« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 8 NFP) | Main | Ind. Gov't. - West Lafayette occupancy code on council agenda »

Friday, April 03, 2009

Ind. Decisions - More on: Iowa Supreme Court this morning rules state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutiona [Updated]l

For those who read the ILB entry earlier today on the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court that “The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” here is some information on the Indiana history of the issue.

On January 20, 2005, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided the case of Ruth Morrison, et al v. Doris Ann Sadler, et al . The commentary the following day included this quote from a story in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

The ICLU sued in 2002 on behalf of three long-term central Indiana gay couples. A Marion County judge dismissed the case, and it was appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had it under consideration for more than a year.

The plaintiffs claimed the state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman violated the equal privileges clause of the Indiana Constitution, which provides that the General Assembly cannot grant unequal privileges to different classes of citizens. Specifically, the couples noted different treatment in the areas of protection of spousal communications, making of health care decisions and inheritance rights.

The court ruled the law does not run afoul of the constitution because “opposite-sex marriage furthers the legitimate state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment. “Regardless of whether recognizing same-sex marriage would harm this interest, neither does it further it.”

Ultimately, the plaintiffs decided not to appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court, as explained in the story quoted in this ILB entry from Feb. 18th, 2005.

In sum, the Indiana COA in 2005 upheld the Indiana defense of marriage statute, while the Iowa Supreme Court today held that Iowa's statute defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman was unconstitutional, concluding unanimously:

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
Here is the 69-page Iowa opinion, Varnum v. Brien.

[Updated 4/54/09] Here is today's Indianapolis Star headline: "Iowa strikes down gay marriage ban, concerning some Hoosiers: But legal experts don't think the decision will affect ban in Indiana."
 The story, by Tim Evans and Heather Gillers, Some quotes:
Iowa on Friday became the first Midwestern state to strike down a same-sex marriage ban -- a legal decision that opponents of same-sex marriage in Indiana said highlights the need for a state constitutional ban.

Indiana gay-rights advocates called it an important moment in a struggle for civil rights, but neither they nor legal experts expect the Iowa Supreme Court ruling to have much impact on Hoosiers. State law here bans gay marriage and prohibits sanctioning same-sex marriages performed in other states. * * *

Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, does not think the Iowa decision will have a significant effect in Indiana. But, he said, the decision does point to changing attitudes across the United States.

"From a standpoint of just general attitudes," he said, "I think that the notion of same-sex marriage is becoming more accepted, especially among younger people."

Camilla Taylor, senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal who led the challenge to the Iowa ban, called that state's decision huge.

"We still have some work to do in a number of Midwestern states," she said. "We are using different strategies for different states, but no state is a 'lost cause' in our eyes."

Although the Indiana and Iowa laws banning same-sex marriage are similar, Taylor said state courts use different standards in analyzing constitutional complaints.

"Indiana's uniquely toothless version found the statute withstood the constitutional review," she explained. "In Iowa, the courts apply a more rigorous form of analysis."

A side-bar to the story provides related information.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 3, 2009 03:10 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions