DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A conservative family advocacy group has filed an appeal with the Iowa Supreme Court seeking to overturn a district court judge’s divorce decree for two women.

The Iowa Liberty and Justice Center claims Judge Jeffrey Neary overstepped his authority in approving the divorce.

“Judges are appointed to rule according to the law, not create it. That’s essentially what Judge Neary did when he chose to recognize and end a ‘marriage’ that Iowa doesn’t recognize in the first place,” said Timm Ried, the lead attorney for the council who filed the appeal.

The group, an offshoot of the Iowa Family Policy Center, contends that Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The group says a divorce cannot be granted to a union not recognized in Iowa.

The two Sioux City women — Kimberly J. Brown, 31, and Jennifer S. Perez, 26 — went to Vermont in March 2002 to take advantage of that state’s civil union laws. They returned to Sioux City to live.

Their divorce was granted Nov. 14 in Woodbury County District Court.

Also listed as plaintiffs are six state legislators, including Sen. Nancy Boettger (R-Harlan) and Rep. Danny Carroll (R-Grinnell).

U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), also joined the appeal along with Matthew Wentz, pastor of the Church of Christ in LeMars.

The lawmakers are involved because they represented the people of Iowa when the state passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1997, which recognizes a marriage only as a union between and man and a woman.

“They knew having such a law on the books was best for Iowa’s kids, and legislators continue to stand by that belief,” said Chuck Hurley, president of Iowa Family Policy Center.

The petition said there is not statutory authority in Iowa to dissolve a civil union, and in granting a divorce the judge “usurped lawmaking powers designated to the Legislature by redefining ‘marriage’ as applied to the dissolution of marriage laws enacted in the State of Iowa.”

Carroll said he was surprised at Neary’s decision and believes the case was intended to test Iowa’s law against same-sex marriages.

“If the decision is let stand then there would be those who argue that the state, by default, has recognized same-sex marriages, which is contrary to state statute,” Carroll said.

The petition asks the court to annul the judge’s decision. It said the “controversy is of such public magnitude and importance” that it requires the attention of the Supreme Court “to avoid injustice which will result unless such relief is granted.”