No good deed goes unpunished

Around 10 months ago, I started this blog as a means of addressing the largely unknown progressive history of Iowa and its courts. It also worked great as a senior honors project, but that's beside the point. Throughout the course of my research, I learned about things like the Iowa Supreme Court holding that the slaves are free the moment they step foot in Iowa (two decades before the US Supreme Court held the other way in the infamous Dred Scott decision). The court also held separate but equal unconstitutional nearly 90 years before the US Supreme Court would hold the same thing in Brown v. Board of Education. The list goes on, from banning discrimination in public institutions in the 19th century to being the first state to admit both women and blacks to the state bar. But ultimately, the catalyst for this blog was the court's landmark decision in Varnum v. Brien, which held banning same-sex marriage in Iowa unconstitutional. When this decision was handed down on April 3, 2009, I was amazed to suddenly find myself in the only Midwestern state to take that step toward total equal rights.

All the good feelings that came along with that decision, and the pride I took in Iowa at that time (despite having only lived there 3 years), were incredible. Iowa was suddenly on the forefront of the latest chapter of the civil rights movement. While my home state of Colorado was passing constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, at least I could be proud that Iowa was doing the right thing. Granted at the time, more than half of all Iowans opposed same-sex marriage, but I knew that acceptance would come in time. Of course, there was talk of the "slippery slope"; how as gay rights became more accepted in the American mainstream, our society would crumble, becoming more and more degraded.

Obviously, none of that has happened. In fact, after about a week, most Iowans seemed to move on and realize that maybe, just maybe, this whole gay marriage crisis wasn't such a big deal. After all, I lived in Iowa for another year and a half after this decision and I didn't lose all my morals or gain the desire to marry an animal (or worse, a guy). It's almost like homosexuality isn't contagious. Crazy.

So it was with great sadness this morning that I learned that Iowans had voted to remove (or I guess technically "not retain") three of the Iowa Supreme Court justices who handed the opinion down (which was unanimous, I might add). As I read the stories from the Des Moines Register, as well as other news outlets, I could feel my insides tightening. Sure the last 24 hours hadn't been great for my political interests (surprise! I'm a Democrat!), but this felt different. I've never gotten overly emotional over political matters (except anger, naturally), but I could feel my eyes watering up. I don't know why, but I felt betrayed by this. I spent five months researching and reading and writing and defending the great state of Iowa and this is how Iowans repay me? I felt, and still feel, totally betrayed.

I realize that there are much bigger things going on here than me, and that in the grand scheme of things, my feelings on the matter are trivial. But that's how I feel. Iowa, this beacon of light in the Midwest, home of the nicest people in America, who are always willing to embrace change, just spat in the face of one of the most remarkable court decisions in the history of the civil rights movement. I knew I would be disappointed with the results of the midterm elections, but I never thought something like this would happen. Of course, this is all very recent, so who knows how this will play out longterm. But right now, stunned and disheartened doesn't even begin to cover how I feel.

What's even more remarkable about this is that it marks the first time in the 48-year history of Iowa's "retention on the merits" method of judicial elections that a judge has been removed by vote.

In the end, the amount of money poured into the campaign by out-of-state interests (mostly "defense" of marriage types) was apparently too much for the justices to withstand. The money, along with a vengeful removal campaign, resulted in a gross abuse of the system. Instead of judging the justices based on their actual performance, it came down to whether they had interpreted the constitution of Iowa in a way that the public found appeasing. That's obviously the opposite of what a sensible person would desire from their judicial system. It's insane to think that judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican governors were just booted from office so that "family interest" groups could continue repressing human rights.

For all the complaints about activist judges, this astonishing development is likely to result in more activism and less law-based decisions. By showing judges what interest groups are capable of if they base their decisions on the law, it's likely that we will see a chilling effect in judiciaries throughout the country when making controversial decisions. Instead of interpreting the laws as they are, it seems more likely that some judges will try and skew their decisions to the will of the people. Hopefully most judges will continue ruling with integrity even knowing the likely consequences, but it's hard to predict at this point.

