The U.S. Senate confirmed J. Paul Oetken as a District Court just for the Southern District of New York today, making Oetken the first openly gay person confirmed for a federal judgeship. The Senate vote was 80 to 13 (roll call), with Republicans casting all of the no votes. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley both voted yes on Oetken’s nomination. Throughout his career, Grassley has usually voted to confirm judges nominated by presidents from either party. However, Grassley voted against confirming both of President Barack Obama’s nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. More recently, Grassley helped filibuster Goodwin Liu’s nomination for the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Oetken was valedictorian at Regis High School in Cedar Rapids before graduating from the University of Iowa in 1988 and from Yale Law School in 1991. Here is more background on his career in law and business:

Oetken is currently the senior vice president and associate general counsel of Cablevision, a cable television company primarily serving customers on the eastern seaboard. He has a long history of federal service, previously serving as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun and attorney-advisor in the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Oetken was recommended to replace Judge Denny Chin on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by New York Senator Charles E. Schumer. […]

Schumer called Oetken a “strong advocate for the LGBT community” in his statement, citing Oetken’s support of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgender Project as well as the amicus brief he co-authored in the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the sodomy law in Texas.

“The Texas Homosexual Conduct Law violates principles that are basic to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” stated the introduction to the amicus brief, which Oetken wrote with Chai R. Feldblum, a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “[A]nimosity toward a group of people is not a legitimate purpose for governmental discrimination against such a group.”

Speaking on the Senate floor today, Schumer said Oetken

will give hope to many talented young lawyers who, until now, thought their paths might be limited because of their sexual orientation. When Paul becomes Judge Oetken, he will be living proof to all those young lawyers that it really does get better.

Schumer also hailed Oetken’s “moderation,” which (along with his work for a major media company) may explain why Oetken won support from so many Senate Republicans.

Perhaps some Bleeding Heartland readers remember Oetken from his time in Cedar Rapids or Iowa City. Regis alums must be proud.

The son of one of Linn County’s most influential Republicans during the past three decades will run for the Iowa House as a Democrat in 2012. Daniel Lundby on July 5 launched his campaign in the new Iowa House district 68. This swing district covers most of Marion (a suburb of Cedar Rapids) and some rural areas of Linn County, including the small towns of Ely and Bertram. As of April 2011, the new House district 68 contained 6,834 registered Democrats, 6,290 Republicans and 7,871 no-party voters.

Lundby’s Republican opponent will be Iowa House Local Government Committee Chairman Nick Wagner. He has represented current district 36, covering suburban and rural parts of Linn County, since winning an open-seat race in 2008.

Lundby’s first campaign press release refers repeatedly to his late mother, Mary Lundby. She was co-chair of the Linn County Republican Party before being elected to the Iowa House in 1986. After four terms as a state representative, she won several terms in the Iowa Senate, where she was among the more moderate Republicans. During the final weeks of the 2006 legislative session, she surprised most Iowa politics-watchers by ousting Stew Iverson as Senate Republican leader. She stepped down from the Senate in order to run for Linn County supervisor, but she dropped out of that race for health reasons. She died of cancer in early 2009.

Daniel Lundby’s message to Linn County voters will be that today’s Republican Party no longer shares his mother’s values. From yesterday’s campaign press release:

“My mother believed in a common sense approach to solving problems through partisan politics.  I want to bring that common sense back to the Iowa House.  My mother also strongly cared about children in Iowa and wanted them to get the best education possible.  Unfortunately, the needs of our young people now seem less important with the Republicans insisting on zero percent growth for local schools and education cuts to state universities.  None of which my mother would approve of.  Nor would she support cutting programs that protect our natural resources and our environment.  She would definitely not support attempts to deny equal rights to any Iowan.  Being my mother’s son, I want the chance to continue her work for a better Iowa.”

The comment about “equal rights” alludes to the fact that Mary Lundby was one of four Iowa Senate Republicans to vote against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004. That amendment failed by a single vote in the upper chamber. Had it passed, the Varnum v Brien lawsuit challenging Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act probably would never have been filed.

I’ve posted a detailed map of the new House district 68 after the jump, along with the full text of Lundby’s campaign announcement.

About 61 percent of Iowa registered voters, including overwhelming majorities of Democratic and no-party voters, support same-sex marriage rights, according to a new survey conducted by graduate students at Drake University. The same survey indicated that 62.5 percent of Iowa voters oppose a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Those are the highest levels of support for marriage equality I’ve seen in any Iowa polling. I am skeptical that an opinion poll conducted in a more traditional way would find similar numbers.

More results from the online survey and details about its methodology are after the jump.

