Republican Party of Iowa State Central Committee member David Chung wrote a must-read post at his Hawkeye GOP blog about Saturday’s dispute over marriage language in the first district Iowa GOP platform. Excerpt:
In the platform committee multiple attempts to add a pro-marriage plank failed. [Liberty faction State Central Committee member] Tony [Krebsbach] only proposed the government-out-of-marriage plank because he did not want the platform to be silent on the issue. In the committee, Tony wanted a pro-marriage plank included. So in the committee (and on the convention floor) he wanted a pro-marriage plank to appear in the platform as it has for several years. As a compromise, he proposed the current plank taking the more libertarian position.
The floor votes happened because somehow the “government-out-of-marriage plank did not make it into the printed version of the proposed platform that was distributed to delegates.” Three times IA-01 delegates rejected amendments that would have restored language opposing same-sex marriage rights. Eventually the wording about keeping the government out of marriage was added to the platform.
Delegates to the statewide GOP convention are not ready for a real debate on marriage equality yet, but it will happen by 2018 or 2020 at the latest. Chung is committed to making sure the statewide party platform includes a “one man, one woman marriage” plank, even though he recognizes that “traditional marriage is probably a losing issue today” and “is one of the biggest issues that keeps young people out of the Republican Party.” At some point a critical mass of party activists will get tired of fighting this battle.
Meanwhile, the governor’s office is trying to straddle the fence.
“The governor and lieutenant governor believe in traditional one-man and one-woman marriage,” spokesman Jimmy Centers told the Register. “(They) do not try to influence or counsel delegates on what planks they should or should not offer and support.”
So they agree with social conservative activists on “traditional marriage,” but they don’t care whether the Republican platform reflects that position? Doesn’t make a lot of sense. But then, they’ve never been coherent on this issue. In 2010, Branstad’s campaign spokesman had to backpedal fast after the candidate indicated he had no problem with gay couples adopting children. Soon after Reynolds joined the ticket, she got in trouble for comments indicating support for civil unions.
UPDATE: Added more Republican reaction below.
Todd Dorman discussed the topic in his column for the Cedar Rapids Gazette.
“I begged people to stand up, I shouted stand up for morality! No one else other than the 89 stood. I shouted at the ones sitting down, and called them moral cowards. They threatened to remove me and called the sergeant of arms,” wrote Judd Saul, an activist from Cedar Falls.
“Earth to Judd … Marriage equality will never be ‘overturned,’ wrote Linn County Supervisor Brent Oleson, a Republican who backs equality. “In 20 years my kids will look back on this era like we do on the segregationist era. 1st district Republicans are just the canary in the coal mine for future platforms.” […]
[District Platform Committee Chair Tim] Busch has led an effort to simplify the GOP platform, boiling down a big pot of highly prescriptive, detailed planks into a lean statement of principles. The no “government control” of marriage language came from that process.
“I’m surprised they didn’t get hung up on the other 200 things that got removed,” Busch said. […]
“From what I’ve heard from the people who were there, there are people confused about the result,” said Renee Schulte, a former state lawmaker who chaired the convention but didn’t preside over the platform debate.