Lesbian Divorce Ruling

The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld Judge Neary's ruling on the grounds the plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge it.

I've excerpted the protracted litany of arguments and rebuttals for those who care:

According to the general rule for standing, the plaintiffs here—being nonparties—lack standing to bring this certiorari action. The question remains whether they satisfy the public interest exception . . . to fall within this exception, the plaintiffs must first prove that they are “concerned with the subject matter of the action.” . . . That means the plaintiffs must have a “specific personal or legal interest in the litigation,” which relates to the first requirement of standing generally. . . . In addition, as mentioned, the plaintiffs must also prove that “they have been injured in a special manner, different from that of the public generally,” which relates to the second requirement of standing generally. . . .

The plaintiffs first contend that they have standing because the public, as represented by the plaintiffs, has an interest in promoting traditional marriage. They argue that the district court’s recognition of a civil union is detrimental to the furtherance and promotion of marriage as defined in Iowa.

The plaintiffs next contend that the public has an interest in avoiding the erosion of marriage. In support of this contention, the plaintiffs argue that treating same-sex relationships the same as marriage denigrates and undermines traditional, opposite-sex marriage. . . .

The plaintiffs also contend that the public has an interest in safeguarding the rule of law and an interest in seeing that judges act within the jurisdictional boundaries established by Iowa law. They maintain that the district court was outside its jurisdiction when it dissolved the civil union in this case.

Finally, the plaintiffs contend the public has an interest in preserving the judicial process. That process, they argue, has been circumvented because Brown and Perez have no interest in challenging the district court’s jurisdiction to dissolve their civil union. Therefore, they conclude, injustice will result unless the public can petition for a writ of certiorari to challenge the district court’s actions. . . .

Reduced to their simplest form, the plaintiffs’ contentions and arguments do no more than to assert a right to represent the general public rather than to identify their individual interests. They therefore have not shown that they have a specific personal or legal interest in the underlying action. Nor have the plaintiffs shown that they have been injured in a special manner, different from that of the public generally. . . . Rather, what the plaintiffs allege is an injury in the abstract, not in fact, which is not enough. . . . Moreover, the injury the plaintiffs claim is anticipatory, which, as we have said, is not sufficient for standing. . . .

The plaintiffs’ contention and argument regarding preserving the judicial process seem to imply that the issue regarding dissolution of civil unions will never be before this court because the parties will never appeal. The faulty premise in this assumption is that district court judges when confronted with this issue in the future will always dissolve the union. In those cases in which a district court judge denies such relief, the more probable scenario is that one of the litigants will appeal. . . .

Several of the plaintiffs contend that they have standing in their capacity as married persons. To support this contention, these plaintiffs argue that as individuals they have a substantial interest in the promotion of traditional marriage in this state. They point out that under Iowa law married individuals receive certain rights and privileges not granted to others. Further, they argue, by recognizing a civil union, the district court has injured them because such recognition would dilute the value of traditional marriage long recognized by this state.

We fail to see how the district court’s action in dissolving a civil union of another couple harmed in any specific way these plaintiffs’ marriages, and for this reason they have shown no legally recognized interest or personal stake in the underlying action. The district court’s action in terminating another couple’s civil union did not injure these plaintiffs in a special manner, different from the public generally. Nor was such action an injury in fact as distinguished from an abstract injury. In addition, any injury to the interest these plaintiffs claim is anticipatory and therefore not sufficient for standing. . . .

Several of the plaintiffs also contend that they have standing as taxpayers in this state. Their argument is that by granting the decree

the district court opened up the judicial system to a new class of petitioners and respondents outside those individuals provided for under state law, which will require the provision and expenditure of additional state judicial resources beyond those approved by the state legislature. Dissolution/termination of a Civil Union will likely result in additional litigation, requiring state judicial resources, concerning property distribution, child custody and support, and spousal benefits. . . .

In this case, we have no order increasing or diminishing any fund to which these plaintiffs have contributed or will contribute in the future. Rather, what we have are allegations that more judicial resources will be needed to administer the court system. Such allegations are not sufficient to constitute standing. . . .