Iowa legislative leaders made significant progress toward avoiding a government shutdown this week. After the Senate approved new budget bills on Tuesday and Wednesday, negotiators reached new compromises on Thursday. Conference committees cut deals on two-year budgets for economic growth, justice and agriculture/natural resources. The Iowa Senate then passed those three compromise bills on Friday with bipartisan majorities. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal expressed confidence that the House and Senate can finish work on the budget in time for the end of the fiscal year on June 30. Early next week I’ll publish more details on the budget compromises taking shape. To my knowledge, statehouse Democrats and Republicans are still far from agreeing on property tax reform, which Governor Terry Branstad has said must get done this year.

Branstad won a major victory by getting legislators to pass a two-year budget. Senate Democrats had previously warned that biennial budgeting would facilitate a “power grab” by the governor. On Friday the Iowa Senate unanimously approved a bill to address that concern, limiting how much money the governor can transfer between legislative sessions.

The Rebuild Iowa Office, a temporary agency created by then-Governor Chet Culver after the historic 2008 floods, closed this week as scheduled. Lynn Campbell published a good piece about the office and its work. The closure isn’t timely, as western Iowa deals with major flooding along the Missouri River.

“We still feel that there is a need for a recovery office of some sort – they can call it whatever they want – to continue to focus on all these disasters that are happening over and over again,” said Ron Randazzo, Rebuild Iowa’s strategic planner. […]

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division now will be the lead agency for the state’s disaster response and recovery.

But Susan Judkins Josten, RIO’s intergovernmental affairs director, said the Legislature hasn’t acted on a transition plan and hasn’t required the homeland security division to change its operations. The state also doesn’t have plans to retain the knowledge developed by RIO.

Leading Iowa Republicans aren’t worried. House Speaker Kraig Paulsen told Campbell that he never supported creating a separate office to handle disaster recovery efforts. Governor Terry Branstad was scathing in comments to Rod Boshart:

“I think it really turned out to be kind of an ineffective agency and I think the Legislature was right in their decision in 2009 to sunset it,” the governor said. “All RIO did was paper shuffling and coordination. […]”

Branstad said he believes his administration has established a better system of direct accountability and management by having the state’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management agency take the lead on dealing with disasters such as the current flooding along the Missouri River, while other state agencies address funding issues with the federal government, public safety and other issues.

“In my opinion there’s been money wasted in having an extra layer” that has now been eliminated, the governor said. “When you have to go through a coordinating agency and you have the paperwork involved, it just slows things down. I think the change will be for the better, speed things up, cost us less, be much more efficient and make it possible for people to get straight answers quicker.”

Democratic State Senator Rob Hogg praised RIO officials for keeping the focus on flood prevention efforts as well as disaster recovery. I share Hogg’s concern that in RIO’s absence, no state agency will push for better floodplain management in Iowa. Branstad did virtually nothing on that front after Iowa’s 1993 flooding (at the time the worst ever) and hasn’t pushed for action since returning to office.

In happier news, New York became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage last night. Four Republicans in the GOP-controlled state Senate voted for the marriage equality bill, which Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo immediately signed into law.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

More Iowa voters disapprove than approve of Terry Branstad’s performance as governor, according to the latest statewide survey by Public Policy Polling. Of 1,109 Iowa voters polled between April 15 and April 17, just 41 percent approved of Branstad’s performance, while 45 percent disapproved and 14 percent were not sure. In a hypothetical rematch between Branstad and Governor Chet Culver, 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for Culver, while 46 percent would vote for Branstad. Full results and crosstabs are here (pdf). Branstad was in net positive territory with men (45 percent approve/43 percent disapprove), but women disapproved by a 48-37 margin. The sample doesn’t perfectly match the Iowa electorate; I noticed that 38 percent of respondents said they were Democrats, 33 percent said they were Republicans and 29 percent said they were independents. As of April 2011, Iowa has 1,955,217 active voters, of whom 647,060 are registered Democrats (33 percent), 610,006 are registered Republicans (31 percent), and 696,061 are no-party voters (36 percent).

PPP’s last Iowa poll, taken in January, found only 40 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Branstad, while 44 percent had an unfavorable opinion.

The new survey suggests a plurality of Iowa voters accept marriage equality. Asked “which best describes your opinion on gay marriage,” 35 percent of respondents said “gay couples should be allowed to legally marry,” 29 percent said “gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry,” 33 percent said “there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship,” and 2 percent were unsure. PPP’s January survey of Iowa voters asked the question differently and found 41 percent said same-sex marriage should be legal, 52 percent said it should not be legal, and 8 percent were unsure.