What I'm very interested to see is how the other five justices on the Iowa Supreme Court fare as they come up for retention. Will more money be funneled into the state in a twisted effort to send a message to judges across the country during subsequent election cycles? Will the remaining justices continue to make decisions based purely on law, without concern for public opinion? Considering the integrity that they showed by handing down this decision unanimously, interpreting the law exactly as they should, I have no doubt that the Iowa Supreme Court will continue doing what it has for more than a century. It's the rest of the country that concerns me.

Someday, when everyone realizes how silly it was that Americans cared so much about who other people marry, this election will be seen as a tribute to the bravery of these justices. Of course, they likely had no idea that crazy interest groups would devote their lives to seeing them removed from office, but they knew that public opinion was against them here and reached the correct legal decision nonetheless. These justices will be remembered for sacrificing their jobs in the name of defending the constitution. At the end of the day, I guess you could ask for a worse fate.

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Interviews with Iowans: Ellen Lewin

Ellen Lewin is a professor of Anthropology and Women's Studies at the University of Iowa. A native New Yorker, she spent much of her life in San Francisco before coming to Iowa 13 years ago. She has published numerous books, her most recent being Gay Fatherhood: Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America.

On same-sex couples as parents...
"I first began researching the issue in 1977, just after finishing my dissertation [at Stanford]. The focus of my dissertation was motherhood, so after finishing, I thought I'd start researching lesbian motherhood. At the time, I would mention what I was doing and people would dismiss the notion. People didn't believe in lesbian mothers. Of course, I knew they existed because I knew lesbian mothers at the time...There was a made for TV movie right around that time about a woman named Mary Jo Risher who lost custody of her son after divorcing her husband because she was a lesbian, so it was a very controversial issue at the time...So that's basically what got me started, and I've moved between that and other topics since...For male couples seeking to have a child, it can be difficult...For women, with the current medical situation, there are a lot of options when it comes to assisted reproduction. Basically, they just need to pay for the semen. But for men, it's a lot more complicated. For some, it means finding a surrogate willing to carry a child while others stick to adoption. But either way, it becomes very expensive and oftentimes much more difficult to get a child for male gay couples."


On commitment ceremonies...
"When I did my research for my book [Recognizing Ourselves: Ceremonies of Lesbian and Gay Commitment, 1998], this was well before any state acknowledge gay marriage or even civil unions. Domestic partnerships were not really acknowledged, so there was no obvious motivation for gay couples to have commitment ceremonies, and especially the expensive, theatrical ones that were common...Of the couples I wrote about, the reasons varies greatly. A lot of times, it was not about marriage, specifically. Like a lot of couples, it comes down to a lot of things: it's about the culture that they grew up in, about family...about being adults, or even a relationship to God. The religious aspect that drives a lot of gay couples to have ceremonies or get married very rarely gets covered."


On same-sex marriage and "accommodation"...
"It's very popular right now to talk about how marriage discriminates against people who don't get married, regardless of sexual orientation. And from a financial aspect, I guess that would be true. But the idea that most people just get married for things like health insurance and things like that. And I don't get believe that...That's not why people get married, for the most part. People get married because they have some complicated emotional statement to the world...They think it's gonna create a class of domesticated, all-American gay people and they're gonna get all the benefits and everyone else is gonna be treated like outsiders...Someone told me about the mother of a friend of hers who lives here in Iowa City, and she and her partner after 25 years got married. So these are middle aged women, who have a son. One of the women had the son from a previous marriage, but he basically grew up in this home with two women...The student I knew asked them the day of the wedding, 'So what are you gonna do tonight?' and she responded 'Well Dancing with the Stars is on tonight right?' and so that's what these women wanted to do...Some people do want to make that statement that they're like everybody else and some don't...It's not about accommodation to society's expectations for most of the gay couples who get married, just like it isn't for straight couples."

