2007: Varnum v. Brien

Iowa couples get the right to marry – briefly

Sean Fritz embraces his new husband Tim McQuillan

In August, Iowa lower court Judge Robert B. Hanson rules that the State’s marriage laws “are to be interpreted in a gender-neutral manner so as not to exclude couples of the same sex from eligibility for a marriage license.” Furthermore, the State is prohibited “from refusing to issue marriage licenses to Plaintiffs or any other same-sex couples…”

In Varnum v. Brien, the judge begins by explaining why he is disallowing the testimony of all but three of the defense’s supposed expert witnesses – witnesses who had testified about why same-sex couples should be kept from marrying. Scrutinizing their professional qualifications – or lack thereof – the judge notes that they do not have the scientific or technical knowledge necessary to satisfy the Iowa Rules of Evidence. “[T]hey do not appear to possess expertise in relevant fields such as sociology, child development, psychology or psychiatry. … The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense.” In other words, get these charlatans out of my court room. The judge also dismisses the testimony of two of the plaintiff’s witnesses, on the basis that their statements are essentially those of personal experience and do not represent “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge”.

The judge then carefully lays out 120 “material facts” about the parties and the case, including:

1. Plaintiffs each have chosen and consented to marry the one unique person who is irreplaceable to them and with whom they have formed a deeply intimate bond and share daily family life, but have been denied this right by the government.

33. Plaintiffs and their families are harmed in numerous tangible and intangible (including dignitary) respects by their exclusion from the right to marry in Iowa.

35. Plaintiffs suffer great dignitary harm because the State’s denial to Plaintiffs of access to an institution, so woven into the fabric of daily life and so determinative of legal rights and status, amounts to a badge of inferiority imposed on them and Minor Plaintiffs [ie. their children]. Plaintiffs are continually reminded of their own and their family’s second-class status in daily interactions in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and other arenas in which their relationships and families are poorly or unequally treated, or are not recognized at all.

37. Without access to the institution, familiar language and legal label of marriage, Plaintiffs are unable instantly or adequately to communicate the depth and permanence of their commitment to others, or to obtain respect for that commitment, as others do simply by invoking their married status.

The judge rules that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry the person of their choice violates their constitutionally-guaranteed right to Due Process:

The Defendant has cited no evidence that precluding gay and lesbian individuals from marrying other gay and lesbian individuals will promote procreation, will encourage child rearing by mothers and fathers, will promote stability for opposite sex marriages, will conserve resources or will promote heterosexual marriage. Iowa Code §595.2(1) manages to be both over and under-inclusive while effectuating none of its purported rationales. The law is extremely overinclusive in its attempt to strengthen heterosexual marriage and procreation by preventing an entirely distinct group of individuals – homosexuals – from marrying. The law is also extremely underinclusive by failing to regulate at all how heterosexuals enter into marriage and procreative relationships, despite the narrow focus of the legislation’s goals on that group of individuals. The Defendant fails to sustain his burden of proof that §595.2(1) is narrowly tailored to effectuate the achievement of a compelling state interest.

The judge also rules in favor of same-sex couples in regard to Equal Protection:

The Equal Protection Clause “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” … Absent the operation of Iowa Code §595.2(1), the Plaintiffs meet the requirements for a civil marriage in the State of Iowa. The Plaintiff’s own sex precludes them from marrying an individual of their choosing. Such a classification is sex-based and would be entitled to an intermediate level of scrutiny. …

The Defendant argues that because the statute operates equally on men and women, the statute is not a sex-based classification warranting intermediate scrutiny. However, the United States Supreme Court in Loving rejected an identical line of reasoning with regard to race and held that despite the Virginia law’s application to both white and black citizens, the statute nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause.

This Court concludes that the sex-based classification promulgated by Iowa Code §595.2(1) is not substantially related to an important state interest.

And finally, the judge even goes the extra mile to address the rational basis argument, finding that, even if strict scrutiny were not required in this case, the same-sex couples would still prevail because the State does not have a rational basis for excluding them:

[T]he relationship between [the promotion of responsible procreation] and the means employed to advance it – the total exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage – is completely arbitrary. The exclusion of same-sex couples from entering into a marriage bears no discernable relationship to the promotion of responsible procreation by heterosexual couples.

Mere hours after the ruling is issued, 24-year-old Sean Fritz proposes to his boyfriend Tim McQuillan, 21, in a parking lot in Ames, Iowa. Making the most of the situation, Sean does it on one knee with a flower and a ring – after having called Tim’s mom to ask for her son’s hand in marriage. Tim accepts Sean’s proposal and, like the dedicated Iowa State University students they are, they stay up late researching Iowa marriage law.

Early the next morning the students, along with 20 or so other same-sex couples across the state, apply for and are granted a license.

But Sean and Tim take the next critical step. They go before another judge to obtain a waiver of the state’s usual 3-day waiting period. They call several clergy including a Unitarian Universalist minister who understands their urgency and who immediately marries them – before a squad of press cameras. Then they rush their signed marriage certificate back to the courthouse and file it. They are legally married.

Less than an hour later, Judge Hanson issues a stay of his ruling of the previous afternoon, to allow the state supreme court the final word. And with the stay, the hopes of the licensed-but-not-yet-wed couples have once again been put on hold.

Timeline key: progress (green), no progress (red), pending court cases (purple),
events that are neutral, not directly related, or with both positive and negative effects (black)