Janelle Rettig is making plans to amend her tax returns, even though it means she’ll probably have to fork over more money.
It will be worth it, because for the first time in her 25-year relationship, she’ll soon be able to call herself married.
Rettig and Robin Butler were married in Canada more than five years ago. But this “is the first time a governmental body where we live recognizes us as anything but strangers,” she said.
“That’s overwhelming,” she told me Friday, the day our fair state became the third in the country and the first in the Midwest to allow same-sex marriages.
Go Iowa.
Janelle Rettig and Robin Butler pose with their Canadian certificate of marriage at the Johnson County administration building Friday, April 03, 2009. When the State Supreme Court’s ruling takes effect, Rettig says, it will be the first time in their 25-year relationship they’ve lived in a state that recognizes them as anything but strangers.
For the second time in less than a year, we surprised the country with our forward thinkingness. Even native Iowans were a little amazed. But the same word was on everyone’s lips, gay or straight.
That word was “proud.”
Well, not absolutely everyone was proud, of course. There were some who, predictably, said the ruling marked the end of civilization as we know it.
A few concluded the only thing to do with a state constitution that provides for marriage equality is to change it.
But even that curious position wasn’t enough to spoil the mood. Still, people were smiling, crying, patting each other on the back.
Ann Thuma and Nancy Besemer were so excited they rushed from work at 9 a.m. to fill out a marriage license application at the Johnson County Recorder’s office. They won’t be able to file the application until the court’s ruling takes effect in a few weeks, but they were still smiling. I took a picture of them with their application.
“We could be dressed better,” said Thuma, looking down at her Iowa State University sweat shirt. Why the rush to get there?
“We didn’t want to take any chances,” she said.
Ann Thuma and Nancy Besemer pose with their marriage license application at the Johnson County administration building Friday, April 03, 2009. They both left work to apply for the license after Thuma’s daughter called to tell them about the State Supreme Court ruling that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. They've been together 10 years, so I asked: How long have they known they wanted to be married? "Ten years," Nancy said.
Only one same-sex couple managed to get married the last, brief, time same-sex marriage was legal here. But this time around, there is no hurry, Johnson County Recorder Kim Painter told me.
Painter fielded a lot of phone calls Friday morning. It’s the Supreme Court, she told callers. “There’s not going to be someone that comes along and says ‘just kidding.’”
“Everyone gets to take a breath, celebrate, propose to the people they love and make a few plans,” Painter said.
If opponents do push for a constitutional amendment, it will take at least two years to come for a vote. Two years for Iowans to realize that the sky hasn’t fallen and the world hasn’t changed that much, except that more families are secure in the comfort of knowing their love and commitment are just as good as anyone’s.
Because marriage equality means legal rights like knowing when you’re sick, your life partner will be able to visit you in the hospital.
But it also means that commitment is recognized in the eyes of neighbors, teachers, family and friends.
And the Supreme Court’s decision means even more to the country. It shows a rural, religious, politically divided state can look at the issue and say, unanimously: of course equality is right.
It’s a practical view, a reasonable view.
It’s an Iowan view. And now, it’s the official view.
Way to go.
Jennifer Hemmingsen’s column appears on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Contact the writer at (319) 339-3154 or jennifer.hemmingsen@gazcomm.com.
The article made it seem like all Iowans are for this. Apparently a few judges are for this. Last time Iowa voted, majority did not approve of same sex marriage. The Gazette poll also shows most Iowans do not approve.
Barbara:
I respectfully disagree. The state Supreme Court justices didn’t say, as individuals, that they’re in favor of marriage equality — they unanimously found the ban against gay marriage to be unconstitutional because it created a second class of adult citizens. This recent Hawkeye poll shows most Iowans agree:
http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2009/april/040309same_sex_poll.html.
http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2009/april/040309same_sex_poll.html
The period at the end of the URL screws it up.
Oops — thanks Bob
Not a problem.
It always bugs me that some many people failed, or should have failed, high-school American government. The Supreme court was never intended to reflect the will of the majority or to rubber-stamp the legislature.
If “democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch”, the Supreme Court is the shepherd standing there saying, “Umm…. no…”.
Proud is exactly the right word to use. Finally, I don’t have to cringe when the national news leads with a story from Iowa. Great column… to borrow your own phrase… “Way to go”.
[...] there are also blogs and columns pointing out how reasonable and just this decision is. The religious community is split, of course, but even some opponents say don’t be hasty to [...]
“A few concluded the only thing to do with a state constitution that provides for marriage equality is to change it.
