Same Sex Unions and Iowa's Judiciary

Guest blogger Jonathan Falk, Regent Law 2012, had some personal experience with the Iowa Election on Judicial Retention which he details brilliantly below....

Being that I am from North Carolina, I am clearly no expert on Iowa law, but I am a big Hawkeye fan. So, throughout this semester I have been intrigued with the view of marriage within the Hawkeye State. As a 2L here at Regent University I am currently enrolled in Family Law, and this semester we studied the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien , which many felt was in direct opposition to the State of Iowa's Constitution at that time. This case has subsequently led to much debate over the recent retention vote of three Supreme Court justices in Iowa. 

In 1962 the State of Iowa began a merit selection and retention system that allows the people of the state ensure that the "judges base their decisions on the law and constitution (of Iowa) and nothing else." The crazy thing, though, is this vote has never failed to retain a justice, nonetheless, three justices - until now. The New York Times reported this Hawkeye judicial shocker recently in this article: "In Iowa, Voters Oust Judges Over Marriage Issue," published in NYTimes.com at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03judges.html?_r=1&ref=politics. 

This phenomenon clearly shows that the people of Iowa feel hurt by the baseless decisions of their Supreme Court justices. Also, more importantly, the people of Iowa have shown that they are willing to fight for the view of marriage that they believe best aligns with their constitution and even their morals.

In Varnum v. Brien the Iowa Supreme Court decided to allow gay marriage within the state, and based their decision on basic fairness and the responsibility to "protect the constitutional rights of individuals that have been denied those rights." The Court also stated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution required that the law treat all people the same that are similarly situated, and thus concluded that homosexuals are similarly situated to those heterosexual couples for the purposes of Iowa's marriage laws. Thus, the Supreme Court of Iowa vastly changed the traditional foundations of marriage, and chose to arbitrarily edit the Iowa Constitution to reflect the judges' views of the marriage covenant.

Based upon this ruling, the somewhat usual or nonchalant retention vote for three Supreme Court justices became a very big deal, as the citizens of Iowa were given a chance to voice either their support or disgust for these justices' actions. So, for the first time in the history of the Iowa retention vote the people of Iowa chose not to retain three justices of the Supreme Court. According to the Des Moines Register, some saw this vote as an "aggressive campaign to misuse the judicial retention vote," while others saw this as a, "resounding victory [] and a historic moment in the State of Iowa...(where) the people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message...that it is 'We the people,' not 'We the courts.'" 

Many Iowans felt strongly about the ruling, and those who voted to dismiss the judges opined that the decision to allow gay marriage weighed heavily upon their vote. Some were even quoted as saying, "I don't think they (the justices) should have the power to change the constitution and take things into their own hands." 

Again, I am just a big Hawkeyes fan, but on my recent trip to Iowa, the weekend before this vote, I was somewhat shocked at the momentum that the need to dismiss these justices had within the state. It is refreshing to see that the people of Iowa feel so strongly that they have been wronged by the baseless vote of these justices that drastically transformed their State's Constitution. Also, it is more exciting to see that people are finally starting to stand up for the view of marriage as that between a man and a women, and are willing to initiate never before seen political movements to ensure this view of marriage in their respective states. 

So, all together, November 2, 2010 will be remembered not only for the change of power within Washington, but hopefully, as well, for the point that the people of America really began to stand up to fight for the correct view of marriage, as between a man and a woman.