Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Civil Union Dissolution

June 18, 2005

DES MOINES — The Iowa Supreme Court today rejected a lawsuit by a group of conservative lawmakers and others to overturn a northwest Iowa district judge's ruling that dissolved a lesbian couple's out-of-state civil union.

The justices said the group had no legal standing to challenge the decree by Judge Jeffrey Neary and therefore no right to intervene.

Chief Justice Louis Lavorato's ruling did not address the issue of whether Neary erred when he dissolved the Vermont civil union.

The justices agreed with opponents of the group's lawsuit, who argued that many people have strong opinions about marriage, as they do about divorce, child custody, zoning and many other issues … if everyone were allowed to petition for simply because of ideological objections or strongly held philosophical beliefs … then there would be no limits to the petitions brought.

Iowa law has never permitted such unwarranted interference in other peoples' cases, the argument continued. Simply having an opinion does not suffice for standing.

The ruling apparently allows Neary's order and the divorce to stand although the state does not recognize same-sex marriages.

Kimberly Brown and Jennifer Perez, who live in Sioux City, went to Neary for the divorce in August 2003. They entered their civil union in Bolton, Vt., on March 25, 2002.

Neary's November 2003 ruling came amid a national debate that began a month earlier when Massachusetts' highest court ruled that a state prohibition against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The arguments have played out elsewhere, most recently in California, where same-sex couples this year were granted access to divorce court in order to divide assets and decide alimony and child-support issues.

Neary signed the divorce papers during a brief daily period when judges meet with attorneys and approve routine orders. He said he didn't realize the two people in the divorce were women until after he signed the papers.

But when he discovered the facts, he declined to withdraw the order, and a few weeks later amended it to say that he ended only the civil union in Vermont, not a marriage.

His critics say that he should have sent the two women back to Vermont if they wanted a divorce, and that he encroached on the Legislature's authority to make law.