PPP also recorded job approval numbers for Senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin and favorable/unfavorable numbers for Iowa’s five U.S. House representatives, Christie Vilsack and Tom Vilsack. Grassley and Harkin were both in net positive territory, but Grassley’s ratings (57/30) were much stronger than Harkin’s (47/38). It’s hard to read anything into the favorability ratings of the House members, since the opinion of voters statewide won’t necessarily reflect representatives’ standing in their own districts.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that to my knowledge, Chet Culver’s approval ratings didn’t fall to the low 40s until the second half of 2009, when he was dealing with a recession, state budget crunch and the film tax credit fiasco.

Last week, a group of conservative Iowa House Republicans finally made good on their promise to introduce articles of impeachment against the four remaining Iowa Supreme Court justices who concurred in the 2009 Varnum v Brien decision on marriage. The impeachment bills won’t make it out of committee, let alone the Iowa House, but there may be some political fallout from the effort.

After the jump I examine the articles of impeachment, future prospects for their backers and recent news related to the 2012 judicial retention elections.

Iowa legislators from both parties seem ready to approve the redistricting plan offered by the Legislative Services Agency on Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, whose Council Bluffs district barely changed, encouraged colleagues  to take a “cold, hard look” at the map, since the second offering “may not be as good.” Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley’s weekly e-mail blast spoke favorably about the redistricting process. Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer, who was thrown into House district 8 with two other Republican representatives, said, “The next map might be something less desirable.” The Associated Press reported that “one of the potential rivals is retiring and the other laying plans to run for the senate.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy described the map as a “a wash, with good and bad on both sides.”

Two factors are pushing lawmakers to accept the plan. First,

[Democratic legislative staffer Ron] Parker noted that 27 House members and 14 senators are paired under the proposed map. He says that’s about half the number tossed together the last two times the Legislature approved districts.

In 1991, 50 House members and 20 senators were paired and those numbers were 39 and 25 when lawmakers drew new lines in 2001.  

Parker said Friday that many Republicans and Democrats assume there could be even more pairings if lawmakers reject the initial proposed map.  

Second, Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 pointed out Thursday that the extremely low population variance between the Congressional districts leaves both parties “in the dark for the second map” and without credible ways to assert that the plan violates Iowa Code:

The LSA has taken away the option of playing the odds. There are maps with smaller pop dev, but with questionable compactness. The LSA can choose to go with a higher pop dev based on this. How do you play it? Do they go down or up? And which pattern is most likely to be chosen?

The difference between this and 2001 is that the first map last time had multiple credible options with lower pop devs. Based on pattern analysis, you could go and plead what you considered important based on arguments fitted to the Iowa Code.

If yesterday had been like 2001, the first map would have had a mean deviation of 155 persons. Instead they went low, real low. […]

If the LSA had put out a first map with a mean pop dev comparable to 2001 (after adjusting for larger districts), you would have had the opportunity to argue about what represents IA better: regionalized vs balanced, for example. By offering up a map right on the edge, that has largely been rendered moot.

I’m assuming rational actors are involved. You always have to ask the question, what are the odds of my situation improving? If you can’t answer that (and it is very difficult here), bird in the hand applies.

Assuming this plan becomes law, some incumbents will have hard choices to make. John Deeth collected news here about legislators making arrangements to avoid elections against each other. My current State Senator Pat Ward is ready to move to a different part of the Des Moines suburbs to run in the new Senate district 22 instead of against Democratic Senator Matt McCoy in the new district 21. She may have competition in the Republican primary, because former WHO talk radio personality Steve Deace lives in what would be district 22 and sounds interested. Shortly after leaving WHO this year, Deace indicated that he would consider running for the Iowa Senate.

In other Iowa news, today is the second anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling, which struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. Gronstal blocked a vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn that ruling in the state Senate this year and will do so next year too. If Republicans gain control of the upper chamber in the 2012 elections, they would need to pass a marriage amendment in the legislature in 2013, hold both chambers in 2014, and pass the amendment again in 2015 in order to get the measure on a statewide ballot in November 2016.

The most depressing news I’ve seen this weekend relates to the ongoing disaster in Japan. The death toll from last month’s earthquake and tsunami could exceed 16,000.  Authorities don’t have a solid plan for disposing of radioactive water used to cool reactors and spent fuel pools at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear facility. Now some of the radioactive water is leaking into the ocean, and the early attempts to stop the leaking have failed.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Lots going on at the state capitol this Tuesday: first, rival lobby days for the LGBT advocacy group One Iowa and Bob Vander Plaats’ umbrella organization FAMiLY Leader, which is reportedly bringing in ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Later in the day, another pro-labor rally will be held on the west steps outside the capitol building. More details on those and other events coming up this week are after the jump.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail to let me know of public events that should be included on this calendar.

