Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s days away: The Supreme Court’s marriage decision is expected to come down on June 29.
Doug Napier at Townhall: For years, Iowa law relied on a rather reasonable bit of biological reality: it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. From that fact, the state reasoned that for questions of paternity, the answer would involve someone commonly called a “father.” So when the state recorded births as a matter of public record, it (rather logically) looked for a man as the non-birth parent. As reasonable as that may seem, in the brave new world of “marriage equality” it is now “prejudicial” for state officials to ask this simple “who’s your daddy?” question.
Iowa Supreme Court: Married lesbians have constitutional right for both to be on baby’s birth certificate
Des Moines Register: Married same-sex couples have the same rights as married heterosexuals to have both parents listed on the birth certificates of their newborn children, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled this morning. Justices ruled 6-0 . . . | Gartner v. Iowa Dept. of Public Health
The Gazette: Their amendment to House File 120, the judicial branch budget bill, would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision to $25,000 – the same as a state legislator.
State Court Administrator says Iowa Supreme Court has weathered the storm of anti-judicial sentiment
WCFCourier.com: State Court Administrator David Boyd said Wednesday he believes the Iowa Supreme Court has weathered a “perfect storm” of anti-judicial sentiment that brewed in 2010 following a controversial same-sex marriage decision and disruptive state budget cuts.
On Brief, Iowa’s Appellate Blog: This afternoon, the Iowa Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Gartner v. Iowa Department of Public Health, which presents the following issue: When a mother gives birth to a child, does the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien require that the mother’s same-sex spouse be listed on the birth certificate?
“Romney’s Gay-Marriage Boost in Iowa: Social conservatives turning out to remove a judge may deliver the state to Romney.”
National Review: It’s certainly not a sure thing, but the fate of one David Wiggins could play a key role in determining, on November 6, who becomes the leader of the free world.
KAALTV.com: On election day, Iowa Supreme Court Justice, David Wiggins future on the bench will be decided by Iowa voters. It’s known as retention and it’s leaving many voters with questions. Sunday, Wiggins spoke with a small crowd in Mason City.
Des Moines Register: “If he’s under a majority, I think that is a good sign for us,” Vander Plaats said, noting that retention opponents spent much of their time in 2010 educating voters on how a retention election works. “I really believe we’re in better shape than we were two years ago.”
Des Moines Register: Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and former gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, among others, urged voters to vote “no” on November’s ballot on whether to retain Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins. Nearby, activists with the Iowa Bar Association shadowed the group to urge exactly the opposite.
Quad-City Times: Wiggins is one of four Iowa Supreme Court judges up for retention on the November ballot, but he is the only one of the four who was on the bench when the court unanimously ruled in the Varnum v. Brien case to legalize same-sex marriage in Iowa.
Citizen Link: Justice David Wiggins was one of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices that voted to legislate the state’s new marriage redefinition from the bench in the 2009 Varnum v. Brien case. In 2010, three of the seven justices faced the voters in a retention election (an up or down vote of approval/disapproval held every set number of years) and lost their jobs. Now it’s Wiggins’ turn to face the music . . .
The American Prospect: Iowa Republicans aren’t ready to cast aside their anger over the state Supreme Court’s 2009 decision legalizing same-sex marriage. After successfully unseating three of the justices who joined the unanimous decision in 2010, they’re going after Justice David Wiggins, who is up for a retention vote this year. The new conservative campaign won’t change Iowa’s same-sex marriage law, but it further politicizes the state’s once-independent judiciary and may boost turnout for Mitt Romney in a key swing state.
CBS News: Kennedy heads the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, which promotes the late president’s memory and legacy. She is set to present the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Monday to former Iowa Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit, all of whom were pushed off the bench in a 2010 retention vote that capped a contentious campaign.
William Brown at the De Moines Register: In Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady’s April 16 guest opinion article and his March speech at the Drake University law school, he defends his “living constitution” version of constitutional interpretation over the “originalism” view that is gaining broader public acceptance in the wake of recent court decisions which many citizens view as activist. Justice Cady’s position is largely focused on defending his opinion in Varnum v. Brien, which legitimized same-sex marriage in Iowa.
Ousted Iowa judges who voted to redefine marriage selected to receive John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage awards
Boston Globe: Three former Iowa Supreme Court justices who voted to legalize same-sex marriage in their state and a US diplomat have been selected as recipients of the 2012 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation announced today.
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law CLE: “The Politicization of Judicial Elections and Its Effect on Judicial Independence and LGBT Rights”
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law: In the November 2010 elections, three sitting Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted as a result of the court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v. Brien. The Varnum decision struck down, on equal protection grounds, a state statute limiting marriage rights to a union between a man and a woman. The conference seeks to examine the effect the ouster may have on judicial independence as well as its effect on future efforts to challenge, in state courts, laws that prohibit marriage for same-sex couples and to advance other civil rights for LGBT persons through state court litigation
The Walrus: “When the American Right needed courtroom-ready arguments against gay marriage, it looked to three academics from McGill . . . The following year, a lawyer from the Alliance Defense Fund, a controversial American Christian group, asked Somerville and Young to act as expert witnesses in a landmark Iowa case involving six gay couples who hoped to wed . . . ”
Out-of-State Civil Unions in Iowa After Varnum v. Brien: Why the State of Iowa Should Recognize Civil Unions as Marriage
“One of the issues that arose after the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien, which held that Iowa’s Constitution would not permit Iowa to limit the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples, regards how the state should treat different types of same-sex unions from other states. Some of the most interesting and important concerns center around the status Iowa will give to out-of-state civil unions and domestic partnerships, relationships that receive legal recognition but are not true marriages in their states of origin. Since federal law (the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act) and choice-of-law principles allow Iowa to recognize out-of-state, same-sex relationships, Iowa courts and legislators must now look to statutory law, common law, and public policy to determine how Iowa should recognize out-of-state, same-sex unions. Statutory and common law ultimately leave the issue to public policy, which permits Iowa to either recognize civil unions as marriages or to require couples with civil unions to obtain a marriage before the state will recognize their status as ‘married.’ Iowa should treat civil unions as marriages because of its statutorily implied public-policy arguments and because of the Iowa Supreme Court’s arguments in Varnum.”
Jordan Lorence: Seven reasons why the NYT is wrong to criticize Iowa retention vote on justices who imposed same-sex “marriage”
ADF Attorney Jordan Lorence writing at Inside the Issues: “The New York Times in its Sunday edition criticized efforts in Iowa to remove three state supreme court justices for voting to redefine marriage to include same sex couples . . . 1. One court decision by judges can be so outrageous that the only appropriate response by voters is to remove them from office . . . 2. The Iowa Supreme Court decision redefining marriage was really bad example of judicial activism- it usurped constitutional authority from the people . . . 3. It is very difficult to amend the Iowa Constitution, so how else do Iowa voters respond to a renegade decision by the state supreme court? . . .”
Briefly put, marriage ― as conventionally understood ― is a bulwark of liberty. Here ― despite the bigotry of Iowa judges against the past ― I revert to history. The telling reality is that every modern totalitarian movement ― every enemy of a free society ― has moved early and aggressively to disrupt or destroy the institution of natural marriage.”