South Dakota Third Best for Retirement

I recall a visit to Carthage three summers ago in which a gal at the Straw Bale Museum talked about recruiting retirees to move to town as a major economic development strategy.

She was barking up the right tree: a new report from Money-Rates.com ranks South Dakota as the third best state in the nation for retirement. Based on life expectancy, crime rate, economic factors, and even climate, the only states found more appealing for retirees than South Dakota are New Hampshire and Hawaii. (Getting mentioned in the same sentence as Hawaii is almost always good... unless we're talking about new volcanoes.)

North Dakota is fourth on this list: North Dakotans pay more in taxes and living expenses, but they also live longer and currently have less unemployment. The report gives us a slight nod thanks to being a little warmer... but if you retire here, you'll still need to hire some strapping young lad to shovel your driveway out in the winter.

Iowa is the only other neighbor in the top ten, ranking fifth. Money-Rates.com doesn't make a full-50 list available, but given that none of our neighbors make the worst ten list, we South Dakotans appear to live in a pretty good neighborhood for retirement.

According to this report, Nevada is the worst place to retire. Vegas-land has the second lowest state and local tax burden in the nation (6.6%, compared to South Dakota's 7.9% and North Dakota's 9.2%), but the state has high crime, high unemployment, and below-average life-expectancy. Still, do you need to live longer when you can see Rod Stewart right now?

So add that to the economic development website, Carthage, and all you other South Dakota towns looking to boost your local housing market. Lots of old folks want peaceful small towns that are easy to get around in. They'll also create jobs, as they'll hire out more services, like snow-shoveling and RV repair. Build those straw bale spec houses, Carthage, and tell those retirees you are the new Florida!

----------------------
Update 2010.11.11: Mike Knutson at Reimagine Rural picks up the question of recruiting retirees for economic development. He notes that lists are good fun, but getting readers of those lists to up and move to South Dakota still takes a lot of good salesmanship and local work.

Grand Falls Casino Synergy -- That's What I Said!

Last summer, when Iowa announced it was building its big Grand Falls Casino in Larchwood, right at the northwest corner of the state, various South Dakotans, including the man getting my vote for Governor today, flipped their lids. I suggested some of the concerns about the casino and proposed warlike responses to the project were exaggerated. I said that proper planning and marketing could turn the project into an economic plus for our state. "Think synergy, not scarcity," I said.

Synergy. That's the magic word. And it's already happening:

...Sands Drywall of Sioux Falls has one of the biggest jobs, putting up all the exterior and interior walls.

"This job hit at the perfect time for us. We're going to have containment on the whole project by Thanksgiving is what the schedule is, and it will keep us working inside all winter long," Greg Sands, owner of Sands Drywall, said.

Despite concerns that a 'Buy Iowa' first initiative was going to keep construction crews from other states off the job site, only 55 percent of the contracts that have been awarded have been to Iowa companies. The rest are from outside the state.

...The Sioux Falls companies working on the job site are glad South Dakota is seeing some benefits from the Iowa project.

"Their philosophy was to be compliant with what they had to do, and also to create synergy between them and the Sioux Falls market, and South Dakota. And they've done that. There's a lot of people working from both states. A lot of people working here from both states for me and there's just a lot of synergy," Sands said [Ben Dunsmoor, "Paying out for South Dakota," KELOLand.com, 2010.11.01].

Sioux Falls Mayor Mike Huether says he and his business pals are already thinking down the synergy line as well. We could try to compete, but it may be easier to simply capitalize on the Iowa megacasino. When Iowa gives you rhubarb, make rhubarb pie.

SD Iran Divestment Bill Gets Branstad's Attention

Nice to see South Dakota showing some leadership (dare I say Leder-ship?). Republican candidate for Iowa governor Terry Branstad gives South Dakota and state legislator Dan Lederman a shout-out for the Iran divestment bill our legislature passed this year and says he'd like to see Iowa pass similar legislation:



District 8 House candidate Patricia Stricherz did some useful Facebook campaigning for this bill last winter. Now if I can just get her on board with energy security legislation....

No word yet from Ahmadinejad on how he will retaliate against us perfidious prairie infidels.
------------------------------
Somewhat related: Stricherz is back on record opposing domestic oil barons as well. Yahoo!

