## Facts

- Six same-sex couples sought marriage licenses from the Polk County Recorder between November 2005 and January 2006.
- The Recorder denied the applications solely because each couple was same-sex, citing Iowa Code § 595.2(1), which recognized only marriages “between a male and a female” as valid.
- The couples filed a civil rights action alleging the statutory exclusion violated the Iowa Constitution’s liberty and equal protection guarantees.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the couples, declared § 595.2(1) unconstitutional, and ordered the Recorder to issue licenses to otherwise eligible same-sex couples.
- The district court stayed its order pending appeal; the Recorder appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Iowa Code § 595.2(1), limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex couples, violates the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection guarantees (Art. I, §§ 1 and 6).
2. What level of scrutiny applies to a statutory classification that excludes same-sex couples from civil marriage.
3. Whether the State’s asserted interests (procreation, child welfare, relationship stability, resource conservation, and tradition) justify the exclusion under the applicable scrutiny.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court held § 595.2(1) violates the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection clause.
- The court applied intermediate scrutiny to the sexual-orientation-based classification and concluded the exclusion was not substantially related to any important governmental objective.
- The remedy required issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same terms as opposite-sex couples, effectively removing the gender restriction while preserving civil marriage.

## Legal Principles

- State equal protection bars statutory classifications that cannot satisfy the required level of scrutiny under the Iowa Constitution.
- A law that authorizes marriage for opposite-sex couples but categorically excludes same-sex couples creates a classification based on sexual orientation.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show the classification is substantially related to an important governmental objective.
- Interests in procreation and child welfare cannot justify excluding same-sex couples where marriage is not conditioned on procreative capacity or intent and where evidence does not show harm to children raised by same-sex parents.
- Speculative claims of destabilizing opposite-sex marriage do not establish the required fit between means and ends.
- Cost savings, standing alone, do not justify an otherwise discriminatory classification under equal protection.
- Tradition or moral disapproval is not a sufficient constitutional basis to deny a class of citizens access to civil marriage.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Iowa’s opposite-sex-only marriage limitation under the state constitution’s equal protection guarantees and required the State to allow same-sex couples to marry on the same legal terms as opposite-sex couples.


Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009)