Interviews with Iowans: Arthur Bonfield

Arthur Bonfield has been a faculty member at the University of Iowa College of Law since 1962. Although not a native of Iowa (he was raised in New York City), Bonfield has had a huge impact on civil rights legislation within the state, authoring the two original Iowa Civil Rights Acts, as well as a subsequent revision.

On the Iowa Civil Rights Act...
"Because of the ruling in Varnum v. Brien [2009], the Iowa Civil Rights Act now applies to discrimination because of marriage rights...over the last few years, the Act has been extended to prevent discriminatory hiring practices by the state and public agencies, but has no real impact on the practices of the private sector. It now applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, etcetera and it also covers housing, though that's subject to restrictions...it also covers education...The issue, however is how can this be enforced? It's the same problem that has been faced by nearly every major civil rights issue. How can you prove discriminatory hiring practices when many jobs are granted on a subjective basis. There could be any number of reasons why someone was not chosen for a job, and it could always be more than just skin color or gender or sexual orientation. It's a tough issue that still hasn't really been addressed. But in spite of this problem, we're still at a point where Iowa laws can't discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender or anything."


On teaching at the University of Iowa...
"I came to Iowa in 1962 right after completing my LLM [Masters of Laws] at Yale. I came here because I knew I wanted to teach and Iowa was the only school that was going to let me teach what I wanted to...Very quickly I got involved in the state legislature and government after coming here. I wrote new Iowa Administrative Procedure Act [1974] and the Open Meetings Law [1978]. Probably the most famous act I wrote was the Iowa Civil Rights Acts in 1965 and 1967 and then wrote a revision of the Act in 1978...I've stayed here so long because they still let me teach what I want and I've made a nice place for myself here. I've had many opportunities at other schools through the years, including my alma mater at Yale, but I'm comfortable with being at the University of Iowa."


On Iowa...
"Iowa tends to be ahead of the curve. Early laws abolished the rights of people to maintain slaves in Iowa, and rulings by the [Iowa Supreme] Court did the same thing as Brown v. Board of Education [1954] almost a century before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on that case...The Varnum v. Brien ruling was a very enlightened decision. You could not have gotten that ruling in most of the rest of the country, let alone a unanimous verdict like the Iowa Supreme Court ruled...Iowa has always been a leader in civil rights and I imagine that there are number of reasons for this...I have a guess – nothing more – but I think that a huge factor may have been Iowa being a rural, farming-based state. In that kind of setting, especially when Iowa was on the farthest American frontier, people were measured by what they could do.  In a setting like that, people seem to place a lot less emphasis on skin color, sex or even sexual orientation.  Instead, what mattered is what a person could do that would help another and that is reflected in many of these Supreme Court rulings and state laws."

Interviews with Iowans: John Swaner

 John and his longtime partner Gregory, in New Zealand

John Swaner is a 66-year-old Iowa City native who has lived in many different locales, including Chicago and China. He currently resides in Seattle with his long-time partner, Gregory.

On growing up in Iowa City...
"Although I left Iowa to go to college in 1962, I have a lot of family there, so I still follow news there closely...growing up in Iowa City, I attended Regina [a private Catholic school] which was an interesting experience. Our principal there, Old LD we used to call him, had several accusations of harassing the boys at the school which was the cause of a lot of jokes at the time. It was a unique experience, especially knowing that I was gay at the time...When did I first know I was gay? Early. Real gay people know real early. I can't remember exactly when, but I definitely knew by the time I was in junior high...I'd have questions about guys, but at the time, I'd just suppress it. I don't really have any traumatic memories or anything from my childhood about it, just awkwardness that came from not talking about being gay. It was the same thing when I went to [college at] Notre Dame, which at the time was an all boys school...it turned out later that I actually knew a lot of other gay men at Notre Dame, but none of us told each other at the time."