Iowa Gov. Candidates Debate Hyperion and Jobs

I just found this really good article from Matt Vasilogambros in the Iowa Independent about the proposed Hyperion refinery in Elk Point. Apparently the thus-far pipe-dream-only project is sparking more disagreement between Iowa's gubernatorial candidates than between South Dakota's.

On our side of the Big Sioux River, both Republican Dennis Daugaard and Democrat Scott Heidepriem have said they support the refinery (Scott! Come on!) but have doubts about whether it will come to fruition. But in Iowa, Governor Chet Culver and challenger (and former governor) Terry Branstad appear to stake out opposing ground on the refinery. Branstad says environmental concerns expressed by the Sierra Club and Iowa's former Department of Natural Resources chief Richard Leopold are just bunk that stand in the way of economic development. Governor Culver's team responds that jobs are priority #1 but that the state still needs to protect the environment. Culver likens Branstad's position on Hyperion to the same pro-corporate thinking that led Branstad to open his state to huge polluting hog operations and the unhealthy DeCoster egg operations. (Worth noting:Branstad himself calls Jack DeCoster a rogue businessman.)

Vasilogambros also notes that Hyperion assures Iowans that they will get lots of the Hyperion jobs. (Does Hyperion provide a lesson for South Dakotans complaining about the Larchwood casino?) But Jim Redmond of the Northwest Iowa Sierra Club says that both Iowa and South Dakota will probably get the same bum deal from Hyperion that South Dakota got from TransCanada: Hyperion will import a lot of the labor it needs from other states.

Thune Barely Blipping on Iowa Presidential Radar

Peter Roff at U.S. News and World Report last month called Senator John Thune's deficit reduction plan a "compelling package" that "could launch a 2012 Presidential bid."

Thune had better hope his Iowa neighbors start feeling more compelled. Just as his plan made the news, TheIowaRepublican.com ("News for Republicans, by Republicans") polled 399 likely Republican voters about their 2012 GOP Presidential preference. The winner: Mike Huckabee. The numbers:

1. Mike Huckabee: 22%
2. Mitt Romney: 18%
3. Newt Gingrich: 14%
4. Sarah Palin: 11%
5. Ron Paul: 5%
6. John Thune and Tim Pawlenty: 1%
7. Rick Santorum: less than 1%
8. Haley Barbour and Rick Perry: 0%

Thune and Pawlenty score 1% in their backyard. That seems... less than encouraging. Let's compare Thune's current Iowa standing with the poll numbers of another lanky Midwestern basketball player considering a run for President a year-plus out from the Iowa caucuses.

1. In June 2006, a Des Moines Register poll showed John Edwards and Hillary Clinton on top at 30% and 26%, John Kerry at 12%, and Iowa's own Tom Vilsack at 10%. Low percenters were Mark Warner and Evan Bayh. Barack Obama is not mentioned.
2. In September 2006, Barack Obama made a big campaign trip to Iowa to boost Iowa Democrats on the 2006 ballot.
3. In an October 2006 Iowa poll, Obama placed third at 13%, behind Edwards at 36% and Clinton at 16%.
4. In a December 2006 Iowa poll, Barack Obama tied for first place. The one-percenters in that poll: Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden. (Gee: maybe Thune will be veep!)

Maybe Thune is planning to jump in relatively late, the way he did against Daschle in 2004. If he is, he's going to have a steep curve to climb to break out in Iowa. Maybe he should start lining up some campaign stops for Grassley, Branstad, et al.

Hyperion Pipe Dreams Bad for South Dakota

Doug Maurstad hits the editorial page of that Sioux Falls paper to remind us that Hyperion's four-year land options for its proposed refinery in Union County end August 31. Four years, and no action. Not one job, not one acre cleared, and no action planned until 2012. Maurstad says Hyperion has dropped the land it's interested in from 27,000 acres to 4,000 acres.

If Hyperion does get its act together and start building, it will be bad for South Dakota. Remember, Hyperion is tied to the Keystone pipelines and the dirty, expensive tar sands oil TransCanada wants to ship. Processing tar sands oil requires four times as much water as conventional oil refining... and that water will come from our prairie aquifers that scientists say are already stressed by farming and development. A tar sands refinery might provide jobs in Union County, but it will severly limit the capacity of surrounding communities to expand water supply to new residents and businesses or even continue to meet the needs of current users. Imagine that: Hyperion as zero-sum development.