But even that curious position wasn’t enough to spoil the mood. Still, people were smiling, crying, patting each other on the back.”
Why would that be curious? The Gazette opined about the fact this should ONLY be about two people. Where the hell does it say that in the Constitution? If I were a polygamist, I would file a grievance tomorrow with the State of Iowa regarding being able to marrry as many folks as I want. As a matter of fact, “marriage” as recognized by the state has never been defined. It indeed does open a pandora’s box going forward. The actual verbage in the rulings begs for this to happen.
My own opinion is that marriage is between a man and a woman….That’s MY definition of marriage, and I would guess a majority of folks would agree. There are always special circumstances, and in this instance, civil unions should be offered to same-sex couples. A simple difference? Yes. But in my opinion, not nearly as A) litigious, and B) divisive.
Ray:
Curious because it should be self evident that all people should be equal in the eyes of the law.
I respect your opinion, and would never argue how a religious institution or private person should feel about the issue personally — but if the state is going to be involved in marriage at all, then they can’t pick and choose.
The Gazette’s editorial opinion has always been that “slippery slope” arguments about polygamy, etc. don’t apply. Can you show me where in the ruling you think Pandora’s box is opened?
The “slippery slope” is what has just happened regarding this ruling; How in God’s name can anyone not see that polygamy falls directly under this ruling? How can you not discriminate against couple, but you can with 3 people? The whole point I made was that people who are gay can have civil unions, enjoying all the benefits of heterosexual couples; I have already said I believe marriage, which has thousands of years of history, is between man and woman, the main reason being they can reproduce and create and raise offspring; whether they choose to or not is not the point, and never has been. A definition of “marriage” would certainly be helpful regarding the law, I would think…
The Gazette stating it should never be discussed regarding more then two people is a copout: I challenge them to write a story about how this ruling should be treated any differently for other alternative marriages, like polygamy. Don’t see that happening.
Ray: I’ll forward your story idea to the news department. Thanks.
Jennifer, nice article and Thanks.
It provided some interesting discussion.
With regards to polygamy, I don’t think that’s a real issue but instead is just an old ‘talking point’.
The state’s issuance of a certificate for a civil union is more like a contract between 2 individual parties. Only if the state first began to issue certificates for 3 people to marry and then refused to issue it for blue-eyed people to marry in a threesome, then would there be a case like what we have today.
This doesn’t open the flood gates for people to marry their dogs because the state doesn’t currently issue such a certificate.
This is about applying the same rules (existing rules) to all people equally. Imagine the statue of “JUSTICE” and she is blindfolded.
Talking point? Square that away with the actual ruling Dave…you know, where it says equal protection under the law? So, if the statute require one man and one woman to be a legal marriage, now it only requires two adults, why is the threshold two? The norm was a man and a woman. Now the norm is MM, FF, MF, etc. Why is this now the norm?
The idea of a gay marriage was unheard of years ago. Now, it is accepted by the state. Why is the limit on two in a marriage now set in stone? What limiting factor sets it at two?
“This is about applying the same rules (existing rules) to all people equally”
Right Dave! Guess what 3 people can say they are not doing? Since when does equality equal only two people?
The paradigm has shifted…throw out all of the old arguments…why shouldn’t the state allow 3 people to marry?
Actually, Ray I think Dave explained it very clearly, and I have to agree with him.
This is good discussion — I hope we can continue and remember to be calm in our disagreement. It is interesting and important to listen to each other, but it’s no fun for anyone if we lose our cool.
I’m writing tomorrow’s column about the role of the state Supreme Court — it isn’t to impose the will of the majority but to uphold the constitution and in so doing it plays a crucial role in our system of checks and balances.
The principle of equality is larger than the specific applications — so it doesn’t matter if the idea of same-sex marriage is new.
I’ll post it on here early this afternoon.
Ray,
The slippery slope fallacy is just that…a fallacy. If you want to take it one step further: exclusively heterosexual non-interracial marriage led to exclusively heterosexual interracial marriage led to marriage equality leads to polygamy and so on. Blame yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Just to back my post.
David Brooks has written a fantastic piece about morality that seems to apply here. You can read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?em
Hey Me…it appears after discussing on other message boards that people who claim slippery slope as a “fallacy” are simply describing it that way to further justify their own bigotry.
In other words, if you have no problem with gay marriage, then why in the world would you have a problem with polygamy? It’s about liberty and freedom, right? Why, after supporting a change in the definition of marriage, would you then hinder other people who also support even another change in the definition, unless subtle bigotry is causing it?
