Polk County Judge Robert Hanson recently struck down Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. His 63-page decision stemmed from a case in 2005 in which six same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses in Polk County.
Hanson stated, "I held a statute here in Iowa that said marriage only between a man and a woman is valid, and I held that statute unconstitutional. Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another, may not be denied marriage licenses to marry, or certificates of marriage, or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons comprising such a couple are of the same sex."
Hanson's decision was limited to Polk County, where Des Moines is the county seat.
Hanson issued a stay of his decision a day after he made the ruling, but not before about two dozen gay couples applied for marriage licenses, and one couple managed to get married after they obtained from another judge, a waiver of the state's three-day waiting period for marriage licenses.
The ruling was immediately appealed by Polk County Attorney John Sarcone to the Iowa Supreme Court. Sarcone said, the state's high court could refer the case to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself, or decline to hear the case.
Hanson said, the process of the appeal of his ruling could take a year or longer to be completed.
As for the one gay marriage that was performed in Iowa, Hanson said, "It is possible, maybe even likely, that one marriage will stand no matter what happens on appeal with my ruling."
That view was shared by lawyers for Lambda Legal, who brought the initial lawsuit against Polk County, who said of the one couple, they "are married. Period."
Some legal analysts say, the couple's marriage certificate still stands, and the only way that could change is if the Iowa Supreme Court rules that it is no longer valid.
However, Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, noted, "Until the Iowa Supreme Court renders a final decision in this case, any same-sex ‘marriages' that occur in Iowa run the risk that those nuptials will be rendered null and void."
Hausknecht added, "There seems to be no end to the judicial arrogance being displayed in Iowa. Now it appears that judges can not only write the marriage laws, but they can waive any ‘inconvenient' laws otherwise required–one stop shopping for radical social change."
Other pro-family and conservative groups took aim at Hanson's ruling.
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with Concerned Women for America, said, "Through his actions, Judge Hanson has arrogantly ignored the will of the people by cavalierly disregarding a law constitutionally enacted by Iowa citizens through their elected representatives in 1998.
Once again, we have another renegade judge abusing the authority he's been granted and arbitrarily legislating from the bench. Hanson is a judicial activist. He's just one man – a county judge – who has haughtily trampled on the concept of separation of powers, the elected state legislature and the people of Iowa in order to push his own radical agenda.
It's preposterous to think that the framers of the Iowa Constitution could have ever imagined that the document they were drafting would someday be distorted in such a way as to force ‘gay marriage' upon Iowa," Barber said.
Likewise, Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins, said, "This decision demonstrates that judicial activism is still a problem. For a judge to have ‘nullified, severed and stricken' from the law the definition of marriage inherent in both tradition and statute, is an outrageous act of judicial activism.
Judge Hanson failed to recognize that the issue is not access to marriage, which is open to all, subject to restrictions that apply to all. Instead, the issue is the very definition of the word ‘marriage'–which a judge has no right to change.
Despite the implications of the ruling, it made little more than a blip on the national media's radar, suggesting–sadly–that the idea of an activist judge usurping the duly enacted laws of the people has become the norm in America.
There appears to be little substance in the ruling itself, since Judge Hanson dismissed the expert opinion of those who support traditional marriage as ‘anecdotal evidence,' but accepted the advice of two lawyers whose only expertise is that they have represented homosexual clients or participated in same-sex adoptions. Less than 24 hours after his decision, Hanson issued a stay of the ruling, allowing pro-marriage forces the time to regroup and appeal," Perkins said.
Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, noted, "I think there will be vast repercussions if Judge Hanson's initial ruling holds–Iowa will become the mecca for same-sex marriage," a reference to a lack of residency requirements in Iowa.
Hurley continued, "That a special-interest group went before an appointed official and overturned hundreds of hours of research, interviews with constituents, and floor debate, shows the decay of the legislative process. If the homosexuals can do this, what can other groups do with their persuasive legal teams? We are watching the destruction of our Republic, and it will be interesting to see if our elected officials will allow this to happen.
Not only did he usurp the legislative process, Hanson also ignored the role of both a mother and father in raising children. While there are plenty of valiant single mothers and fathers raising their children, to say this should be the rule and not the exception is problematic. To intentionally deny children the privilege of being raised by mothers and fathers is to deny them the opportunity of being raised in a well-rounded environment; research has shown that that denial can be disastrous for our children. Unfortunately, we have a large body of research from the divorce epidemic in our nation pointing to the consequences of omitting either a mother or a father in a child's life.
This ruling is especially shameful because the judge determined that the political special interests of one group trump the best interests of families and children in Iowa.
This ruling is a wakeup call to Iowa legislators who refused to consider the Iowa Marriage Amendment because of our Defense of Marriage Act. That act has been thrown out the window by Judge Hanson and now is the time to act in defense of marriage as a union between one man and one woman," Hurley said.
Iowa Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants said, the judge's ruling points to the need for a state constitutional amendment affirming traditional marriage.
"I can't believe this is happening in Iowa. I guarantee you there will be a vote on this come January," Rants said, making reference to when the state legislature convenes.
Iowa Democratic Governor Chet Culver issued a statement stating his opposition to same-sex marriage. "While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I've been consistent on that. At the same time, I think it's important that we let the judicial process work itself out here," Culver stated.
Culver was initially non-committal to Rants' call for a constitutional amendment.
A total of 26 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Four other states have approved civil unions for gay couples. Massachusetts remains the only state where legalized gay marriage ceremonies are performed, a practice which has been taking place since 2004.
Camilla Taylor, senior staff attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago, hailed the judge's ruling.
"This decision brings to life the Iowa Constitution's promise of equality for same-sex couples and their families in Iowa. I do think [gay and lesbian] people around the country are going to be very excited, if this is upheld by the Iowa Supreme Court, because I think it's indicative of what people in the heartland really believe about the need for fair treatment for everyone. And I think that has great moral and symbolic value for everyone," Taylor said.
The outdoor same-sex marriage ceremony of college students Timothy McQuillan and Sean Fritz was presided over by the Rev. Mark Stringer, minister of First Unitarian Church of Des Moines.
"It was a very quick decision for me to say ‘yes' to them because for so many years I've performed same-sex union ceremonies without the piece of paper. While I did not know Sean and Tim before I agreed to sign their marriage certificate, the decision was an easy one for me.
Tim and Sean knew they were coming close to the wire, so I felt it was appropriate to go ahead and take care of their ceremony quickly. But that's not my normal way of working. In a way, this was a symbolic gesture for all the couples that have been afforded the rights that Tim and Sean will now get," Stringer said.
In the meantime, the group, Everyday America, has launched online petitions asking the Iowa legislature to impeach Hanson on grounds that he violated the state constitution with his ruling.
Should that effort fail, the organization's co-founder, Bill Salier, said he intended to work to unseat Hanson when he comes up for reelection in 2010.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]