Proposition 8 has been getting all the coverage, but the Iowa Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Tuesday in Varnum v. Brien. At stake is the right to marriage equality for all Iowans.
This diary is a brief primer on the case.
To begin with, for those looking for the shallow and shoddy local media coverage of the case, there is the Des Moines Register's article here.
But if you're of a mind to immerse yourself in all the details, the Iowa Judicial Branch has a websitewhich features:
- A live internet streamof the arguments. They are set for 10 a.m. on Tuesday, December 9.
- A guideto the oral arguments.
- The court filings, including the trial court opinion being appealed and the appellate briefs of both sides in the case.
The trial court's ruling is long and thorough, especially the findings of fact. The legal analysis of the case begins at page 43 of the pdf.
The basics of the case are as follows. About 10 years ago, in the wake of the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, the Iowa legislature passed a statute limiting marriage to heterosexuals. Despite some talk of doing so, the Iowa Constitution was never amended. In 2005, a case was filed challenging the statute as violative of the Iowa Constitution. Last year, the trial court upheld the challenge and struck down the law. Now, the case is before the Iowa Supreme Court. In Iowa, the Supreme Court gets first dibs on appeals and can decide a case or kick it to the Court of Appeals if it so chooses, so the case has proceeded rather quickly.
The trial court made the following rulings:
- Marriage is a fundamental right and laws burdening it are subject to strict scrutiny.
- The state failed to carry its burden of showing a "narrow tailoring" to a "compelling interest" as required under strict scrutiny.
- The law constitutes sex based discrimination and is subject to intermediate scrutiny.
- The sex based classification drawn by the law is not "substantially related to an important state interest" as required by intermediate scrutiny.
For those lawyers keeping score, the above rulings mean the law violates both the due process and equal protection guarantees in the Iowa Constitution. But the trial court went even further. In addition to its rulings that the law cannot withstand either strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny, the court also found that the law cannot withstand even the "rational basis" test, the lowest and most deferential of standards in this area. This is a clear slam dunk for those who support marriage equality.
Watch for the action in the oral arguments to be centered on the rational basis ruling. The Massachusetts Court also found a marriage ban irrational. The appellee's brief devotes a dozen pages or so to the rational basis argument.
Moreover, while most of Iowa's due process and equal protection jurisprudence has traditionally tracked with federal jurisprudence in this area, Iowa has recently unmoored itself from federal law in this area. Just how far it has done so may be decided by this case.
The appellee's brief cites a case called Racing Ass'n of Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald (called RACI II in the brief) about five times more often than even Romer v. Evans. It does so because in that case, a tax case, the Iowa Supreme Court declared that the state is free to set its equal protection guarantees at a higher level than the federal government does.
As some may know, differential taxation gets almost complete deference from the courts, but in RACI, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a gambling law that taxed riverboats and racetracks at different rates. In doing so, the court expressly ignored a SCOTUS ruling in that very case upholding the differential taxation rates under federal equal protection.
Also, Iowa has a proud history standing up for equal rights, especially in race cases. Don't be surprised if this case results in marriage equality in Iowa. Of course, if that happens, it will be followed shortly by an attempt to amend the constitution...