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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular