After four years of drama, Supreme Court doesn't retreat from civil rights

It turns out all the drama hasn't spawned a dramatically altered Iowa Supreme Court.

On Friday, the state's highest court ruled 6-0 in favor of a married lesbian couple seeking to have each of their names listed on their daughter's birth certificate. The Iowa Department of Public Health refused, naming only the birth mother but not her spouse. But the Supreme Court ruled that the department's application of existing law violated the Iowa Constitution's clause entitling citizens to equal treatment under the law.

It's a big ruling for a number of reasons. For one, as Jennifer Hemmingsen notes, it's a win for kids.

It's also the first time that the court has picked up its 2009 Varnum ruling striking down Iowa's ban on same-sex marriages and used it as a tool to further expand civil rights protections.

"The court says in this decision, 'We meant what we said,'" said Camilla Taylor, marriage project director in Lambda Legal's Chicago office. "Turns out equal is equal. There's no marriage lite for same-sex couples or their children."

Between 2009 and now, you might recall, crusading critics of the ruling and the court succeeded in ousting three justices who joined the Varnum ruling. A fourth, Justice David Wiggins, survived a 2012 retention campaign and wrote Friday's ruling. There have been calls for all of the remaining Varnum justices to resign. A few state lawmakers floated the possibility of impeachment. This year, some House Republicans called for docking the justices' pay.

But if judge hunters were hoping to intimidate the court into drastically shifting its approach, for fear of invoking more loud rebukes from the outraged right and suffering dire political consequences, Friday's ruling shows all the bluster brought very little change. Clearly, the four remaining Varnum justices haven't changed their minds or backed away from the landmark ruling.

Still the court has been changed some. It was unavoidable.

Two of three new justices appointed by Gov. Terry Branstad, Justice Edward Mansfield and Justice Thomas Waterman, concurred with Friday's result while also sending a cryptic message on their feelings about Varnum. Here's their special concurrence, penned by Mansfield:

The Iowa Department of Public Health accepts the decision in Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), for purposes of this appeal. I agree that if Varnum is the law, then Iowa Code section 144.13(2) cannot be constitutionally applied to deny Melissa Gartner's request to be listed as parent on the birth certificate of the child delivered by her same-sex spouse. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment in this case.

That's a very intriguing “if.”

"What it means is that they don't necessarily agree with all the reasoning in the main decision but they absolutely agree in the result,' Taylor said, while conceding that the justices' thinking is unclear.

A third new member, Justice Bruce Zager, took no part. The court doesn't say why.

(Update -- Bleeding Heartland notes that attorney Sharon K. Malheiro, who was among the lawyers representing the couple, is with the same law firm where Zager's daughter is a partner.)

None of the parties in this case challenged the validity of Varnum. But I think if these new justices had been itching to take a slap at the 2009 ruling, this was a chance to do it. The fact that they didn't suggests that they're willing to let it stand. So judge-defenders who worried that the retention ruckus would damage the court's independence or imperil Varnum can breathe a sigh of relief.

Sure, this court is still going to make lousy rulings and draw fire, sometimes justifiably. But on civil rights, it hasn't gone skittish. It's not retreating.

Varnum remains the law of the land, no “if” about it.