Preachers, politicians, and same-sex couples: Challenging same-sex civil unions and implications on interstate recognition

Vermont's passage of a civil union statute in 2000 set the stage for ensuing controversy surrounding the ability of sister states to legally recognize and/or dissolve the unions under their own laws and the ability of third-parties to challenge the validity of the unions beyond the borders of Vermont. As a result, some states have either granted or are preparing to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples, while other states have denied or are preparing to deny such recognition. Central to the determination of these issues is the applicability of the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act, and the various state defense of marriage acts that were subsequently enacted, to same-sex civil unions. Iowa is positioned at the forefront of this debate with the Iowa Supreme Court's recent decision in Alons v. Iowa District Court. In Alons, the Iowa Supreme Court held that third-party challengers to the dissolution of a Vermont-solemnized same-sex civil union did not have standing to challenge the dissolution in the Iowa courts. However, in doing so, the court declined to address whether the dissolution constituted an implicit recognition of same-sex civil unions in Iowa. This Note addresses the ability of third-parties to challenge same-sex civil union jurisprudence and whether dissolutions such as the one granted by the Iowa District Court represent an implicit recognition of same-sex civil unions. Inherent in this debate is a discussion of the public polity considerations surrounding same-sex civil union jurisprudence, how the public policy of this issue varies between states, and the resulting implications for states such as Iowa.