Melissa, Heather, and MacKenzie Gartner (Credit: Des Moines Register)

The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that when a woman in a same-sex marriage gives birth to a child, her spouse should be listed as the other parent. The case involved Heather Martin Gartner, who gave birth to her daughter Mackenzie in 2009, but was told her wife Melissa would have to go through the costly process of adoption to be recognized as Mackenzie’s other parent.

At issue is that the language in Iowa’s laws about presumption of parentage are gendered (husband, father, paternity). However, the Court pointed out that the law does assume that the husband of a mother is the father — in fact, if a woman in an opposite-sex marriage were to use an anonymous sperm donor, the state would not even know when it determines her husband to be the father. Thus, the same standard should apply to lesbian couples under the Iowa Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection — the same guarantee the Court used to rule for marriage equality in 2009:

It is important for our laws to recognize that married lesbian couples who have children enjoy the same benefits and burdens as married opposite-sex couples who have children. By naming the nonbirthing spouse on the birth certificate of a married lesbian couple’s child, the child is ensured support from that parent and the parent establishes fundamental legal rights at the moment of birth. Therefore, the only explanation for not listing the nonbirthing lesbian spouse on the birth certificate is stereotype or prejudice. The exclusion of the nonbirthing spouse on the birth certificate of a child born to a married lesbian couple is not substantially related to the objective of establishing parentage.

Thus, section 144.13(2) fails to comport with the guarantees of equal protection under article 1, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution. The Department has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for refusing to list on a child’s birth certificate the nonbirthing spouse in a lesbian marriage, when the child was conceived using an anonymous sperm donor and was born to the other spouse during the marriage. Thus, the language in section 144.13(2) limiting the requirement to “the name of the husband” on the birth certificate is unconstitutional as applied to married lesbian couples who have a child born to them during marriage.

This decision is one of many the Court may still need to make to address the gendered language that remains in Iowa law. Unlike in states that have passed marriage equality legislatively, the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in 2009 did not automatically rewrite all Iowa laws related to spouses with gender-neutral language. Thus, other statutes must be interpreted separately in accordance with past decisions unless Iowa lawmakers correct them through new legislation. Notably, lawmakers in Washington recently completed the removal of all references to gender throughout the state’s laws.

Perhaps ironically, this decision may apply uniquely to lesbian couples and not to gay male couples. This, of course, is due to the fact that neither man in such a couple (providing he is not transgender) will be giving birth to a child. If issues arise in regards to how a birth certificate is issued when two men have a child through a surrogate mother, a separate but similar case may have to proceed before both can be listed as the child’s parents.

Iowa State Sen. Dennis Guth (R)

Radio Iowa chronicled Guth’s diatribe:

Guth said there are “numerous” health and mental problems associated with homosexuality that “ultimately” shorten the lives of gays and lesbians.

“There are health risks that my family incurs because of the increase of sexually transmitted infections that this lifestyle invites. For example, there are more and more medical tests required before giving blood or giving birth,” Guth said.

Guth said “many civilizations have fallen” because the traditional family was not protected and he argued the homosexual lifestyle “is a lie.”

“If I saw someone going the wrong way on a one-way street, I would make every effort to stop and redirect them,” Guth said. “Simply put, it saves lives to have honest communication not only about the sexually transmitted diseases that shorten lifespans, but also about the deep loneliness that accompanies a life based on youth, beauty and sex.”

You can listen to Guth’s entire speech here.

As Guth’s fellow Sen. Matt McCoy (D) pointed out after the speech, Guth’s accusations are ignorant and based on talking points from hard-right Christian and social conservative groups, not science. In fact, increasing acceptance of LGBT communities decreases societal stigma surrounding homosexuality and consequently improves LGBT Americans’ mental health; Guth’s family would be equally at risk for sexually transmitted infections from straight people if they don’t use safe sex practices; and both the medical community and lawmakers from both parties agree that barriers to LGBT Americans donating blood and organs is an outdated relic not supported by any actual public health risks.

