"the Iowa Supreme Court has done an injustice to religion, to the possibility of lawful public morality, and—yes—to our relationships themselves. "
It is obvious that this guy is not an attorney. The Court was unambiguous in that that their decision could consider religion due to the establishment clause. "Lawful public morality" is meaningless gibberish. Relationships? I have yet to entertain a coherent argument that supports the preposterous notion that one couple's gay marriage affects any other couple's "traditional" marriage.
As for the "tyranny" guy, that's just the proforma parroting (along with "activist judges") in response to any decision that the right doesn't like. The correct use of the term is that the judiciary has a responsibility to protect minorities from the "tyranny" of the majority.
This was a unanimous decision (including some GOP appointees). It is also quite specific:
http://www.tips-q.com/794675-iowa-supreme-court-eviscerates -right-wing-talking-points