Dec 26, 2003  |  By: JOE CREA  | COMMENTS     

Socially conservative state lawmakers and religious officials are challenging an Iowa judge’s decision to dissolve a lesbian couple’s civil union by appealing to the state’s Supreme Court.

The divorce, between Kimberly Brown, 31, and Jennifer Perez, 26, has caught the attention of gay rights opponents who say the ruling could open the door to Iowa recognizing same-sex marriages. Gay groups assert the ruling will not pose a challenge to the state’s existing laws that have banned gay marriage since 1997.

“The extremist right would like to portray this as the back door to marriage — it is not,” said David Buckel, an attorney with Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund. “We are going through the front door, with our heads held high, insisting on equality.

“A dissolution does not equal recognition,” said Buckel.

Paul Cates, director of public education for the American Civil Liberties Union, agreed, saying that the divorce was not a challenge to the state’s Defense of Marriage Act “but merely “recognizing a need for a court to get a gay couple out of a relationship.”

Brown and Perez, both of Sioux City, entered into a civil union in Vermont in March 2002. Their divorce was granted Nov. 14 in Woodbury County District Court. Their attorney, Dennis Ringgenberg, did not return Blade calls seeking comment.

Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, questioned whether Judge Jeffrey Neary “fulfilled his duty” by granting the divorce. A judge who reviews a file for divorce must see if the plaintiff and respondent have been served and signed the appropriate papers. Hurley said that all the documents in the entire divorce file had both female names “listed twice at the top of the page.”

“I suppose you could make the argument that judges are busy and that maybe the burden is on the lawyer, but this is the judge’s duty,” Hurley said.

In early media accounts, Neary said he did not know that the two individuals in the divorce case were women. But on Dec. 16, he told the Daily Sentinel in Le Mars that through his ruling, he was not seeking to establish a legal precedent but simply trying to resolve a legal issue between two parties.

“I’m not out here crusading for anything or anybody. I’m dealing with the legal problem,” Neary said. “I don’t make decisions about social agendas or morality issues; it just wouldn’t be fair to the multitude of people I serve.”

Neary did not return Blade calls.

The Iowa Liberty & Justice Center, the legal arm of the Iowa Family Policy Center, filed an appeal on behalf of six Iowa legislators, two state religious leaders and U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The parties are arguing “couples who are civilly united are not married under Iowa law” and that Vermont law defines “marriage as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman.”

Dwight Dinkla, executive director of the Iowa Bar Association, said his organization does not comment on pending legislation but said he was unaware if the writ had been served.

Calls to the Iowa Supreme Court were not returned.

Civil unions vs. gay marriage
Hurley said that he felt “fairly confident” about the appeal citing the case of Susan Freer, a Georgia lesbian who lost custody of her children in January 2001 when her ex-husband accused her of violating a consent decree signed during their 1998 divorce as a legal precedent. Under the voluntary decree, both husband and wife agreed not to visit their children “during any time where [one] cohabits with or has overnight stays with any adult” to whom they are not legally married. Freer thought she was legally protected through her Vermont civil union with her female partner. Both a Floyd County Superior Court and the Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed.

A few other states are also seeing similar legal challenges to civil unions performed out of state. An Indiana lesbian couple is facing the end of their Vermont-based civil union. And similar cases are cropping up in Connecticut, Texas and West Virginia.

Activists say that because of the legal ambiguities that come with civil unions, such a case underscores the need for gay men and lesbians to fight for marriage rights.

“Civil unions don’t come lose to being what marriage is,” Buckel said. “If we are going to have integrity as citizens of this country, we must proceed with clarity that we must have the options that heterosexuals have. Civil unions, domestic partnerships — they all should be on the table. Marriage does not knock the others out.”

Hurley buttressed Buckel’s point about ...