Iowa’s Christian conservative group The FAMiLY Leader is once again objecting to the Governor’s Conference on LGBTQ Youth, a yearly opportunity for students, teachers, and families across the state of Iowa to learn how to better protect LGBT young people from bullying. In the past, the group’s head Bob Vander Plaats has accused the conference of discriminating against straight students, even though allies are welcome.

At a press conference Thursday, The FAMiLY Leader and representatives from other groups (including hate group Concerned Women for America) objected to the conference for compromising the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality and using taxpayer funding in the process. Here’s FL’s Chuck Hurley admonishing LGBT advocates:

HURLEY: This Papa Bear is here to say, regarding the Governor’s Conference, stop coming after my kids and other people’s kids with evil propaganda. Stop twisting the Bible and stop using our tax dollars to do it. [...]

We’re here today to warn parents and to warn lawmakers and other who are responsible for protecting those children, and to urge them to protect appropriate action to protect those children, such as not letting them go to this conference next week, such as considering home and private education if their schools are teaching the things this conference is advocating — that Iowa school districts teach — and above all, teaching our children the truth about the Bible, sexuality, and bullying.

Watch the full press conference (Part 2 here):

This year, the group is specifically targeting Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC) for hosting the conference. A conservative student group, Young Americans for Freedom, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to confirm that the university was spending money to help fund the conference. Student Jake Dagel explained, “Diversity is not when you use my tuition money or our tax dollars to fund a conference that bullies people for their Christian or conservative beliefs.”

Sixteen lawmakers have threatened to cut DMACC’s funding for promoting groups “who pervert the Bible, teach our youth to engage in dangerous behavior, and target individuals like Jan Mickelson for hatred and bullying.” Mickelson is a conservative radio host in Iowa that regularly attacks LGBT equality on his show.

Unsurprisingly, none of the conservative religious leaders expressed any concern for the severe consequences LGBT youth experience when they are bullied or shamed by their community, including attempting suicide, homelessness, academic performance, and school truancy.

Anti-gay Rep. Steve King (R-IA) published a new op-ed in the National Review thursday trying to explain that “marriage is illegal without a license” and that restrictions against same-sex couples simply reflect the “government’s interest in marriage.” Here is how King tried to make his case against marriage equality, even though same-sex couples are free to get marriage licenses in his home state of Iowa:

Marriage is the stable platform from which families are launched. Government surely has a compelling interest in ensuring the stability of that platform, and even subsidizing the practice with tax incentives. Moreover, society has an interest in promoting procreation amongst married adults. Same-sex marriage does not present the possibility of natural procreation nor has same-sex parenting endured and thrived for millennia of human experience.

In our legal system, qualifications for licenses have long-standing foundation, and those qualifications are not considered discriminatory. They are considered to be necessary to pursue the interest of the public. In the case of marriage, those interests are all about children.

You do not need a license to begin a new friendship, start shopping at a new grocery store or pharmacy, or even begin a new dating relationship. Likewise, one does not need a court order to terminate any of those relationships. This fact indicates that there is something unique about marriage that necessitates government involvement. Insisting upon heterosexual marriage is therefore not discriminatory, nor does it constitute the government telling anyone whom to love. The argument for upholding the Defense of Marriage Act is rooted in the way marriage is historically treated by state laws. To understand why government is involved in marriage in the first place is to understand why government cannot validate same-sex marriage.

King seems to have little understanding of what it means to be gay or why the LGBT community is fighting for equality under the law. Despite the fact there might not have been same-sex parenting for “millenia of human experience,” there most certainly is same-sex parenting now, including about 19 percent of same-sex couples in Iowa.

If anything, by spelling out the simple factors that explain why the government has an interest in recognizing marriage, King undercuts his own argument. If marriage is about children and same-sex couples are raising children, then it’s blatantly discriminatory to not allow them to receive marriage licenses. Perhaps if King is so interested in “the way marriage is historically treated by state laws,” he should pay attention to how his own state has treated marriage for the past four years.