Polk County files response in same-sex marriage case
Posted: Thursday, May 22, 2008
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- The Polk County attorney's office says in new documents that a lawsuit challenging the state's same-sex marriage ban is trying to change the way public policy is made.
The lawsuit has led to a series of filings in which the county attorney's office and a New York-based gay rights organization have answered one another's legal arguments.
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in 2005 on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples from Iowa who were denied marriage licenses, as well as three of the couples' children. It names former Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The lawsuit prompted a ruling last August by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
The next day, Hanson stayed the decision, and the case is now before the Iowa Supreme Court.
Challengers of the same-sex marriage ban contend it violates gays' rights. Opponents said the issue should be left up to the Legislature to decide -- not the courts.
In its reply brief filed on Tuesday, the county attorney's office said that Lambda Legal seeks to have the judicial branch set public policy, instead of leaving it to lawmakers.
"Plaintiffs seek to have this court establish that the courts and not the Legislature should make public policy for the State of Iowa by redefining marriage to be something totally different from what it has ever seen," the brief said.
Among its arguments, the brief criticizes Lambda Legal's analogy between gays seeking the right to marry and Iowa's judicial history of guaranteeing rights for black Americans. The brief said other courts have rejected similar arguments.
"This is because the histories of black Americans simply are not remotely the same as plaintiffs," the brief said. "The constitutions of the United States and the state of Iowa do not mention homosexuality."
The brief also argues that the court erred in rejecting some of the county's witnesses who were to have testified about the nature of marriage and the best situation in which to raise children. It said the witnesses should be allowed because their testimony is something the Legislature could believe as part of arguments to preserve procreative marriage, which it called "a rational basis for the (Iowa) law."
The county attorney's office said Lambda Legal also tried to assert that the county's arguments are simply based on morals.
"Plaintiffs confuse culture, history and religious beliefs," the brief said. "Defendant (Brien) has addressed that his witnesses testified from historical and anthropological research, not a matter of faith."
Camilla Taylor, the Lambda Legal attorney representing the same-sex couples, issued a statement about the county's brief.
"We've heard all of these arguments before, yet Polk County has still given no valid justification for excluding same-sex couples and their children from marriage," she said.
Oral arguments will be scheduled by the Iowa Supreme Court in coming months, but a decision this year is unlikely.
The lawsuit has led to a series of filings in which the county attorney's office and a New York-based gay rights organization have answered one another's legal arguments.
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in 2005 on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples from Iowa who were denied marriage licenses, as well as three of the couples' children. It names former Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.
The lawsuit prompted a ruling last August by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
The next day, Hanson stayed the decision, and the case is now before the Iowa Supreme Court.
Challengers of the same-sex marriage ban contend it violates gays' rights. Opponents said the issue should be left up to the Legislature to decide -- not the courts.
In its reply brief filed on Tuesday, the county attorney's office said that Lambda Legal seeks to have the judicial branch set public policy, instead of leaving it to lawmakers.
"Plaintiffs seek to have this court establish that the courts and not the Legislature should make public policy for the State of Iowa by redefining marriage to be something totally different from what it has ever seen," the brief said.
Among its arguments, the brief criticizes Lambda Legal's analogy between gays seeking the right to marry and Iowa's judicial history of guaranteeing rights for black Americans. The brief said other courts have rejected similar arguments.
"This is because the histories of black Americans simply are not remotely the same as plaintiffs," the brief said. "The constitutions of the United States and the state of Iowa do not mention homosexuality."
The brief also argues that the court erred in rejecting some of the county's witnesses who were to have testified about the nature of marriage and the best situation in which to raise children. It said the witnesses should be allowed because their testimony is something the Legislature could believe as part of arguments to preserve procreative marriage, which it called "a rational basis for the (Iowa) law."
The county attorney's office said Lambda Legal also tried to assert that the county's arguments are simply based on morals.
"Plaintiffs confuse culture, history and religious beliefs," the brief said. "Defendant (Brien) has addressed that his witnesses testified from historical and anthropological research, not a matter of faith."
Camilla Taylor, the Lambda Legal attorney representing the same-sex couples, issued a statement about the county's brief.
"We've heard all of these arguments before, yet Polk County has still given no valid justification for excluding same-sex couples and their children from marriage," she said.
Oral arguments will be scheduled by the Iowa Supreme Court in coming months, but a decision this year is unlikely.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
