So you want a gay marriage in Iowa?
Here's what you need to know, from a directive sent by the Iowa Attorney General's office to the individual county recorders/registrars, regarding the implementation of Varnum v. Brien (emphasis mine):
"The Iowa Supreme Court held today that the Iowa statute which limits civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. The Court ordered that the unconstitutional language of this statute - Iowa Code section 595.2(1) - must be stricken and the remaining statutory language interpreted and applied in a manner which allows gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage. The Court's decision becomes effective upon issuance of a procedendo, which is a separate order from the Court directing the district court to proceed to judgment. A procedendo will issue twenty-one days after the opinion is filed unless a petition for rehearing is filed. [21 days = April 24.] Hence, the Court's ruling does not become effective today and county recorders/registrars may not accept marriage applications from same sex couples nor issue marriage licenses to same sex couples until such time as the procedendo issues. Upon issuance of the procedendo county recorders/registrars must issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in the same manner as licenses issued to opposite sex couples. In addition, the Iowa Department of Public Health is revising the marriage application, marriage license, and marriage certificate forms to be consistent with the Court's order and those forms will be available from the Department prior to issuance of the procedendo."
In short: if you're gay and got a hankerin' fer an Iowa marriage, plan a road trip to the Hawkeye state on April 24. Maybe later I'll post some of my native knowledge and recommend the best places to get gay married in Iowa.
The Attorney General, Tom Miller, offered his own personal view on Varnum v. Brien:
"The Court has issued a clear and well-reasoned opinion. I believe that the Supreme Court's decision is right, based on Iowa Constitutional law principles regarding equal protection. It is noteworthy that the decision was unanimous. Our office is working with state and local government on practical questions of implementing the decision. As the decision itself noted, it takes effect in 21 days, on April 24 when procedendo issues, if there is no petition filed for rehearing."
A couple things in response to Attorney General Miller's statement...
1. Miller says that it's "noteworthy that the decision was unanimous." I was going to write an entire post about this later, but I think Miller just said it better than I could. This isn't an activist judge. It's not a rogue cadre of activist judges. This is a state supreme court speaking with unanimity. That carries a lot of weight and is very hard to dismiss with the usual charges.
2. As you may remember, Governor Chet Culver avoided issuing a direct statement on Varnum v. Brien when he claimed to be consulting his attorney general. Well, that story no longer holds water: the attorney general just shared his views with the entire nation. What's Culver doing now, besides hiding? Who is he consulting if not his attorney general? As a commenter on BleedingHeartland noted, "Culver, caught between his own non-progressive prior statements and the prevailing mood of his party, is standing largely alone in no-man's-land." Vander Plaats is going to pounce, and pounce hard.
"The Iowa Supreme Court held today that the Iowa statute which limits civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. The Court ordered that the unconstitutional language of this statute - Iowa Code section 595.2(1) - must be stricken and the remaining statutory language interpreted and applied in a manner which allows gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage. The Court's decision becomes effective upon issuance of a procedendo, which is a separate order from the Court directing the district court to proceed to judgment. A procedendo will issue twenty-one days after the opinion is filed unless a petition for rehearing is filed. [21 days = April 24.] Hence, the Court's ruling does not become effective today and county recorders/registrars may not accept marriage applications from same sex couples nor issue marriage licenses to same sex couples until such time as the procedendo issues. Upon issuance of the procedendo county recorders/registrars must issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in the same manner as licenses issued to opposite sex couples. In addition, the Iowa Department of Public Health is revising the marriage application, marriage license, and marriage certificate forms to be consistent with the Court's order and those forms will be available from the Department prior to issuance of the procedendo."
In short: if you're gay and got a hankerin' fer an Iowa marriage, plan a road trip to the Hawkeye state on April 24. Maybe later I'll post some of my native knowledge and recommend the best places to get gay married in Iowa.
The Attorney General, Tom Miller, offered his own personal view on Varnum v. Brien:
"The Court has issued a clear and well-reasoned opinion. I believe that the Supreme Court's decision is right, based on Iowa Constitutional law principles regarding equal protection. It is noteworthy that the decision was unanimous. Our office is working with state and local government on practical questions of implementing the decision. As the decision itself noted, it takes effect in 21 days, on April 24 when procedendo issues, if there is no petition filed for rehearing."
A couple things in response to Attorney General Miller's statement...
1. Miller says that it's "noteworthy that the decision was unanimous." I was going to write an entire post about this later, but I think Miller just said it better than I could. This isn't an activist judge. It's not a rogue cadre of activist judges. This is a state supreme court speaking with unanimity. That carries a lot of weight and is very hard to dismiss with the usual charges.
2. As you may remember, Governor Chet Culver avoided issuing a direct statement on Varnum v. Brien when he claimed to be consulting his attorney general. Well, that story no longer holds water: the attorney general just shared his views with the entire nation. What's Culver doing now, besides hiding? Who is he consulting if not his attorney general? As a commenter on BleedingHeartland noted, "Culver, caught between his own non-progressive prior statements and the prevailing mood of his party, is standing largely alone in no-man's-land." Vander Plaats is going to pounce, and pounce hard.