Posted on 06/17/2005 10:38:36 AM PDT by Bluesguy
Iowa high court refuses to change civil union dissolution Published: 06/17/2005 10:54 AM By: Associated Press - Associated Press
DES MOINES, IA - The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday refused to tamper with a lower court decision granting two women a dissolution of their civil union.
In a unanimous ruling, the court said a conservative group that had sued to overturn the ruling had no standing in the case.
In the case, Kimberly Jean Brown had filed for divorce from Jennifer Sue Perez. Their divorce petition said the two were married in March 2002 in Bolton, Vt., and asked for a divorce.
Judge Jeffrey Neary granted the divorce, later altering the ruling to reflect that it was a termination of the couple's civil union.
The legal arm of the Des Moines-based Iowa Family Policy Center and a handful of state legislators had challenged the decision, saying Neary had overstepped his authority. By dissolving the civil union, they said, Neary was recognizing gay marriage.
The Supreme Court said the group was not harmed by Neary's decision.
''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 high court said.
Messages left Friday for officials with the Iowa Family Policy Center and three state lawmakers who were plaintiffs in the case were not immediately returned.
''We must keep in mind that our task is not to judge the merits of the plaintiffs' contentions,'' the court wrote. ''Rather, our task is to determine whether these plaintiffs are the proper parties to bring this action.''
The conservative group began an unsuccessful campaign to oust Neary from the bench after his ruling in the case. The judge, who won a retention vote last fall, declined to comment Friday on the Supreme Court's ruling.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and the Church of Christ in Le Mars also were listed as plaintiffs in the challenge of Neary's ruling.
Matthew Wentz, pastor of the Le Mars church, said the decision threatened his ability as a minister to solemnize marriages.
The high court rejected his arguments, saying he was under no duty to marry a homosexual couple and that the lower court's action didn't set that precedent.
''In addition, this plaintiff has failed to show he has a legally recognized interest or personal stake in the underlying case,'' the court said.
King, who represents western Iowa's Fifth District, argued that he had a right to be involved in the case because civil unions are not recognized by federal law and not allowed under state law, which defines a marriage as between a man and a woman.
The high court rejected his arguments as well.
''All of these contentions and arguments have no bearing on what the district court actually did,'' the court wrote. ''The court dissolved a civil union. It did not dissolve a marriage.''
What does that have to do with the cost of tea in China? Courts are out of control, or should I say, in control of lawmaking.
I think the reasoning for throwing out the appeal was that the people who brought the appeal were not harmed - they didn't have standing, so they had no legal reason to file an appeal.
If you don't have standing, you can't file a lawsuit.
If that is the case than all the lawsuits brought in regards to saving salmon or endangered species should be thrown out also, but they aren't. So much for your argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.