On his family background...
"There wasn't really an issue when I came out. I think that even though my parents were Catholic, they were pretty liberal, particularly my mother. So there was no trauma and it wasn't really difficult to come out to them, even though I did it late [mid-20s]. They were mostly just concerned for me, since the general attitude toward gays was much different in the late 60s/early 70s than it is today...One of my cousins, Sean [Strub, prominent gay rights activist and founder of POZ Magazine, among others] is gay and according to him, we think our grandfather had a gay lover. Nothing definitive, but there is good evidence. It's funny how things like that can come out."


On Iowa...
"Growing up in Iowa, I was aware of their progressivism. I knew that the Underground Railroad ran through Iowa City, and that there's a cave where escaped slaves would hide behind Mayflower [a residence hall on the campus of the University of Iowa]. Just stuff like that. But it still wasn't a place I thought I would want to be openly gay in the sixties. There weren't many places anywhere like that back then...When I heard that gay marriage had been legalized in Iowa, I was definitely happy to hear it. Seeing the images of the rallies and stuff, who wouldn't be?"

Why do politicians fear same-sex marriage?

There are a few things that people running for public office must do if they want any chance of success in the United States:

• Clean out your closet, get ahead of the media on anything that can hurt you;
• Praise the structure and people of the U.S., but criticize its maintenance;
• Talk about liberty, freedom and personal independence as grand ideas abandoned by your opposition;
• Oppose or at least be vague about your beliefs concerning gay marriage.

Despite all the talk about civil rights and equality that most Americans overdose on during election years, politicians seem to have no qualms when it comes to opposing the marriage rights of gays.  In a country that prides itself on the rights of the individual and lack of government interference, it seems inherently contradictory that open opposition of same-sex marriage would be the generally accepted view.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.  Prominent politicians like Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold and former President Bill Clinton have come out in support of equal marriage rights.  Even former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that he does not oppose same-sex marriage.  And President Barack Obama, though publicly ambiguous, is said to privately support same-sex marriage rights.

So why is opposition generally the safest way to address same-sex marriage during a campaign?  Politicians give many reasons, ranging from a belief that same-sex marriage will corrupt society to support for civil unions or something milder.

“[M]any conservatives unapologetically argue that they oppose granting marriage rights to gay people because they would be a sign of gay equality and would undermine the strict boundaries between sexual ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality,’” writes George Chauncey in his book Why Marriage?, which examines the history and context of the debates on same-sex marriage.

More difficult to comprehend are politicians who claim to support gay rights but either oppose same-sex marriage altogether or support only civil unions.

“Probably one thing that doesn’t really get mentioned much is that there are some people who want to support gay rights, but don’t think they should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals,” said David Redlawsk, a political science professor at Rutgers University.  “But the key with most politicians is that their main objective is to win elections, and most of the time, that means responding to issues in ways that they think the public wants them to.

“Gay marriage is clearly an issue where the public has had a fairly consistent opinion on which has made a lot of politicians hesitant to come out in favor of it, though that trend is slowly changing.”

According to Hawkeye Poll data recorded by Redlawsk last April when he was a faculty member at the University of Iowa, only 26 percent of Iowans supported same-sex marriage at the time of its legalization in Iowa, while a much higher number supported some kind of legal recognition.  But nearly 60 percent of Iowans ages 30 and younger were in favor of same-sex marriage, which leads Redlawsk to believe that the issue may simply disappear from future political debate.

“For whatever reason, younger people overwhelmingly seem to support gay marriage, or at least don’t oppose it,” Redlawsk said.  “From the younger people I’ve talked to, in the classroom, on campus and during polling, there’s almost a live and let live mentality among that age group.  In twenty years, when these people are the ones holding most offices, I imagine that gay marriage just won’t be an issue anymore.”

But for now, even many politicians continue to oppose same-sex marriage for voting reasons because, “Many Americans still oppose gay marriage,” Redlawsk added.  “Of course, there are many Democrats who won’t support gay marriage.  There are studies that show that African Americans, who tend to vote Democrat, are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage, often because of strongly religious backgrounds.”

