Legal Commentary

One thing that struck me from reading the Iowa Supreme Court decision holding that the limitation on civil marriage only to opposite-sex couples was the tone of the writing. It was very much a public-directed document, intent on explaining itself to the public, as opposed to the parties or to a primarily legal audience. The opinion broke down state equal protection analysis to its rudiments and tried to explain basic principles and elements--in a way that would be known to anyone with legal training or experience, but less so to lay persons. The court also took the time to address and rebut the sort of political, slippery-slope criticisms likely to be made in the wake of the decision, for example that clergy now will be obligated to sanctify same-sex marriages, even if such marriages violate religious doctrine.

This was a wise rhetorical move. The court recognized that its decision, though (in its view) constitutionally compelled and legally justified, was going to be politically and popularly controversial. And that it had an obligation as a public institution to explain itself to the full audience likely to be reading and reacting to its decision.