County recorders do not have the authority to refuse to issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples, according to Iowa Attorney General Tom
Miller was responding to a petition drive being pushed by Republican state Sen. Merlin Bartz
and the Iowa Family Policy Center that is trying to convince county
recorders to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses in defiance of a
recent Supreme Court ruling.
“We expect duly-elected county recorders to comply with the Iowa
Constitution as interpreted unanimously by the Iowa Supreme Court, the
highest court in Iowa,” Miller said in a statement to the Iowa
Independent. “Our country lives by and thrives by the rule of law, and
the rule of law means we all follow the law as interpreted by our
courts — not by ourselves. We don’t each get to decide what the law is;
that would lead to chaos. We must live by and follow what the courts
Bartz is asking citizens to deliver signed petitions to Iowa’s 99
county recorders on Monday, the day the Supreme Court’s verdict goes
into effect and same-sex couples can legally obtain marriage licenses.
Any county recorder that doesn’t abide by the Court’s ruling would be
in violation of the law and face removal from office.
Appreciate our work?
Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
“Recorders do not have discretion or power to ignore the Iowa
Supreme Court’s ruling,” Miller said, adding: “If necessary, we will
explore legal actions to enforce and implement the Court’s ruling,
working with the Iowa Department of Public Health and county attorneys.”
For several days his office has advised county recorders around the
state that they are required to comply with the Supreme Court’s
decision, Miller said, which means they must issue marriage licenses to
same-sex couples as they have in the past to opposite-sex couples.
Last week, Bartz attempted to insert language into a bill that would have allowed county recorders to refuse to issue a marriage license
as a “matter of conscience” without fear of prosecution. The language
was ruled out of order. Later, a clerk to Republican state Rep. Kent
Sorenson was found to be contacting county recorders asking them why
they were willing to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, since “it’s not
a law, it’s an opinion.”
But the Court’s ruling concluded that language “limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the [state]
statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and
applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the
institution of civil marriage.”
County recorders do not have the authority to ignore the Court’s ruling, Miller said.