Still no one has been able to explain it. Why does marriage, gay or straight, have to include only two people, and why wouldn’t equal protection apply in that situation also?
“This is about applying the same rules (existing rules) to all people equally”
This is what Dave said, Jennifer, and you said you would have to agree with him. I hope you can see how honest people can look at that statement and question why another alternative marriage situation would be looked down upon the same way as gay marriage was/is.
“the same rule to ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY.”
That is actually an excellent point, Dave…so why are you not practicing what you preach?
Ray: I know you’re concerned about it, but it’s a separate issue.
The short answer is the SC ruling doesn’t address polygamy because it wasn’t the question brought to them.
Here’s a passage from the summary of the opinion: “The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”
All the other language in 595.2 (which you can find here http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/2009code/1/27987?f=templates&fn=default.htm) is unchanged — including the number of people and age of consent.
If you wanted to try marrying two people and brought that case to the district court, it would be an entirely different case.
Ray, no it’s not about liberty and freedom. Though it is about assuring the currently granted “right” for 2 person civil unions to any 2 people. Let me see if I understand your point though. If the state currently allowed 3 or more men to enjoy the right to a 3+ male civil union but they refused to allow women the same right to a 3+ civil union, then the Varnum vs. Brien ruling would have come down the same way. It serves no governmental pupose to allow men to civil unions of 3 or more while denying that to women. But the state only has given the right for 2 person unions.
So now, polygamists can argue their case, freely, but not on the same grounds that Varnum vs. Brien was decided.
You are right Jennifer, and I am not arguing that it was just about same-sex marriage. I’m telling you that polygamists have a case based on the verbage of what was presented by the Supreme Court of Iowa and equal protection. That’s all, and you can’t show where they wouldn’t.
Dave…”Our Liberties we Prize and our Rights we will mantain.” Sure it’s about Liberty. And Freedom.
Look at the verbage of the decision. Show me where it says anything about “two” people.” In the Gazette today, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal said the court ruled Iowa’s Civil Marriage Law violated equal protection guarantees for ALL people.
On a side note, in light of this ruling, would you now support 3 men, or 3 women, or any combination thereof, being allowed to marry in this state, and if not, why?
Keeping in mind of course that the definition of marriage has been changed.
No Ray — that’s wrong. The ruling is explicitly limited to the sex of the two parties involved. I’ll paste this here again for you to read:
Here’s a passage from the summary of the opinion: “The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”
You can read the code section (595.2) here: http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/2009code/1/27987?f=templates&fn=default.htm)
Everything else about it is unchanged — including the number of people and age of consent. Even if it doesn’t explicitly say “two people” it is written for two people. All that language would have to change to allow polygamy and this ruling doesn’t touch any of it.
It is incorrect to say that the ruling means polygamy is now legal.
I also don’t think it’s accurate to say that, culturally, gay marriage has “opened the door” for polygamy — that’s a marital arrangement that has a much older and completely distinct history in this country.
“Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal said the court ruled Iowa’s Civil Marriage Law violated equal protection guarantees for ALL people. ”
Based on what you are saying, you must believe the Senate Majority Leader to be wrong in this quote, I assume?
I’m not arguing that polygamy is now “legal”, I’m arguing that the way it was worded:
“No two people OR GROUPS OF PEOPLE are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground onto the shoals of a threshold analysis if the two groups needed to be a mirror image of one another. Such
a threshold analysis would hollow out the constitution’s promise of equalprotection.
Thus, equal protection before the law demands more than the equalapplication of the classifications made by the law. The law itself must be equal. See Fachman, 255 Iowa at 998, 125 N.W.2d at 215 (“ ‘The equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws . . . .’ ”(quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1070, 30L. Ed. 220, 226 (1886))). In other words, to truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike.”
I absolutely do not see anywhere where a limit is put on any number. Nowhere, and I have read the entire document.
“Even if it doesn’t explicitly say “two people” it is written for two people.”
Laws need to be explicit, jennifer. It’s the reason I posted to your blog in the first place.
I’ll ask again…would you now support 3 men, or 3 women, or any combination thereof, being allowed to marry in this state, and if not, why?
Ray: They don’t and aren’t. That’s why the Supreme Court is given the constitutional power to interpret the law. Are you intentionally misreading these things? If so, please stop.
If not, let’s give it a break for a couple weeks. On April 27, you apply with a few other people for a single marriage license and let me know how it goes.