April, 03 2009, 11:37am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brad Luna 202/216.1514 Cell: 202/812.8140
Trevor Thomas 202/216.1547 Cell: 202/250.2758
Iowa Becomes First Midwestern State to Recognize Marriage Equality for Gay and Lesbian Couples
Human Rights Campaign Hails Unanimous Iowa Supreme Court Decision as Part of Growing Trend Towards Marriage Equality Across the Country
WASHINGTON
The
Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, applauded the Iowa state
Supreme Court's unanimous 7-0 decision today ruling that the equal
protection provision of Iowa Constitution guarantees gay and lesbian
couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. As a result
of the court's decision in Varnum v. Brien, Iowa becomes the
first state in the Midwest and the third in the nation to now recognize
marriages for gay and lesbian couples.
"This
is a truly historic day for Iowa and a proud day for every American who
believes in the promise of equal rights and fairness for all," said
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "The Iowa Supreme Court
did its job by recognizing that gay and lesbian couples who form
committed relationships and loving families deserve the same level of
respect afforded to heterosexual couples. The unanimous court made
forcefully clear that the state constitution guarantees the same rights
and protections for all Iowans. This decision strengthens Iowa families
and makes a strong statement for equality all across the nation."
"We
congratulate and commend Lambda Legal, the numerous organizations and
individuals who briefed the Supreme Court, and, of course, the
courageous plaintiff couples and their families who looked to the
courts to vindicate their rights," said Solmonese. "We also thank One
Iowa for their hard work across the state to ensure that gay and
lesbian couples and their families receive the recognition that they
rightfully deserve."
The
ruling is similar to past Supreme Court decisions in Massachusetts,
Connecticut and California that also found state constitutional
violations where gay and lesbian couples were denied the right to
marry. (The California decision was affected by Proposition 8, a
change to the state constitution approved by voters last November. A
legal challenge to Proposition 8 is pending.)
Speaking
for the unanimous court, Justice Mark S. Cady wrote that "[w]e are
firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the
institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any
important governmental objective." The court rejected the possibility
that civil unions-or any institution other than civil marriage-could
satisfy the guarantees of the state constitution.
The Varnum
case began in December 2005, when Lambda Legal filed suit in Iowa
District Court on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples (later amended
to include three of their children). In August 2007, the Iowa District
Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny gay and lesbian
couples the right to marry. The District Court granted a stay of the
decision pending appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
A growing number of states across the
country are providing relationship recognition to gay and lesbian
couples. Two states, Massachusetts and Connecticut, already permit gay
and lesbian couples to marry under state law. New York recognizes
marriages by gay and lesbian couples legally entered into outside of
the state. In recent weeks state legislatures in New Hampshire and
Vermont have passed bills that would recognize marriages by gay and
lesbian couples, which could make them the first states to enact
marriage equality legislatively. (The Vermont House of Representatives
voted yesterday in support of marriage equality after the state Senate
approved the bill last month.)
In addition to the three states that
now provide for marriage equality under state law, eight states plus
Washington, D.C. have laws providing at least some form of state-level
relationship recognition, short of marriage, for gay and lesbian
couples. Five of these states-California, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
Oregon, and Vermont-plus Washington, D.C. provide gay and lesbian
couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of
marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Key results from the ruling:
- Gay
and lesbian couples in Iowa will soon be able to obtain civil marriage
licenses and receive the same respect and protections afforded to all
married couples under state law. The decision becomes effective in as
soon as 21 days unless the state files a petition for rehearing. - Churches
and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform
ceremonies for these civil marriages, as the court's opinion expressly
states: "A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union
between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a
minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a
leader of the person's religious faith does not lose its meaning as a
sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all
religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning
as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law." - The
court's decision does not entitle gay and lesbian couples in Iowa to
receive the federal rights and benefits extended to married couples.
The so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) discriminates
against gay and lesbian married couples by denying them over 1,000
federal rights, benefits, and responsibilities including social
security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return, and
the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate. A lawsuit filed in
federal court in Massachusetts last month challenges a portion of DOMA. - Other states may
legally recognize the civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples
performed in Iowa in the same way they recognize out-of-state marriages
by heterosexual couples.
The Human Rights Campaign and Human Rights Campaign Foundation signed onto an amicus, or "friend of the court," brief in the Varnum
case to support and further explain the argument for extending civil
marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples under the state
constitution. A number of civil rights organizations, elected
officials, religious groups, historians, law professors, child
advocates and others also either signed or filed briefs of their own in
favor of extending civil marriage laws to gay and lesbian couples.
The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of over 750,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where LGBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
LATEST NEWS
Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship on Federal Voting Form
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘It Does Not Have to Be This Way’: Child Hunger Set to Surge as Trump Withholds SNAP Funds
Two federal courts ruled Friday that the White House must release contingency food assistance funds, but officials have suggested they will not comply with the orders.
