If you would, read through these first three excerpts from previous Supreme Court rulings here in Iowa and see if you get the gist of what they are saying:
"It is, of course, the role of the legislature to write statutes, and it is our role to interpret them based on their application in the course of litigation. Moreover, the legislature can rewrite a statute to reflect its intent when it does not believe our interpretation in a particular case has accomplished this goal." GEORGIA M. RATHJE v.MERCY HOSPITAL,No. 115 / 04-2081, Supreme Court of Iowa, February 22, 2008
"Additionally, we are bound to follow the legislature's definitions and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction." Iowa Department of Transportation v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569 Supreme Court of Iowa September 5, 2002
"To solve the dilemma posed by the amendments, we must read into chapter 20, as amended, language that simply is not there. This, of course, is not within our province. We are bound by what the legislature said, not by what it should or might have said." O'HARA v. STATE, 642 N.W.2d 303 Supreme Court of Iowa April 3, 2002
So what is your summation of those excerpts? I'm guessing that it was similar to mine when they were brought to my attention. They lay out that the Supreme Court of Iowa or any court in Iowa can not read between the lines, add their own words or interpret the words differently than the legislators of Iowa intended. So with that in mind, here is an excerpt from the unanimous opinion about gay marriage here in Iowa.
"Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage." Varnum v. Brien, Supreme Court of Iowa, April 3, 2009
I'm not a lawyer and I haven't slept at a Holiday Inn Express in several weeks but it appears to me is that this group of justices in our Supreme Court of Iowa are telling the legislature what words should be added or removed from the current law and how the law should be interpreted. Frank D. Myers makes a case otherwise in his comments to a post on his blog that by ruling the law unconstitutional, it is essentially stripped from the constitution. So what will happen here next week is anybody's guess at this point. I found it interesting and thought my readers and commenter's from my last post on the subject might want to know.