Law Commons^™

Brief Amici Curiae Of Iowa Professors Of Law And History, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

This case calls upon the State of Iowa to reaffirm its historic commitment to protecting the equality and individual liberties of all of its citizens, including its lesbian and gay male citizens. It requires this Court to interpret Iowa’s unique constitution with due respect for both text and tradition. The case must be analyzed against the backdrop of Iowa’s leadership and courage in the areas of civil rights and family law, and the willingness of its judiciary to uphold constitutional mandates in the face of efforts to legislate prejudice and discrimination.

Plaintiff-Appellees seek nothing more than to share in the …

Proof Brief Of Professors Of Family Law And Jurisprudence As Amici Curiae In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

The plaintiffs in this case met their burden of demonstrating the irrationality of Iowa’s statutory exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. They did this, in part, by presenting social science research regarding the irrelevance of sexual orientation to parental ability and the psychological and social well-being of children raised by same-sex parents. In addition to arguing that the marriage exclusion is irrational, the plaintiffs also alleged that the exclusion should be subject to heightened scrutiny because it violates the fundamental right to marry and discriminates on the bases of gender and sexual orientation. Amici agree that the exclusion of same-sex …

State Domas, Neutral Principles, And The Möbius Of State Action, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

This essay uses the Mobius strip as a mathematical metaphor for how state "defense of marriage amendments" (DOMAs) can twist the Shelley v. Kraemer contribution to state action doctrine. It argues that Shelley's core insight -- that judicial enforcement of private agreements can constitute state action and must meet federal Fourteenth Amendment commands -- can be used by state judiciaries to hold that state judicial enforcement of private agreements between same sex-couples is a species of state action forbidden by state DOMA. As explored in this essay, the potential doctrinal contortion of Shelley by state DOMAs is at once a …

“A Painful Process Of Waiting”: The New York, Washington, New Jersey, And Maryland Dissenting Justices Understand That “Same-Sex Marriage” Is Not What Same-Sex Couples Are Seeking, Barbara Cox

Faculty Scholarship

This essay focuses on the recent decisions by the highest courts of four states rejecting the claims of individuals in same-sex relationships that they must be permitted to marry the partner of their choice. In the cases of Hernandez v. Robles, Andersen v. King County, Lewis v. Harris, and Conaway v. Deane, a majority or plurality of each court determined that the bans preventing individuals in same-sex couples from marrying were constitutional. Understanding these cases is particularly important as additional state supreme courts address the cases of similar plaintiffs pending before them.