Oct 31, 2025
Though two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use contingency funds to continue providing food assistance that 42 million Americans rely on, White House officials have signaled they won't comply with the court orders even as advocates warn the lapse in nutrition aid funding will cause an unprecedented child hunger crisis that families are unprepared to withstand.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Saturday as the government shutdown reaches the one-month mark, claiming it can no longer fund SNAP and cannot tap $5 billion in contingency funds that would allow recipients to collect at least partial benefits in November.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration is "going to get it done," regarding the funding of SNAP, but offered no details on his plans to keep the nation's largest anti-hunger program funded, and his agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, would not commit on Friday to release the funds if ordered to do so.
"We're looking at all the options," Rollins told CNN before federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund the program.
The White House and Republicans in Congress have claimed the only way to fund SNAP is for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a continuing resolution proposed by the GOP to keep government funding at current levels; Democrats have refused to sign on to the resolution because it would allow healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire.
The administration previously said it would use the SNAP contingency funds before reversing course last week. A document detailing the contingency plan disappeared from the USDA's website this week. The White House's claims prompted two lawsuits filed by Democrat-led states and cities as well as nonprofit groups that demanded the funding be released.
On Thursday evening, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) addressed her followers on the social media platform X about the impending hunger emergency, emphasizing that the loss of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans—39% of whom are children—is compounding a child poverty crisis that has grown since 2021 due to Republicans' refusal to extend pandemic-era programs like the enhanced child tax credit.
"One in eight kids in America lives in poverty in 2024," said Jayapal. "Sixty-one percent of these kids—that's about 6 million kids— have at least one parent who is employed. So it's not that people are not working, they're working, but they're not earning enough."
"I just want to be really clear that it is a policy choice to have people who are hungry, to have people who are poor," she said.
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Georgetown University, told The Washington Post that the loss of benefits for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people all at once is "unprecedented."
“We’ve never seen the elderly and children removed from the program in this sort of way,” Schanzenbach told the Post. “It really is hard to predict something of this magnitude."
A Thursday report by the economic justice group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) emphasized that the impending child hunger crisis comes four months after Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed food assistance by shifting some of the cost of SNAP to the states from the federal government, expanding work requirements, and ending adjustments to benefits to keep pace with food inflation.
Meanwhile, the law is projected to increase the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of US households by 3.7% while reducing the incomes of the poorest 20% of Americans by an average of 3.8%.
Now, said ATF, "they're gonna let hard-working Americans go hungry so billionaires can get richer."
At Time on Thursday, Stephanie Land, author of Class: A Memoir of Motherhood, Hunger, and Higher Education, wrote that "the cruelty is the point" of the Trump administration's refusal to ensure the 61-year-old program, established by Democratic former President Lyndon B. Johnson, doesn't lapse for the first time in its history.
"Once, when we lost most of our food stamp benefit, I mentally catalogued every can and box of food in the cupboards, and how long the milk we had would last," wrote Land. "They’d kicked me, the mother of a recently-turned 6-year-old, off of food stamps because I didn’t meet the work requirement of 20 hours a week. I hadn’t known that my daughter’s age had qualified me to not have to meet that requirement, and without warning, the funds I carefully budgeted for food were gone."
"It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week," she continued. "This letter from my local government office said it wasn’t sufficient to meet their stamp of approval. In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat. My value, my dignity as a human being, was completely dependent on my ability to work, as if nothing else about me awarded me the ability to feel satiated by food."
"Whether the current administration decides to continue to fund SNAP in November or not, the intended damage has already been done. The fear of losing means for food, shelter, and healthcare is the point," Land added. "Programs referred to as a 'safety net' are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker. It’s about control to gain compliance, and our most vulnerable populations will struggle to keep up."
On Thursday, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) expressed hope that the president's recent statement saying the White House will ensure people obtain their benefits will "trigger the administration to use its authority and precedent to prevent disruptions in food assistance."
"The issue at hand is not political. It is about ensuring that parents can put food on the table, older adults on fixed incomes can meet their nutritional needs, and children continue to receive the meals they rely on. SNAP is one of the most effective tools for reducing hunger and supporting local economies," said the group.
"Swift and transparent action is needed," FRAC added, "to restore stability, maintain public confidence, and ensure that our state partners, local economies and grocers, and the millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans who participate in SNAP are not left bearing the consequences of federal inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out," said Evanston, Illinois Mayor Daniel Biss.
Oct 31, 2025
Officials in Evanston, Illinois are accusing federal immigration officials of "deliberately causing chaos" in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.
As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston," Biss said during the conference.
In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents' actions as "monstrous" and vowed that he would "continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion."
As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle's passengers.
Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.
“You a criminal!” Evanston residents angrily confront immigration agents pic.twitter.com/t7jVaC4czq
— Gregory Royal Pratt (@royalpratt) October 31, 2025
Another video of ICE grabbing at least two people after a crash on Oakton/Asbury in Evanston
Witnesses say at least three were arrested by Feds pic.twitter.com/DStgCrKWTA
— Matthew Eadie (@mattheweadie22) October 31, 2025
The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as "a pattern of extreme brutality" being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.
Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found "multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used" in apparent violation of a judge's temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.
"In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given," Bellingcat reported. "Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