Backing up Redlawsk’s remarks are exit polls showing that 70 percent of African Americans voted against California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state in 2008.  Yet 94 percent of African Americans in California voted for Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Another factor making politicians avoid same-sex marriage rights is that politicians who oppose these rights have faced little consequence on Election Day or even in fundraising efforts, whereas those supporting them may suffer financial and election losses.

“Since gay marriage became a big issue, there have not been any notable examples of anyone not getting elected because they opposed gay marriage,” said Redlawsk.  “Most of the people who support those issues aren’t willing to allow that one issue sway their vote.  Gay marriage hardly ever shows up on key issue polls of voters who support it.”  In contrast, voters who do cite same-sex marriage as the most important issue tend to be against it.

These social issue voters are not a new phenomenon.  Many such voters were a powerful voting block during Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” movement of the 1980s, which emphasized “traditional,” often Christian, values above all.

Voters in favor of same-sex marriage have never equaled that the kind of organizing influence and structure.

Redlawsk said people who are against gay marriage tend to vote against politicians who are pro-gay marriage.  In 2004, he said, anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballots in several states helped drive millions of additional voters to the polls, which ultimately helped George W. Bush win the election.

What is somewhat surprising is that John Kerry, who ran unsuccessfully in 2004 on the Democratic ticket, had publicly stated that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman, just like Bush.  However, those citing same-sex marriage as their biggest issue voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

Redlawsk has an explanation, however:

“It’s not necessarily an issue of what politicians say they believe,” he said.  “It basically comes down to two issues in the case of John Kerry: People naturally distrust politicians and people associate gay marriage with Democrats.  So when a Democratic candidate like Kerry says he opposes gay marriage, people take it with a grain of salt.”

Redlawsk stated that not all Republicans fit the mold, however, saying, “Many of the more libertarian-minded Republicans don’t oppose gay marriage because they consider any limitation an infringement of the government on peoples’ rights.”

At one point in American history, it was a death sentence for a presidential candidate to support desegregation of schools or public facilities.  The same was true for universal suffrage at one point, and interracial marriage.  Eventually, those ideas became less offensive and were ultimately embraced by both the general public and politicians.  Time will tell if the same thing will happen with same-sex marriage, and it is far too early to predict when, if ever, same-sex marriage will be seen as acceptable to the majority of Americans.

Meanwhile, it remains a toxic issue in U.S. politics.

Additional sources for research:

• "Ideas & Trends; What Partisans Embrace, Politicians Fear" - by Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times
• Chauncey, George. Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today's Debate over Gay Equality. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2005. Print.
• "Cheney Comes Out for Gay Marriage, State-by-State" - by Dan Eggen, Washington Post
• "Who's Afraid of Gay Marriage?" - by William Eskridge and Darren Spedale, ABC News
• "70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds" - by Shelby Grad, Los Angeles Times
• "Don't Trust Obama on Gay Marriage" - by James Kirchick, Washington Post
• Moats, David. Civil Wars: The Battle for Gay Marriage. 1st ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Books, 2004. Print.
• "Hawkeye Poll: Majority of Iowans support recognition of same-sex relationships" - by David Redlawsk, Election Resources - The University of Iowa.
• "Rutgers-Eagleton Poll Finds New Jerseyans Support Legalizing Gay Marriage" - by David Redlawsk, Rutgers-Eagleton Institute of Politics.
• CNN.com Election Results 2004: Exit Polling - CNN.com
• CNN Election Center 2008: Exit Polling - CNN.com

Anatomy of a court case: Varnum v. Brien

One of the first interviews I conducted during this project was with an attorney named Kenneth Upton, Jr. Upton is an attorney for Lambda Legal, a "national organization pursuing high-impact litigation, public education and advocacy on behalf of equality and civil rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and people with HIV" (according to their website).

