Preachers, Politicians, and Same-Sex Couples: Challenging Same-Sex Civil Unions and Implications on Interstate Recognition

• Author: Nathan M. Brandenburg
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law
• Pages: 06

Nathan M. Brandenburg: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2006; A.B., Washington University in St. Louis, 2002. I am indebted to Professor Margaret F. Brinig, who introduced me to the topic, provided valuable resources that facilitated the Note's development, and read many drafts. My thanks obviously extend to my wife, Beth, for her support, understanding, and ability to seem interested in all things legal; to my parents; and to the writers and editors (former and current) of the Iowa Law Review for their suggestions and editing expertise. Any mistakes are my own.

Page 321

I Introduction

Preachers, politicians, and same-sex couples are seemingly divergent groups now at the forefront of American jurisprudence. As the red state/blue state rift made evident by the 2004 presidential election widens, these groups are becoming increasingly embroiled in litigation concerning the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

Currently, questions pertaining to interstate recognition of same-sex relationships and the ability of religious and political figures to promulgate their beliefs in the litigious realm are before courts throughout the country. Alons v. Iowa District Court,¹ decided by the Iowa Supreme Court on June 17, 2005, has placed Iowa prominently in this debate. Alons involved a suit brought by six Iowa state legislators, a member of the United States House of Representatives, a pastor, and a church in response to the dissolution of a Vermont-solemnized same-sex civil union by the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County.² The plaintiffs alleged that the district court's dissolution decree represented an implicit recognition of same-sex civil unions in Iowa.³However, the plaintiffs' ability to bring a complaint against a district court decision to which they were not a party was not assured.⁴

This Note will discuss current standing jurisprudence, its implications for religious and political figures, and whether the dissolution of a same-sex civil union constitutes an implicit legal recognition of the relationship. Part II explores the ability of religious and political figures to assert their beliefs in the litigious realm in light of the continuing controversy surrounding same-sex civil union jurisprudence. Part III will show that third-parties such as the Alons plaintiffs cannot establish standing to challenge decisions such as the Woodbury County District Court's dissolution decree. Finally, Part IV will show that under certain circumstances, as are currently present in Iowa, the dissolution of a same-sex civil union represents an implicit recognition of same-sex relationships. Page 322

II History Lessons

A A Home-Grown Conundrum: Alons v. Iowa District Court

On March 25, 2002, Kimberly Jean Brown and Jennifer Sue Perez, both residents of Sioux City, Iowa, entered into a civil union in Bolton, Vermont.⁵However, civil-union bliss did not last long, as Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez sought a legal dissolution of their relationship from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County in August 2003.⁶

In their petition filed on August 1, 2003, Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez sought a "dissolution of marriage."⁷ On November 14, 2003, Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez filed a stipulation of their assets and debts and District Court Judge Jeffrey Neary granted the requested decree.⁸ However, at the time he entered the decree, Judge Neary neglected to ascertain whether Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez were of the opposite sex; hence the "Dissolution of Marriage" decree.⁹ Nevertheless, upon learning that both parties were women, Judge Neary merely amended the decree to reflect that Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez were not "married" per se, but had entered into a Vermont-solemnized civil union.¹⁰ In doing so, Judge Neary held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to dissolve the union as an equitable relationship, but did "not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant a dissolution of marriage from a Vermont civil union" under Iowa's marriage laws.¹¹ Judge Neary amended the previous grant of equitable relief by terminating the Vermont civil union, releasing Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez of any obligations each might have towards one another, and declaring the women "single individuals with all [the] rights of . . . unmarried individual[s]."¹² Thus, the district court Page 323 acknowledged that Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez had entered into a same-sex civil union in Vermont and "terminated" the union under its equity jurisdiction.¹³

As a result of the Woodbury County District Court's dissolution decree, the Alons plaintiffs petitioned the Iowa Supreme Court for certiorari on December 16, 2003, in an attempt to overturn the decree.¹⁴ The petitioners were Iowa State Representatives Dwayne Alons, Carmine Boal, Danny Carroll, and Betty De Boef; Iowa State Senators Nancy Boettger and Neal Schuerer; United States Representative Steven King; the Reverend Matthew Wentz; and the Church of Christ of Le Mars, Iowa.¹⁵ As stated, the petitioners alleged the district court's dissolution decree represented an implicit recognition of same-sex civil unions in Iowa.¹⁶

The Iowa Supreme Court granted certiorari on February 3, 2004.¹⁷ On April 19, 2004, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, joined by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Community Center of Central Iowa, filed a motion requesting permission to file an amicus brief on whether the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the district court's dissolution decree.¹⁸ The Iowa Supreme Court granted the motion on May 19, 2004.¹⁹ On Saturday, January 14, 2005, the Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case.²⁰ The justices' questions focused on whether the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the district court decree and whether the decree constituted an implicit recognition of same-sex civil unions in Iowa.²¹ The Iowa Supreme Court issued its decision on June 17, 2005.²² Page 324

As a result of his decision to dissolve Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez's civil union, Judge Neary faced a concerted removal effort during his first retention election in 2004 by groups opposed to the decision.²³ Judge Neary won retention on November 2, 2004.²⁴

B Green Mountain State Civil Unions

Since the basis for the plaintiffs' suit in Alons involved the civil union Ms. Brown and Ms. Perez obtained in Vermont, a brief explanation of Vermont's civil union provisions follows.²⁵

Litigation commenced by three same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses led to the introduction of same-sex civil union legislation in Vermont.²⁶ A trial court dismissed the couples' complaint, stating that the Vermont marriage statutes did not "permit the issuance of a [marriage] license to same-sex couples."²⁷ However, upon appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held, pursuant to the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution,²⁸ that Vermont could not deny same-sex couples the benefits and protections its law afforded opposite-sex married couples.²⁹ Despite its holding, the court suggested that the common law and plain meaning definition of marriage in Vermont was still the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.³⁰ However, the Vermont Supreme Court refrained from stating that this was the only possible definition of marriage.³¹ Page 325

In its reversal of the trial court, the Vermont Supreme Court suggested how the state legislature could implement the decision.³² However, the court declined to mandate a remedy, opting to defer to the law-making powers of the Vermont legislature.³³ Thus, the court necessarily delayed the effect of its December 20, 1999, decision until the legislature could develop a statutory framework that satisfied the court's new interpretation of the protections afforded same-sex couples by the Common Benefits Clause.³⁴After four months and much debate, the Vermont legislature passed the civil union statute on April 25, 2000.³⁵ Governor Howard Dean signed the "Act Relating to Civil Unions" into law the next day.³⁶

The Vermont civil union act did not amend the definition of marriage.³⁷ The legislature, which was subjected to intense political pressure, followed the Vermont Supreme Court's suggested common law definition and defined marriage as the "legally recognized union of one man and one woman."³⁸ The Vermont legislature "felt compelled" to create a separate "civil union" classification that extended to same-sex partners "all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law . . . as are granted to [opposite-sex] spouses in a marriage."³⁹ As a result, Vermont now affords same-sex couples benefits and protections such as annulment, legal separation, and divorce.⁴⁰ Regarding divorce, the Vermont legislature provided a separate statutory framework for the dissolution of civil unions, subjecting such dissolutions "to the same substantive rights and obligations that are involved in" marriage dissolutions.⁴¹...