DES MOINES, IA — In a unanimous ruling rendered early Friday morning, the Iowa Supreme court struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban.“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices noted in their opinion.

Gay couples could be allowed to marry in the state as soon as April 24th.

Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group that financed the court challenge, said the ruling demonstrates gay marriage is accepted even in America’s heartland. The group hopes the decision will help fuel a national battle for GLBT social equality.

“I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought,” Richard Socarides, who formerly advised President Bill Clinton about gay civil rights, told the Des Moines Register. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, ‘As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”

Iowa is the first Midwestern state and the fourth nationwide to legalize gay marriage. Neither Republicans nor Democrats in the state legislature seemed happy with the decision.

“We need to analyze the decision,” Sen. Bill Dotzler [D-Waterloo] told the Register. “By giving a unanimous decision, it seems to me the court really thinks it’s an issue of rights. It will be up to the legislature to look at their ruling and see how we’re going to proceed.”

Sen. David Johnson [R-Ocheyedan] blamed the Democrats, who currently control the legislature.

“Iowa loses,” he told the Register. “There have been attempts in the past few years to allow Iowans to weigh in on this issue through our constitutional amendment process, and it’s been blocked by majority party leadership. That’s why Iowa loses.”

Senate Republicans already are determined to overturn the court’s decision by popular vote, much as Californians did in November through the now-notorious Proposition 8 ballot initiative.

“The decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court today to allow gay marriage in Iowa is disappointing on many levels,” Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley [R-Chariton] noted in a statement released immediately following the decision. “I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman, and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional marriage to be legally recognized in this state. Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter, and that is why the Iowa legislature should immediately act to pass a Constitutional amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have their say through a vote of the people.”

Iowa’s Supreme Court decision was set in motion in 2005, when six same-sex couples sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien after his office denied them marriage licenses in accordance with the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a heterosexual union. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson ruled against Brien, but suspended his decision pending a high-court review.

The Iowa Supreme Court heard the case December 10th.

In early March, California’s Supreme Court heard arguments in a case gay-rights supporters hope will invalidate Prop 8. During the hearing, Justice Ming Chin proposed a scenario in which the state would back away from marriage entirely:

What if California were to issue only civil-union licenses to both gay and heterosexual couples?

After some discussion, the justices determined such a change could be accomplished only by the legislature, not the courts.

Five days later, two college students got approval from state election officials to put the suggestion to the voters. They now are circulating petitions to gather the requisite number of signatures to ensconce the matter on the next statewide ballot. Their proposed change in state law would delete the word “marriage” and replace it with “domestic partnership.”

“We want to take marriage out of the battlefield,” Ali Shams, the University of California, San Diego, student who co-authored the petition told The Sacramento Bee.

Shams said because “marriage” is a term loaded with religious connotations, replacing the word with something less pejorative may make even religious Californians more comfortable with extending to gays and lesbians the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Many religious have told him they agree the dichotomy in rights is unfair, but their churches insist “marriage” remain sacrosanct, he said.

The idea has drawn fire from both sides of the gay-marriage issue.

“I object to governing authorities affirming and rewarding” behavior the Bible indicates is immoral, ardent Prop 8 supporter Brad Dacus told The Bee.

Dacus is president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which has fought for religious education in public schools. He said although he has no qualms about substituting “domestic partnership” for “marriage” in state law, he and his organization would fight any move to include gays and lesbians under any law’s aegis.

On the other hand, Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors told The Bee he believes gay and lesbian couples should be treated equally under the law as it stands now, regardless the term used to indicate a pair bond. He is opposed to changing the word “marriage” in order to assuage the religious community’s moral conscience, he said.