Associated Press
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant Polk County attorney, argued that the issue is not for a judge to decide.

The issue is for a judge to decide, because the issue is the constitutionality of a state law, and that's precisely the domain of the courts. I despise activism on the part of judges (legislating from the bench), but this is a logical application of constitutional rights.

Associated Press
Hanson ruled that the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

Initially, I had assumed the judge was applying the Iowa Constitution, but his language references the U.S. Constitution.

Iowa Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 1.
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Iowa Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 6.
All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We'll see how this plays out. One would think that, if a county judge can apply the Fourteenth Amendment to overturn a state law (especially if the decision withstands appeal), then a case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn all state legislative and constitutional prohibitions against same-sex marriages, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

Laws prohibiting interracial marriage were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1883, and that judgment was finally overturned in 1967, the court stating that such laws violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Likewise, I hope (if not expect) that the Court will eventually do the same regarding laws against same-sex marriages. I just hope something similar to last year's proposed Federal Marriage Amendment doesn't get passed first.