What first drew my attention to Upton, though, was his involvement in the Iowa same-sex marriage case Varnum v. Brien (pronounced "breen"). Although he wasn't the attorney who argued the case in front of the Iowa Supreme Court (we'll get to that later), Upton was deeply involved in the case and gave me a much greater understanding of it. So I figured that with today being the one year anniversary of the decision, I would write about the case from Upton's perspective, from when Lambda first got involved through the decision being handed down on April 3, 2009. For the most part, I'm gonna let Upton tell the story here.

Coming out of law school, Upton says he didn't really see himself entering a civil rights-related field.

“I was in private practice for about 20 years, not doing civil rights litigation, just standard civil litigation," said Upton. "I decided I wanted to do something different and I had a friend on the board of Lambda, and he told me that they were opening a new office in Dallas, so that's how I came to Lambda.”

Upton is now the supervisor of the South Central Regional Office, located in Dallas. However, it was his work overseeing the Midwest Regional Office in Chicago that led him to his involvement in Varnum v. Brien.

"Of course we were interested in getting involved in the issue of same-sex marriage because it's such a crucial issue for gay rights," Upton said. "The trouble was finding the right place to send a message."

Upton and Lambda didn't want to take on a case in a state like New York. They felt it would have very little national impact because of the perception of the Northeastern United States as being extremely liberal. Conversely, Upton said that they had little interest in trying to get involved in something in a place like Mississippi because he knew they would "get run out on a rail."

"I would like to make a key distinction, before we go any further," Upton said. "Lambda Legal does not seek out lawsuits, nor does it seek out people to file them. We aren't the ACLU, we're here to help those already involved in issues or if there is no other solution, pursue legal options. The vast majority of cases, people seek us out and we decide whether or not to get involved."

This was exactly the case in Varnum v. Brien.

"The initial contact didn't actually come from one of the six couples [the Brien in the case was on behalf of six same-sex couples, fyi], but rather several prominent members of the gay community in Iowa came into our Chicago office asking 'would this be possible?' and planting the idea in our heads," said Upton. "So we started investigating."

The timing was perfect, in the eyes of Lambda, because Massachusetts had just legalized same-sex marriage. The question was whether or not Iowa was the place to start the next fight.

"When we look at a case like this, there are a whole lot of issues that we have to go over, many not really even related to the issue in question. The first, of course, is whether or not there are people there who actually want our help. We're not going to just swoop in and get involved if nobody wants us there.

"So the next thing we look at is the governmental make-up, how the constitution is written and the current marriage laws in the state. In places where something like gay marriage would require a statewide vote, we're a lot less likely to pursue action because there just aren't enough people to feel confident of victory in most places. But somewhere like Iowa, we knew that all we'd need was a ruling from the Iowa Supreme Court and we felt that the constitution of the state would support our arguments.

"Perhaps the most important aspect we examine, however, is the make-up of the judicial system in states. So for example, in a state where judges face reelection every few years, that is discouraging because judges may be impacted by how they think the voters will react. In federal courts, we usually feel much more comfortable because we know that these judges aren't accountable to voters and so that doesn't influence their decisions.

"And then the final aspect that we need to examine is the public opinion, and history, of the state concerning the issue at hand. In Iowa, we felt fairly confident because the state has a long history of being independent, as well as being well ahead of the curve in civil rights issues."

So after carefully examining everything in depth, Lambda decided that they would get involved in the case of Varnum v. Brien, with a sense that the outcome could be huge for same-sex marriage if it was favorable. A huge part of this was a regional aspect, that a midwestern state could heavily influence future decisions more than others might.

"Legalization in somewhere like Massachusetts or California might not speak to everyone because of how liberal those states are perceived as being, but if gay marriage were legal in somewhere like Iowa? Well that just might speak to a whole new group of people," said Upton.

Upton said that once the ball was rolling, everyone felt like they had a pretty good chance, given Iowa's history and make-up of the Supreme Court. Next up was beginning to work on public perception.

