Iowa Supreme Court Justice visits

Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady delivered a speech at Luther last Tuesday regarding Iowa’s legalization of same-sex marriage. Cady is the author of the unanimous majority opinion for the case, Varnum v. Brien, which legalized same-sex marriage in the state in April 2009.

Cady was well received by the audience, which was made up of approximately 100 students, faculty and community members.

The Center for Ethics and Public Life, headed by political science Professor John Moeller, brought Justice Cady to Luther.

“It’s a great opportunity to get to know the judicial decision process,” Moeller told his constitutional law class, to which Justice Cady spoke the following day.

In his speech, Justice Cady discussed his rationale involved in the opinion, which he described as scientific.

“Science has shown that sexual orientation is an immutable trait, like race or gender, so it requires a more compelling level of judicial scrutiny,” Cady said.

Cady also spoke regarding his belief that the judiciary plays the role of an agent for change in American democracy.

“We understand the world differently now,” Cady said in his speech. “Can you imagine what our world would be like if we adhered to the same worldview that we did during slavery? Fifty years ago some arguments would have been good enough. Now they aren’t. The Constitution can be re-written to reflect what the American people want.”

Instructor in political
science Jason Stonerook
found Cady’s views to be a break from customary ideas of the judiciary.

“I was surprised by how eagerly Justice Cady championed the court as an agent of change,” Stonerook said. “There have been instances in American history where the judicial system has assumed that role, but some analysts may be more inclined to describe courts as more traditional agents of restraint. However, I think Justice Cady made a convincing argument for why courts ought to regard themselves as agents of change.”

In what some described as a particularly thoughtful question and answer session following the speech, Cady defended the court’s decision, refuting the idea that it was a form of judicial activism.

“The Varnum case is the exact opposite of judicial activism. We used facts to
determine the constitutionality of the case, even against some of our own personal opinions,” Cady said.

“I thought the questions at the end of the lecture were very good,” Stonerook said following the question and answer session. “Justice Cady’s thoughtful
lecture elicited thoughtful questions and allowed him to expand upon his reasoning in the decision.”