Richard Leopold, chief of Iowa's Department of Natural Resources, points out another way Hyperion's development could limit economic opportunities for everyone else in the neighborhood. Air quality standards allow only so much pollution in each area. Hyperion could belch so much filth that it would fill the emissions quota for southeast South Dakota and northwest Iowa. No one else would be able to build a factory in the neighborhood. Elk Point could become a company town: the only place to work would be Hyperion. Wedding your town's economic development to one company that monopolizes the labor pool and crowds out all competing industries is a really bad idea.

I've said before that the chances of the ever-delayed Hyperion refinery becoming reality are slim. The business case isn't there. But we can't let our guard down. We have lots of other options for real green energy development that will improve our economy and our environment rather than limit our options. Let's tell Hyperion (and TransCanada!) to take their pipe dreams elsewhere.

Wellmark SD Raises Health Premiums 18.5%

From the Madville Times inbox: Wellmark of South Dakota is raising medical insurance rates 18.5%.

From the Bad Timing department, this announcement comes the day after news that core inflation over the last 12 months was 0.9%, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

Rate increases coming July 1 for active contracts:

• Blue Select 18.5%
• Blue Select Plus 18.5%
• Blue Select Basics 18.5%
• Blue Priority HSA 11.0%
• Blue Transitions 18.3%
• Basic and Standard 18.3%
  

That's not as bad as the 23% hike Assurant hit my family with this year... but that's cold comfort for those of you adding digits to your checks to Wellmark this summer.

Wellmark hit Iowans with similar "appropriate" rate increases on May 1. I guess Wellmark has to pay for its computer glitches somehow.

No word yet on whether Wellmark will ascribe the increases here, as they did in Iowa, to folks sitting around and eating junk food. Also no word yet on whether Senator John Thune will follow the route of his colleague Senator Grassley and demand that Wellmark justify the rate hikes... or whether he'll just blame Democrats.

Where Can You Earn More, Sioux Falls or Sioux City?

South Dacola fills my morning with the daily recommended allowance of wage data. Taking umbrage with an anti-Sioux City wisecrack on KSOO, "Poly43" compares 90th percentile wage data for similar jobs in Sioux Falls and Sioux City. At the 90th percentile, we're talking about the people with some of the best qualifications in the field.

The results: in the jobs listed, Sioux City workers make an average of 20% more than their Sioux Falls counterparts.

However, we get a different picture if we look at all jobs. Overall, the average annual salary in Sioux Falls (as of May 2008) was $35,420. The average annual salary in Sioux City was $33,190. So if I understand this correctly, for workers toward the top of the wage scale in certain jobs, the two-hour drive down I-29 from Sioux Falls to Sioux City could produce a 20% pay boost. But over the entire labor sector, moving to Sioux City produces a 6.3% pay cut. Factor in cost of living (Iowa’s cost of living in Q3 2009 was only 2.5% higher than South Dakota’s) and that's an 8.6% cut in purchasing power.

One field where Sioux Falls really kicks Sioux City's can: chief executive pay. Sioux City has 90 CEOs averaging $139,810 a year. Sioux Falls has 190 CEOs averaging $178,590, 28% better. That rushing sound Todd hears from Harrisburg is northbound Lexuses (Lexi?!? :-D )

So if you're trying to win an argument about who makes more where, Sanford Falls or Sewer City, cost of living isn't as big a factor as the type of jobs and employees you're looking at.

----------------------
Iowa does beat South Dakota statewide. Our average annual wage was $32,770. Iowa's was $35,910, 9.6% higher (6.8% higher after figuring cost of living).

Nothing Runs Like a Deere Wind Turbine!

I've previously floated the idea that our newly expanded John Deere dealership in Madison's Earmark Plaza could boost its profile (and Madison's) by erecting some wind turbines along Highway 34.

Some John Deere dealers in less windy states are already jumping on that idea:

At his Perry, Iowa, dealership, for instance, [Don] Van Houweling has installed an S-Series wind turbine by Endurance Wind Power capable of producing up to 20,000 kWh per year, about 20% of the site's needed power; and a larger unit capable of producing over 200,000 kWh per year is scheduled to produce about 85% of the power needed at his upcoming west Des Moines, Iowa, site ["Wind Energy Nets High ROI for Farmers, Equipment Dealers," AgricultureOnline, 2009.12.01].

Oh yeah, return on investment: Van Houweling says that between energy savings and government incentives, farmers and implement dealers can get 12%–15% return on their investment. (And what percentage did you get from your CDs and stock portfolio over the past couple years?)

