The Varnum decision is five years old today.
The world has not ended. No deity has brought down punishment upon anyone because of what the court did, as far as anyone can tell (perhaps suggesting divine acquiescence in the decision?). Three justices were voted off the Iowa Supreme Court in a disgraceful hissy fit, but otherwise not much has changed. The Iowa Constitution has not been amended. Varnum is still good law.
There is a story on the
Des Moines Register web site that includes comments from some of the former justices. Some of their comments are not really surprising, except that the things discussed usually aren't made public.
For example, the case file was enormous but the justices wondered what rationale could possibly be offered for justifying the law. "We just don't like homos, period" won't cut it, and the supposedly reasonable rationales seemed to be weak and overbroad. Former Justice Streit:
I think the attorneys did a great job in the case, but it's hard to argue the position when the only argument they have is the state interest in protecting procreation, which is pretty feeble. Why would you let old people get married over 50 or 60? Why would you let people get married if they don't intend to have children?
Former Justice Baker:
They essentially had the four bases. Child-rearing — of course that was a little difficult for them to say when we allow same-sex couples to adopt. Procreation. Tradition, I don't know is necessarily a decent reason. Tradition can simply mean that discrimination existed for a long time. And of course the elephant in the room, which was religion, which you can't use as a basis for this.
And because the case for discrimination was so goddamned pitiful, the case was actually an easy one for the justices to decide. Former Justice Streit:
In all our cases ... we discuss the case after it's argued. So we go back into chambers and we start with the writing justice (Mark Cady) discussing what we all just saw. ... And then the way our group works is we progress around the table. ... By the time we're getting to Justice Appel I'm thinking, "This is going to be unanimous."
Laws have to be reasonable. That is, they have to be supported by reason and reality. Not by emotion, not by tribalism, not by tradition, not by religion. Those arguing in favor of the discrimination — to their credit — did not resort to shameful disparagement of homosexuals unsupported by any evidence or logic. They tried to resort to legitimate and secular reasons ... but their reasons were no good. The aftermath of the Varnum decision suggests that all the opponents of same-sex marriage had, and all they currently have, is their naked, bigoted, unreasonable hatred. From a letter to the Court, often quoted by Former Justice Streit:
I defended the likes of you — as an American soldier in WWII and Korea. I conclude I served the wrong side — Hitler treated Queers the way that they should be treated — in the gas chambers! You are bastards.