Because of the state’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses,
Iowans are no strangers to national media attention, power struggles of
special interest groups and hot-button debates. In nearly any diner
throughout the state, conversations on ethanol subsidies, the decline
of Main Street and foreign policy are more commonplace than not.

The state’s next turn in the national spotlight begins on today, when the state Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex
marriage.

The legal drama has been three years in the making. In December 2005, the gay rights group Lambda Legal
filed a lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples who sought the right
to marry in Iowa. The suit was later amended to include three children
whose parents were plaintiffs. The lawsuit argued that it would be
unlawful to ban same-sex couples from marriage based on the equal
protection and due process guarantees of the Iowa constitution. The
state’s Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1998 by a 40-9 margin in the
Senate and an 89-10 margin in the House, defines marriage as being
solely between a man and a woman.

On Aug. 30, 2007, an Iowa District Court in Polk County agreed with
the plaintiffs and ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny couples
the right to marry.

"Couples, such as [the] Plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to
marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates
of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil
marriage … by reason of the fact that both persons comprising such a
couple are of the same sex," wrote Iowa District Court Judge Robert
Hanson in his ruling.

Although Hanson placed a "hold" on his ruling before even 24 hours
had passed, dozens of same-sex couples lined up for licenses. One
couple, Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan, both undergraduates at Iowa State
University, were able to maneuver through the system quickly enough to
become spouses in Iowa’s first – and only – legal same-sex marriage.

A Polk County attorney appealed the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court, which has scheduled oral arguments next week.

In the weeks prior to the scheduled oral arguments, Lambda Legal and One Iowa,
an equality advocacy group, presented public forums to discuss the
status of the case and encourage those Iowans who support marriage
equality to voice their opinion.

"I think one of the misconceptions is that the lawsuit seeks to
change what various religious organizations are doing," said Camilla
Taylor, a senior staff attorney with Lambda Legal who argued the case
in District Court. "All we are actually talking about is
government-issued marriage licenses. Religious institutions have never
been required to perform or condone civil marriage, and this lawsuit
doesn’t change that."

Rev. Rich McCarty, one of the panel members at the Iowa City forum,
echoed this sentiment in a tongue-in-cheek fashion by stating that
"religious communities are free to discriminate against whomever they
want to."

Those speaking at the forum were hopeful that Iowa, a state that
granted the marriage rights of interracial couples more than 100 years
before the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia,
will once again flex its pioneering muscles. It is a hope voiced by
Mary Mascher, a Democratic member of the Iowa House of Representatives
from Iowa City.

"I think our constitution clearly, clearly prohibits [a ban on
same-sex marriage]," said Mascher, one of several legislators and local
elected officials who signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in
support of the lawsuit. "[The Defense of Marriage Act] is
discriminatory and I voted against that law when it was put on the
books for that very reason. I thought it was unconstitutional and I
believe that’s what the Supreme Court is going to rule."

Mascher knows that the issue has become a political hot potato,
especially after the November general election when ballot propositions
in other states like California were successful in banning same-sex
marriage.

A total of 24 friend-of-the court briefs have been filed. Sixteen of
those are from organizations and individuals who believe Iowa’s Defense
of Marriage Act, passed in 1998, is unconstitutional. Eight briefs are
supportive of the gay marriage ban, most of them from national
organizations.

Sixteen Republican state legislators joined in filing a
friend-of-the-court brief in support of banning same-sex marriage in
Iowa when the case was before Iowa District Court last year. Only five
of the 16 have added their names to similar brief in the Supreme Court
case. Citing their interest in "maintaining a proper separation of
government powers," Reps. Dwayne Alons, Carmine Boal and Betty DeBoef
joined with Sens. Nancy Boettger and James Hahn on a brief authored by
the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance created in 1994 by Focus on
the Family and more than 29 additional Christian ministries, as a
response to the American Civil Liberties Union, to "aggressively defend
religious liberty."

Jim Campbell, litigation counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund,
provided the crux of the opposition brief by questioning the lower
court’s decision to reject testimony prior to ruling.

"The government should promote and encourage strong families,"
Campbell said. "The expert testimony excluded by the court was crucial
to establishing why Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act does that and why
the act is completely constitutional. The people of Iowa, through their
elected legislators, took their stand on marriage as a union of one
woman and one man when they passed this Act in 1998."

Mascher thinks supporters of the gay marriage ban from outside the state "would tread upon our constitution."

"Part of me says that is their right of freedom of speech and that
everybody can come here and say what they want and speak their piece.
But at the same time, this is Iowa. I think we as Iowans have definite
feelings and opinions about that too. I don’t want to be a part of
anything that would take rights away in our constitution. That would be
the first time in the history of Iowa that we’ve ever put an amendment
to that constitution that took rights away. If you think about the
enormity of that, it really gives you pause in terms of thinking that
this would be something that we would even consider, and that there are
people who would try to destroy our constitution in that way."

A perhaps strange bedfellow in all of this is Gov. Chet Culver.
Prior to the November general election – indeed, prior to the beginning
of the 2008 legislative session – Culver claimed
he was in favor of calling a special legislative session to deal with a
Supreme Court verdict that would allow same-sex marriage in Iowa.

Mascher, while not completely convinced that Culver has ruled out this strategy, cautions that it could be politically unwise.

"What I think the governor has to understand and appreciate is that
he is one branch of government and our legislature is another branch of
government," Mascher said. "In order for anything to happen and occur,
it can’t just happen with his signature. He doesn’t have any kind of
veto power over a constitutional amendment. He can call us back. We
don’t have to come. We don’t have to do anything. So, I think he would
do that at his own peril because it would be embarrassing to call us
back and then not have anything be done. I don’t think that politically
he is willing to take that kind of a risk."

Oral arguments are expected to begin at 10 a.m. on Dec. 9 in the
Iowa Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines. The opposing parties will
have 30 minutes in which to make their arguments.

More information regarding oral arguments, the trial court ruling and other proceedings can be found on the Iowa Judicial Branch Web site.
There is no mandated time frame for the court to make its ruling
following the oral arguments. Most close to the case anticipate it will
take several months.