Challenge to "Gay Divorce" thrown out by Iowa Supreme Court

[DU9598]

<http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/supreme/opinions/20050617/03-1982.doc>

This morning the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unamimous opinion rejecting the arguments of right-wing hate people who asked the courts to overrule a district court judge in Sioux City who had dissolved a Vermont civil union between two Sioux City women. The decision highlights some of the absurd arguments that the attempted intervenors made to the Court. This is a big defeat for Rep. Steve King who led a anti-retention effort against the district court judge.

It is unfortunate, however, that the Supreme Court did not make a sweeping pronouncement granting all Iowans equal access to the courts. Rather, they simply toss out the case stating that the attempted intervenors have no right to involve themselves in the dissolution of a contract between two people - taxpayers.

On a side note the Supreme Court issued a landmark case allowing discrimination cases filed under the Iowa Civil Rights Act to sue in state court and have a jury trial - previously no jury trial was allowed under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. This is important so that the hostile Bush nominees in the Federal district and 8th Circuit Appeals courts cannot screw with the cases. This is a huge victory in a case of Iowa's leading trial attorney, Roxanne Barton Conlin.

[Moochy]

1. Tom and Katie wont get divorced here

Can a scientologist perform a gay wedding? or divorce?

[Cocoa]

2. look for a "Defense of Divorce Act"

the gays are threatening the sacred institution of divorce.

[sdfernando]

3. These people leave me dumbfounded.

First, we can't allow gay marriage and now we can't allow gay divorce??? How do they twist their logic like this???

[individuation]

7. It actually makes more sense to me than not...

I actually have trouble comprehending how the court can desolve a contract that it could never install in the first place. While the conservatives also have a confusing perspective, I'm confused by either side of this argument. I'm not one to be against gay rights in any way, but I think the logic is equally twisted when the court is allowing a divorce for a marriage/civil union that it refuses to recognize.

[Debi]

4. If gay people marry it should be illegal for them to get divorced!

Decision as it pertains to the plaintiff elected representatives:

<snip>

6. Plaintiffs’ standing in their individual capacities as state and federal legislators. The plaintiffs who are state legislators claim they have standing in their individual capacity as such legislators. Some of them are or have been active in the Iowa Legislature since or prior to April 1998, when Iowa Code section 595.2(1) was amended to define marriage as valid “nly . . . between a male and a female.” One of the plaintiffs is a congressman, who claims he has standing in his individual capacity as a congressman.

The plaintiff state legislators argue that they “have suffered a peculiar injury in that the court usurped the power ‘properly belonging’ to the legislature” by improperly taking jurisdiction of the underlying case and recognizing a civil union that is not recognized under Iowa law. The plaintiff congressman argues he has suffered a peculiar injury by the district court’s recognition of the civil union because that action was not required under federal law and not permitted by state law.

All of these contentions and arguments have no bearing on what the district court actually did. The court dissolved a civil union; it did not dissolve a marriage. We therefore agree with the amicus that these plaintiffs have claimed an interest in Iowa and federal marriage laws that has nothing to do with the district court’s decision.

Moreover, judges determine what the existing law is in relation to some existing thing already done; whereas legislators make “‘a predetermination of what the law shall be for the regulation of future cases falling under its provisions.’” <snip> We make no judgment on the merits. But we disagree with the plaintiff state legislators’ contention that the district court was usurping their power.

It would be strange indeed and contrary to our notions of separation of powers if we were to recognize that legislators have standing to intervene in lawsuits just because they disagree with a court’s interpretation of a statute.

<snip>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
U.S. Congressman Steve King (IA-5th District)
State Senator Nancy Boettger
State Senator Neal Schuerer
State Representative Dwayne Alons
State Representative Carmine Boal
State Representative Danny Carrol


Edited - My bold and I'm sorry it was more than four paragraphs - you've got to read the whole decision!

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/supreme/opinions/20050617/03-1982.asp

[Broke Dad]

5. Isn't It Ironic

Isn't it ironic that the same zealots who want to "get the government out of our lives" spend so much time seeking to meddle (and have the government meddle) in personal relationships? Harkin was right when he called them the "homegrown Taliban." How sad for the two women involved, their relationship breaks down to the point that they have to file legal proceedings to split and then to be dragged through the press and the mud by these hypocrites.

But now you know why they hate judges so much. . . Even the Republican judges appointed by Branstad and Ray joined in this unanimous butt kicking of the Plaintiffs lead by Steve King.

[Debi]

6. Wish we could find someone else to kick King's butt!

I know that it won't be easy in Western Iowa, but how nutty can this guy get w/out Democrats getting rid of him?