"Big cases like Varnum take years, so oftentimes, we will begin educating people about whatever issue is being decided," said Upton. "If, over the course of the case, we can help make the environment seem less hostile to judges handing down the decision and make the public more willing to accept a decision, then it will make the case easier to argue and to decide in the long run. So in Iowa, we met with editorial boards, church groups, community leaders, anyone we thought would listen and might help sway public opinion in our favor.

"When we started our work on this case, there was not a single newspaper in the state that supported gay marriage," said Upton. "By the time we were finished, all but one supported it. And the one that didn't supported civil unions."

Much of the work, according to Upton, was convincing people that allowing same-sex marriages in Iowa would not be the end of the world, and would likely reflect well on the state from a national perspective.

"Some people think that they can just force court decisions," said Upton. "But it all depends on where society is. If you argue a case that is leaps and bounds ahead of where society is currently, you're not going to win, plain and simple. But if you can show that society is generally accepting of what you're saying and the law backs you up, you have a much greater shot at winning."

The other thing that Lambda and the plaintiffs had to do was find somebody to argue the case. Upton said that it was crucial that they get somebody who was respected and had credibility in the state of Iowa. The guy they ended up choosing was Dennis Johnson, a private practice attorney from the Des Moines area.

Dennis proved to be an excellent choice, as his arguments were widely praised across Iowa and throughout the country. After the case, Johnson retired.

"Usually you'd retire on some huge case, like the one that Denny [Johnson] had just finished in his second to last case, where he won his client something like $20 million. But Denny insisted that he wanted to make Varnum his last case," said Upton.

"To be honest, we were fairly confident that we would win coming in, though we never would've admitted it publicly," said Upton. "You hate to say something like that, because you don't want to jinx yourself, but the law was clearly on our side in this matter and Iowa's Supreme Court had a long history of groundbreaking decisions. Combine those factors and it seemed very likely that we would walk away happy."

Their feelings were correct. In a unanimous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court declared that banning same-sex marriage in Iowa was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage licenses were issued before the end of April 2009 and the public's support of same-sex marriage in Iowa has risen steadily since the decision was handed down.

"We weren't really sure what a 'win' would look like in Iowa," said Upton. "After all, the New Jersey court had ruled that banning gay marriage was illegal, but left it to the legislature to decide what that meant. The result was civil unions, not marriage.

"The day of the ruling in Iowa, I spoke at a rally in Iowa City and knew immediately that the state would accept the decision. Of course, Iowa City is a bit of a bubble compared to the rest of Iowa, but there was still just a feeling that this was a huge deal," said Upton.

Upton was not at all surprised by the media's reaction, which I've noted was a bit excessive in its shock that a place like Iowa would legalize same-sex marriage. But overall, says Upton, it was still cast a positive image on the state.

"I think the fact that people acted so surprised nationally was mostly just ingorance of Iowa's history and culture of fair and independent thought. After all, one of the things that we wanted to do was get the attention of people who wouldn't listen to a similar ruling from one of the coasts, and all the media attention definitely did. The fact that this was Iowa gave people who would normally just dismiss the notion of same-sex marriage to take a second look and change the dialogue," said Upton.

"The best was the reaction in Minnesota, which takes pride in its socially progressive history. The fact that Iowa, that obnoxious little rural neighbor to the south, had leapfrogged them on same-sex marriage and taken so much of the national spotlight with it. They were horrified. In a good way, of course."

Follow-up: Irish pro athlete comes out

A little while back, I posted a link to an interview with Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel discussing gay athletes.


Well apparently an Irish hurling player named Donal Og Cusack has come out. I'll be honest, I have no idea what hurling is, but if "The Sporting Blog" is to be believed (and, for the record, there is no reason to doubt), it's an extremely popular sport in Ireland. I discussed this briefly when I posted the Tressel interview how much of a media circus it would be if an active American professional athlete were to come out, and how the dynamic in the locker room would be impacted. It's nice to hear that in at least this example, his teammates and coaches have been very supportive.