Leave a Comment Sagesse
Is marriage equality becoming a non-issue in Iowa?
July 6, 2012
By Jacob Combs
When it comes to the states in America that have extended equal marriage rights to gay couples, there’s a clear geographic pattern: with Washington and Maryland’s marriage laws pending this year, all the states that currently provide marriage equality are the East Coast. All the states, that is, except for one: Iowa, the clear outlier, a politically purple, mid-Western state where marriage equality was legalized by a unanimous decision of the Iowa Supreme Court in April 2009.
Since that decision, social conservatives in the state have steadfastly attempted to roll back equality advocates’ progress, with some success: in 2010, three Supreme Court justices who participated in the court ruling were voted out of office after a massive campaign against them by opponents of marriage equality such as the National Organization for Marriage. But as an AP article from yesterday shows, even the most ardent foes of marriage equality are beginning to question the likelihood of success in an unexpectedly positive state for equal marriage rights.
Since 2010, Iowa conservatives have had their eyes on the ultimate electoral prize in 2012: if Republicans win two more seats in the state Senate, they would control both houses of the legislature and the governorship and could vote for a marriage law that would effectively nullify the judicial decision in favor of marriage equality. Mike Gronstal, Iowa’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader, has been a fierce defender of equal marriage rights, refusing to even allow debate on a repeal of marriage equality in his chamber.
But even if Republicans were to take over the Iowa Senate, they might face a tougher time of repealing equal marriage laws than previously thought. The legislative process to do so takes a minimum of two years, and public opinion in Iowa, as in the United States as a whole, is moving in the direction of stronger support for equal marriage: a February poll showed 56 percent of the state’s residents opposed an amendment against marriage equality.
“People are getting comfortable with it,” Susan Geddes, a conservative activist who worked in Iowa for Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign, told the AP, “and that’s a shame to tell you the truth.” She also said that internal polls in strongly conservative districts in the state show that less than 10 percent of Republican voters consider reversing marriage equality a high priority. Some Republican leaders have even started coming out in support of equal marriage rights.
The new reality in Iowa shows just how quickly support regarding marriage for gay and lesbian couples can shift: in 2010, three justices could be removed from office for the simple offense of doing their job; in 2012, as Chuck Laudner, who ran the campaign against the judges, put it, the anti-marriage equality movement has “lost a little of its zip,” with voters focused on other matters.
Even more so, Iowa demonstrates that marriage equality gains do essentially have some degree of staying power, which shouldn’t come as a surprise. Once people see their gay and lesbian friends and neighbors being provided the same rights and responsibilities as their straight counterparts (and as the dire predictions of societal decline made by anti-marriage activists fail to come true), hearts and minds change. When Republicans had majorities in both chambers of the New Hampshire legislature, a bill to repeal marriage equality in the state came up short. Iowa could very well go down the same road in the next few years.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
26 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Steve | July 6, 2012 at 8:06 am
If NOM's wild allegations were true, the opposite would be the case. People would see their marriages being damaged. Society would be torn apart. Cats and dogs would live together. People would notice negative effects and become more opposed to same-sex marriage.
2.
Jeff | July 6, 2012 at 8:14 am
To say that a repeal bill in New Hampshire came up short is sort of an understatement. It failed miserably 211 to 116.
3.
jpmassar | July 6, 2012 at 8:16 am
Support for marriage equality Iowa (as distinguished from supporting a constitutional amendment) hovers on the 50-50 edge.
4.
Glen | July 6, 2012 at 8:59 am
NOM knows that the GREATEST danger in allowing same-gender marriage equality is NOT that it will damage the marriages of straight people, BUT that it won't.
That not only will it not be a negative influence, but a positive one. That people will begin to see their gay fellow citizens as normal everyday average people, entitled to full equal rights as Americans.
THIS, more than anything, is what keeps NOM awake at night. Because the narrative of gay people being good decent upstanding everyday average law-abiding tax-paying contributing members of society, does NOT fit with what they just KNOW is true from their religious doctrine.
Why would their 'god' call for gay people's very deaths if they are such people as real-world experience demonstrates them to be!!
No, no, no… They can't have THAT! It runs the risk of making their religion, yet again, look ignorant and wrong.
5.
Glen | July 6, 2012 at 9:02 am
Does anyone know what the opinion of the 3 justices who replaced the 3 who were voted off the bench is, in regard to the marriage-equality ruling?
Have they weighed in on the decision to comment on whether or not they felt the ruling was correct?
Given that the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court was unanimous as to what the Iowa Constitution has to say on the subject, then you'd likely have to find real extremists to put on the bench that felt differently.
Who replaced them?
6.
Scott Wooledge | July 6, 2012 at 9:34 am
Triply so, when you consider the legislature was 75% REPUBLICAN. They didn't even get a majority of the GOP caucus. #FAIL.
7.
exx-man | July 6, 2012 at 9:52 am
I think another factor, and probably the main one, is that NOM sees the donations drying up as people become more comfortable with marriage equality. Maggie and Brian are going to have to go get a job.
8.
Sagesse | July 6, 2012 at 10:00 am
@
9.
Jamie | July 6, 2012 at 10:08 am
92% of Iowans say that marriage equality hasn't affected them or their families, yet some still support banning gay people from it. That itself speaks volumes.
10.