Now this is a John Deere dealer, telling us a John Deere product will save you money, so take that for what you will. But I sure hope the fellas at James River Equipment are reading....

Humane Society Just Can't Win with "Advocates" for "Agriculture"

Troy Hadrick demonstrates the impossibility of rational discourse with Farm Bureau propagandists. In a Tuesday, Nov. 17 post on his Advocates for (Big Corporate Masquerading as Family Farm) Agriculture, Hadrick reasonably decries an act of CAFO vandalism in northwest Iowa that led to the death of 3800 hogs. Naturally, Hadrick has to turn this incident into spin for his anti-Humane Society agenda:

...does anyone think HSUS will come in and offer a reward on this case? If someone intentionally killed a dog or a horse in this manner, they would have already done so. I guess I won’t hold my breath, but it shows the hypocrisy of this group [Troy Hadrick, "Suspected Act of Vandalism Kills 3800 Northwest Iowa Pigs," Advocates for Agriculture, 2009.11.17].

This just in (Thursday) from the Humane Society:

The Humane Society of the United States is offering a reward of up to $2,500 for information leading to the identification, arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for intentionally suffocating 3,800 pigs in Hull, Iowa.

Surely Hadrick and his readers celebrate this development, right?

Well, there's no apology, correction, or acknowledgment from Hadrick yet. But his commenters show the Farm Bureau's true spirit. Says commenter Dawn Heublein Rohrer from Kansas:

Oh, the hypocrites are at work! They will find a way to spin this to fit their agenda, just like always.

Hadrick publishes this comment, but leaves my query about hypocrisy unpublished in the moderation queue.

You just can't win with some people.

Poet Cuts Cellulosic Ethanol Production Costs 43%

Expect CE commercial competitiveness by 2011, says CEO Broin.

April was right: Jeff Broin's Poet Ethanol has achieved a cost breakthrough on cellulosic ethanol

POET announced today that cost reductions achieved over the past year of operating their cellulosic ethanol pilot plant have exceeded expectations in their drive to commercialize the process. Reductions in energy usage, enzyme costs, raw material requirements and capital expenses have reduced POET’s per gallon cost from $4.13 to $2.35 over the course of the past year, and the company’s goal is to be below $2 by commercial plant start-up ["On first anniversary of pilot plant start-up, POET announces cost reductions in cellulosic ethanol," press release, Poet, 2009.11.18].

Poet CEO Jeff Broin expects to get production costs down a commercially viable level below $2 a gallon by 2011, when it plans to open its 25-million-gallon/year cellulosic ethanol plant in Emmettsburg, Iowa (brought to you in part by $100 million dollars from Uncle Sam—you're welcome!).

Dr. Mark Stower, senior Poet sci-tech VP, explains it all:



Forget sending that federal money back; let's roast those corn cobs and start sending oil back to Saudi Arabia and Canada!

Iowa Marriage Ruling Ensures Obama Second Term?

The Iowa Supreme Court's declaration that non-heterosexuals are full citizens too has some significant political implications. Among them: Four more years for President Obama.

The scenario:

Conservatives in Iowa are already agitating to put discrimination against same-sex couples into their state constitution. Iowa law requires legislative approval in two consecutive sessions, meaning the soonest such an amendment could hit the ballot is November 2012.

Fortunately, the Dems in charge of the Iowa legislature are standing up for common sense and saying they will not let the issue come up this session. Iowa Senate Democratic Majority Leader Mike Gronstal responded thus to GOP calls to bring a gay-marriage ban to the Senate floor:

In response, Gronstal shared a story about his daughter, Kate, telling a group of conservative men that opponents of same-sex marriage “have already lost” and that the younger generation doesn’t care.

“I learned something from my daughter that day. That’s what I see, Sen. McKinley,” Gronstal said. “I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other and want state law to recognize that. Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong.”

He has learned a lot since he voted in favor of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act in 1998, Gronstal said, and he will not join in the crafting of a marriage amendment.

“Friday I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night, because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other,” he said [Jason Hancock, "Gronstal: No Same-Sex Marriage Debate," Iowa Independent, 2009.04.06].

Stymied at the state level, the GOP will do what it does best: forget it's the party of small government and argue for the federal government to step in and ban gay marriage nationwide. The GOP social conservatives will be all fired up, hungry to hear a real manly man or womanly woman validate their homophobia and promise to use the bully pulpit to perpetuate bullying of folks whose love just doesn't look right. The GOP candidates will tack hard right to win that vote... so hard right, I am willing to bet, that the GOP will lose the moderate center, just like they did last year.