The contention here is that the plaintiff Matthew Wentz, pastor of the Church of Christ of Le Mars, has standing in his individual capacity as a pastor, who has solemnized marriages and counseled married people. This plaintiff claims that he faces possible criminal charges pursuant to Iowa Code section 595.9 (2003) if he solemnizes a marriage of a heterosexual couple when one of the parties has entered into a civil union that has not been terminated. . . .

Section 595.3 prohibits the county registrar from issuing a marriage license when (1) either party is under the age necessary to render the marriage valid, (2) either party is less than eighteen years of age unless the marriage is approved by the district court, (3) either party is disqualified from making any civil contract, (4) the parties are within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by law, and (5) either party is a ward under a guardianship and the court has made a finding that the ward lacks the capacity to contract a valid marriage. Iowa Code section 595.9 provides that “[i]f a marriage is solemnized without procuring a license, the parties married, and all persons aiding them, are guilty of a simple misdemeanor.” Therefore, once a couple presents a marriage license to a minister, it seems clear to us that the minister may solemnize the marriage without fear of criminal sanctions provided in Iowa Code section 595.9.

Moreover, this plaintiff is under no duty to solemnize any marriage. If this plaintiff is in doubt about the validity of such a proposed marital union, he can simply refuse to solemnize the marriage. . . .

The Church of Christ of Le Mars claims it has standing for several reasons. First, this plaintiff has a substantial interest in upholding and preserving traditional marriage, as defined by Iowa law, within the community that it serves. Second, many Iowa citizens look to this plaintiff for guidance as to marriage, family, and divorce. The decree in this case impacts these relationships. Last, this plaintiff has an interest in preserving the traditional marital relationships in its community. The decree, which is contrary to well-established law, public policy, and ecclesiastical principles of the plaintiff’s denomination, would undermine the denomination’s teachings concerning marriage.

All of these arguments fail to demonstrate that this plaintiff has any legally recognized or personal stake in the underlying case. Moreover, this plaintiff has failed to show that it has been injured in a special manner, different from that of the public generally. These arguments also fail to show how this plaintiff has been injured in fact as distinguished from being injured in an abstract manner. Finally, any injury to the interest alleged by this plaintiff is anticipatory and therefore not sufficient for standing. . . .

The plaintiff state legislators contend they have standing because they have an interest, as legislators, in seeing that the “law passed to preserve traditional marriage” is properly enforced. The plaintiff congressman contends he has standing because he has an interest in seeing that federal laws governing marriage are likewise enforced.

The plaintiff state legislators argue that they “have suffered a peculiar injury in that the court usurped the power ‘properly belonging’ to the legislature” by improperly taking jurisdiction of the underlying case and recognizing a civil union that is not recognized under Iowa law.

The plaintiff congressman argues he has suffered a peculiar injury by the district court’s recognition of the civil union because that action was not required under federal law and not permitted by state law.

All of these contentions and arguments have no bearing on what the district court actually did. The court dissolved a civil union; it did not dissolve a marriage. We therefore agree with the amicus that these plaintiffs have claimed an interest in Iowa and federal marriage laws that has nothing to do with the district court’s decision. . . .

It would be strange indeed and contrary to our notions of separation of powers if we were to recognize that legislators have standing to intervene in lawsuits just because they disagree with a court’s interpretation of a statute. Generally, “in the absence of statutory directive, a legislator may sue only to challenge misconduct or illegality in the legislative process itself.” . . .

Moreover, these plaintiffs have not shown that they have a legally recognized or personal stake in the underlying case. Nor have they shown that they have been injured in fact as distinguished from having been injured in an abstract manner. As mentioned, when the only claim is nonobservance of the law, such claim affects only the generalized interest of all citizens. Any injury resulting from such nonobservance is abstract in nature and not sufficient for standing. . . .

Because the plaintiffs have shown no standing to challenge the district court’s amended decree, we annul the writ. We have carefully considered all of the contentions and arguments of the parties. Those we have not addressed either lack merit or were not properly raised for our review.

WRIT ANNULLED.