Message to Conservative Iowans: Read the Gay Marriage Decision Before You Respond

Judge Hanson made a legal argument in his decision, which I summarized here.  Here are the logical steps he made:

The burden of the plaintiffs is to prove that the gender restrictions on marriage in Iowa law do not bear “a rational relationship to the achievement of any legitimate governmental interest.”

Of the five interests proposed by the defense, four are legitimate state interests, while the fifth — preserving traditional marriage or the integrity of marriage between a man and a woman — is not a legitimate state interest.

The Iowa gender restrictions do not bear a rational relationship to the achievement of  the first three interests proposed by the defense, which is loosely defined as “responsible procreation.”  On this point, Hanson quotes ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent from Lawrence v. Texas, who said the same thing.  The defense did not provide any admissible evidence to dispute this claim, and agreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that same-sex families are qualified parents for purposes of adoption.

The Iowa gender restrictions do not bear a rational relationship to the achievement of the fourth interest, which is loosely defined as not wasting public or private resources.  Here, Hanson points out that the relationship between a law banning certain types of marriage and the interest of not wasting resources was arbitrary, not rational.

Therefore, Iowa’s gender restriction on marriage does not bear a rational relationship to the achievement of any legitimate governmental interests.  Therefore, it’s unconstitutional.