If the GOP ticket is thus determined by isolated pockets of Iowan homophobia, expect Thune-Sanford -- or Palin-Norris -- versus Obama-Biden. I can't wait!

Day After Iowa Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban, My Wife and I Still Wearing Rings

Kudos to the Iowa Supreme Court, for recognizing the rights of all citizens to get married and raise a family. (Funny: I hear same-sex marriage will cause incalculable damage to children and families... but my wife and I slept—together—just fine last night. Madville Times Jr. also looks like her normal happy and healthy self this morning.)

The court's unanimous ruling is great reading. Here are some highlights all South Dakotans—who vandalized their Constitution with a same-sex marriage ban in 2006—should read:

On the homosexual plaintiffs... also known as neighbors and fellow citizens:

This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto ["Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"].

Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex. The twelve plaintiffs comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa [p. 7].

What do same-sex couples want?

They seek to declare the marriage statute unconstitutional so they can obtain the array of benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples, protect themselves and their children, and demonstrate to one another and to society their mutual commitment [p. 9].

Can't those darn homosexuals just keep their relationships private and not bother the state for a marriage license?

This [district court] record included an explanation by some of the plaintiffs of the disadvantages and fears they face each day due to the inability to obtain a civil marriage in Iowa. These disadvantages and problems include the legal inability to make many life and death decisions affecting their partner, including decisions related to health care, burial arrangements, autopsy, and disposition of remains following death. Various plaintiffs told of the inability to share in their partners’ state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections. They also explained how several tax benefits are denied. Adoption proceedings are also more cumbersome and expensive for unmarried partners. Other obstacles presented by the inability to enter into a civil marriage include numerous nongovernmental benefits of marriage that are so common in daily life they often go unnoticed, such as something so simple as spousal health club memberships. Yet, perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage [p. 9].

And what interests could the state, through Polk County, muster to justify such disadvantages?

• promoting procreation
• promoting child-rearing by a mother and father
• promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship
• conserving state resources
• promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage [p. 10]

Polk County also argued that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses doesn't violate equal protection because homosexuals cannot "procreate naturally" [p. 26]. I assume Polk County also denied marriage licenses to impotent men, barren women, and users of in vitro fertilization.

The Court declares bogus the arguments for a state interest in banning same-sex marriage:

Maintaining traditional marriage:

...A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification. In other words, the equal protection clause is converted into a “ ‘barren form of words’ ” when “ ‘discrimination . . . is made an end in itself’ ” [p. 53].

Promotion of optimal environment to raise children:

...The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents [p. 56]....

...The ban on same-sex marriage is substantially over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. Yet, the marriage statute denies civil marriage to all gay and lesbian people in order to discourage the limited number of same-sex couples who desire to raise children [p. 57]...

...Quite obviously, the statute does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children. Same-sex couples currently raise children in Iowa, even while being excluded from civil marriage, and such couples will undoubtedly continue to do so. Recognition of this under-inclusion puts in perspective just how minimally the same-sex marriage ban actually advances the purported legislative goal [p. 57].

Promotion of procreation:

...[T]he sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome [p.59].

Promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships:

We must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none [p. 61].

Conservation of resources:

Excluding any group from civil marriage—African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals—would conserve state resources in an equally “rational” way. Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our society’s collective sense of equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against such inequalities [p. 61].... Indeed, under the County’s logic, more state resources would be conserved by excluding groups more numerous than Iowa’s estimated 5800 same-sex couples (for example, persons marrying for a second or subsequent time) [p. 62].

The Court even takes a couple pages to discuss an issue the County was smart enough not to mention—religious opposition to same-sex marriage (this is really important; bold emphases are mine):

Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.

Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them.... The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract.... Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage [pp. 64–65].

...As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. [p. 66].

You're going to hear arguments (some might say pernicious lies) to the contrary, but the Iowa Supreme Court is making clear that they are defending religious liberty. And to that, religionists of all stripes should say Hallelujah and Amen.

--------------------
By the way, anyone thinking the Iowa Supreme Court would uphold unequal protection under the law should have considered the Court's history:

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa... we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly...[in 1868 and 1873] we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law..., and twenty-five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law.... In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the “absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government” [pp. 17–18].