California ruling, Iowa impact

So a 2-1 majority on a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says it's unconstitutional to rescind a constitutionally granted right through a referendum without a legitimate reason to do so.

The ruling is all about California. But I'm thinking of Iowa.

Tuesday's ruling that California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional received muted fanfare. It's very narrowly crafted, scores of analysts said, to apply to California circumstances. The court did not endorse a sweeping right to marriage. It did not, with the stroke of a pen, make gay marriages legal west of the Rockies. And here I thought this was a court so radical and dangerous that it should be abolished by President Gingrich. Go figure.

Its ruling applies in a specific case where a state court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right before voters then approved an amendment erasing that right. California is the lone place where that's happened.

But could happen beyond California. And that brings us back home.

If the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the ruling and affirms it, the action could swiftly halt the ongoing misguided drive to amend marriage discrimination into Iowa's constitution. Such an amendment, like California's, would clearly be unconstitutional.

"The same reasoning would apply in Iowa as in California," said Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal who led the legal team that won Iowa's court fight over marriage equality.

If the Supreme Court overturns the California ruling, the fight here in Iowa likely continues.

But even if the high court declines to weigh in, as some have suggested it might, Tuesday's ruling stands as a strong legal precedent against the notion that Iowa can turn back the clock on civil rights.

The 9th Circuit panel found that none of the reasons given by backers of Prop. 8 could be considered compelling enough to justify yanking away previously granted marriage rights. And the reasons given there are roughly the same as those peddled by culture warriors in Iowa - protecting tradition, advancing procreation, stabilizing families, protecting religious liberty, etc.

The panel ruled that Prop. 8 really did none of those things. Its real effect was to “lessen the status and human dignity” of its intended targets. Its true purpose, according to the court, was “to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of their relationships.”

The panel majority also found it "implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of a family headed by one man and one woman."

The very same can be said of the weak and spiteful case for a ban being pushed in Iowa under the deceptive “let us vote” banner.

It's just more writing on the wall that the tide has turned. I wish our so-called “family leaders” would heed it, get the hint and start focusing on actually helping Iowa families, instead of working overtime to tear them apart.