Bob | July 6, 2012 at 10:14 am
religion does look ignorant and wrong,,,,,,,, religion is silly,,, it's man made,,, Mags and Brian,, will have to work at drawing some other lines around their religion,,,, we're doing them a favor they just don't realize it yet,,,,,,,,,,, stop projecting their fears onto others,, and work on strengthening their individual marriages,,,, in a way that's pleasing to their religion!!!!!!!! stop asking outsiders to adhere to their religion,,,
11.
Phillip R | July 6, 2012 at 10:50 am
I'll keep my fingers crossed for Iowa. I've got a rather conservative friend (but pro equality) who brags about how her home state (Iowa) is more advanced than the majority of other states on this particular issue. I'll have to let her know that we're still trying to protect it.
12.
Stefan | July 6, 2012 at 11:35 am
One thing they likely realize is that with Perry v Brown to likely be finishing soon, such an attempt to repeal same sex marriage would be unconstitutional.
13.
Bill S. | July 6, 2012 at 11:39 am
The soonest the people of Iowa could vote on it would be 2016. If the Republicans win the State Senate this November, they can approve it once they're sworn in in January 2013. But then they'll have to survive another election in November 2014 and approve the amendment again in January 2015. Amendments can only go on the ballot during the following general election, which means waiting until November 2016 before the people have a chance to approve it.
14.
DaveP | July 6, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Yeah, it's almost as if there might be some kind of vindictive irrational anti-gay animosity at the core of their sentiments….
15.
Scott Wooledge | July 6, 2012 at 12:16 pm
I haven't heard. Since they were NOM picked they're probably awful.
But, whatever their feelings, it seems like the judicial ship has sailed in Iowa. How could the Court revisit the issue? Someone files a lawsuit to stop gays from getting married? On what grounds? With what standing? Alleging what harm? I can't see such a case snaking all the way up to the Supreme Court. Too ridiculous.
16.
Mark B. | July 6, 2012 at 12:28 pm
<img src="http://www.mynewcarquote.us/ikea/ocx.jpg"/>It's becoming a non-issue, but basically i'd say it's still a border line area. <img src="http://www.mynewcarquote.us/xbox/vr.jpg"/>
17.
Jacob Combs | July 6, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Just to clarify, the new justices weren't necessarily "NOM picked." They were appointed by Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, however. Glen, you raise an excellent question, one which I do not think has been asked of the justices.
All three of the judges that replaced the ousted judges will be up for retention this November. In addition, Justice David Wiggins, who joined the unanimous marriage equality ruling, will also be up for retention.
18.
Scott Wooledge | July 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Oh, were the original ones voted out and then the Governor picks replacements? Is that how it works in Iowa? I didn't know, I knew they lost an election.
I think this really illustrates how stupid it is to elect judges. I marginally trust out electeds to pick 'em better.
19.
koyomi | July 6, 2012 at 1:20 pm
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do?dia…
I found this article mentioning the replacements. Sounds like they are all Republicans whom the Governor is confident will avoid "saying what the law should be." Some other article claimed that they seem to have joined with one of the existing members in a group of four that frequently votes against the other three.
Even if they sink potential future gay rights cases, though, the optimist in me suspects that they will have little sympathy for those who use judicial retention for narrow political purposes. They ought to have no illusions about the fact that in a politicised judiciary they could be the next ones out of a job. Unless of course they were hand-picked to not believe in an independent judiciary. As far as I can tell none of them have made any public statements on the matter.
20.
Andrew | July 6, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Unless the USSC denies cert, wherein Perry v. Brown would only be binding in the 9th Circuit (IA is in the 8th Circuit).
21.
Mike in Baltimore | July 6, 2012 at 3:37 pm
I think the speech in the Iowa House by, and subsequent lobbying of, Zach Walls moved the fence a bit. Many of those who were fence sitters were knocked off, and some who were against are now the new fence sitters.
The longer it goes until a vote can be taken, the more people will cross the fence in the direction of marriage equality. They will become acquainted with members (or more members) of the GLBT community, be it relatives, neighbors, co-workers, etc.
22.
IA to CO | July 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Iowa's Judges are not elected but do face retention votes every cycle. Governer Terry Brandstad appointed the ousted Judges and has since appointed the new Judges.
23.
IA to CO | July 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Brandstad appointed the three ousted Judges, as well. I am sure hw thought the same of his original selections…
24.
Straight Dave | July 7, 2012 at 6:32 am
I seem to recall that one of the new judges the gov appointed was the district judge who ruled on the original marriage case that led to the Iowa SC ruling. Memory is fuzzy but I remember some kind of anti-NOM payback
25.
Str8Grandmother | July 8, 2012 at 4:53 am
It would be interesting to know what those 3 Judges are doing now. I hope Obama appoints them as Federal Judges. They would be Supremely Qualified having served on the Supreme Court of Iowa.
26.
Bill S. | July 9, 2012 at 12:32 pm
This is the only way it could happen: A county clerk refuses to process a same-sex couple's license. The couple sues all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, the IA Supreme Court reverses its prior decision and the anti-gay marriage law (that is still technically on the books) goes into force again.
Or, a government official (or indeed all government officials under the anti-gay governor's command) refuses to recognize a same-sex couple's marriage; the couple sues and the IA Supreme Court reverses the prior ruling.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.