 5, 2009 at 6:30 PM

  Hmm. I have mixed feelings. (I’m homo).  Here in Michigan I struggled with the proposal as to whether same sex partners of state employees should be offered. (it’s been a couple of years now and have forgotten the exact proposal admittedly). I know I was about the only fag that voted with the majority here and we voted it down. What made me, a fag, finally decide to vote against many of the things “gays” argue for? Well, I agree with them that everyone should be treated fairly and even have a partner of many years myself so I get it when they argue about the benefits and respect etc., but damn it, I have always felt the state (and private ins. etc) should stay the hell away from this whole business. ...it cheats ANY single person and rather than extending the benefits…I feel heteros partners should be cut off tomorrow. Think about it: why should an employer for instance burden itself with an individual who has never worked a day to make the company profitable?  And finally, these “gay” people to which I no longer chose to use the word to describe myself,  once again do not get it. People are not ready for this. I hear them say over and over how it is just a matter of time before it is legal. And, being an Uncle Tom, I dare not vocalize:  “Really?”  “I am not so certain these new gay marriage laws will pass muster in the end.”  God no. You see they seem to know the future and I resent that about them.

  Posted by gary eickholt on Apr 5, 2009 at 7:14 PM

  Re: my previous post.

  To back up my point to all those who think it’s just “a matter of time”,  I should have emphasized what recently went down out in California. Just because someone has a gay marriage availabitly one day dont mean it will necessarily stick.  (excuse text and grammar etc please…just got back from a long car trip and I’m a graying homo American).

  Posted by gary eickholt on Apr 5, 2009 at 7:30 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 8 posts.

Also by Jessica Pupovac

• The Right’s New Attack on Voters
  Last April, as a national debate raged over whether Indiana's voter ID law protects election integrity or disenfranchises low-income… morePosted on June 9, 2008
• The Push to Privatize PEMEX
  Halliburton is licking its chops at the prospect of Mexico's state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos going private. Petróleos Mexicanos, or PEMEX,… morePosted on May 12, 2008
• Big Oil Imperils Polar Bears
  Just when it seemed like things couldn't get any worse for the polar bear, Big Oil is moving into… morePosted on March 13, 2008
• Silenced in the Barracks
  The Pentagon fails to protect U.S. troops from sexual abuse morePosted on March 3, 2008
• Funding Iraqs Citizen Soldiers
  Is the Pentagon's neighborhood watch strategy protecting Iraqis or stoking the civil war? morePosted on November 12, 2007