A public hearing on the collective bargaining bill under consideration in the Iowa House is likely to be one of the main political events of the week, but there’s much more going on around the state as well. Details are after the jump.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail to let me know of public events that should be included on this calendar.

The Des Moines Register continues to release results from its latest statewide poll. Selzer and Co surveyed 800 Iowa adults between February 13 and 16. Bleeding Heartland discussed the Register’s poll numbers on Governor Terry Branstad here.

Follow me after the jump to discuss President Barack Obama’s approval inching up in Iowa, slight growth in support for same-sex marriage rights, views on ways to close the state budget gap, and more.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced yesterday that the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in court. Section 3 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. It has been challenged in court multiple times, and last July a federal judge ruled the provision unconstitutional. The DOJ appealed that ruling, but Holder announced yesterday that President Barack Obama

has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.   The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.   Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.   I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit.   We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.   I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option.   The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

I’ve posted Holder’s complete statement after the jump. It notes, “Much of the the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA.” While some conservative commentators were outraged by the announcement, it’s important to remember that the Obama administration hasn’t stopped enforcing the DOMA despite the president’s opinion of the law.

Linda Hirshman argues that Obama has laid a trap for Congressional Republicans, who will look foolish in federal court if and when they defend Section 3. I think she is way too optimistic that the federal appeals process will uphold last year’s district court opinion. Hirshman and I may find the legal arguments supporting the DOMA weak, but it would not surprise me to see a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming the constitutionality of Section 3.

I was surprised to see so little Iowa reaction to Holder’s announcement. The outcome of this federal litigation will affect thousands of legally married Iowa same-sex spouses, who would be eligible for some federal benefits if the law is struck down. As far as I know, Senator Chuck Grassley is the only Iowan in Congress to issue a statement on yesterday’s news. He’s the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he criticized the Obama administration’s decision as “clearly based more on politics than the law.” He stopped short of promising to help with the DOMA legal defense, but presumably Congressional Republicans who are attorneys will handle that. I posted Grassley’s complete statement after the jump.

Republicans in the Iowa legislature continue to fight marriage equality. A constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman passed the Iowa House last month but will not reach the floor of the Iowa Senate. A short-lived legislative effort to legalize discrimination against married same-sex couples was backed by many Republicans and at least one Democrat, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson tabled that bill before it received a subcommittee vote.

A new bill, House File 330, would prevent Iowa county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples “until such time as an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is submitted to the electorate for ratification.” The same bill would block the Iowa Supreme Court from considering its constitutionality. There are some pretty big problems with that idea, though:

That outcome: Iowa families could appeal a recorder’s decision in trial courts but those decisions would not be able to be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

It would make the lower courts ruling final and it would also set up the likelihood that Iowa would have pockets of the state were the law was recognized and others were it was thrown out.

“I think the result is that you would have a hodgepodge of rulings across the state,” Bartrum said. “It would depend on whatever the local district judge thought because were would be no uniform appeal.”

FRIDAY UPDATE: According to Troy Price of One Iowa, House Speaker Kraig Paulsen has communicated by e-mail that House File 330 is going nowhere. KCRG reports,

Top Republicans on Thursday said they have no plans to debate the issue, viewing it a nod to the party’s social conservative wing. […]

Backers say introducing the measure is one more opportunity to voice their displeasure with how the marriage issue has been handled.

Republican Rep. Betty De Boef says the issue has been handled badly and that some lawmakers want to take every opportunity to make that point.

In related news, Maryland is likely to become the sixth state to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples. A bill on marriage equality is advancing in the Maryland Senate and has substantial support in that state’s House of Delegates. Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Washington, DC has recognized same-sex marriages since December 2009. Some U.S. House Republicans are pushing a bill to reverse that policy. If a same-sex marriage ban for the nation’s capital cleared the House and the U.S. Senate, Obama would probably veto it given his decision to stop defending DOMA.

Hawaii’s new Democratic governor Neil Abercrombie signed a civil unions bill yesterday, bringing the number of states that recognize same-sex civil unions to seven. Republican Governor Linda Lingle vetoed a similar bill in Hawaii last year.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports,

Some opponents of same-sex marriage said the administration’s decision could end up helping to preserve the law in court.

“The previous efforts of the Obama administration and DOJ to defend the law were so inadequate as to raise the suspicion that the Justice Department was deliberately throwing the case,” said Robert George, a political science professor at Princeton University who opposes same-sex marriage. “Chances are the law will get a robust defense, and I suspect it will withstand constitutional scrutiny.” […]

In his letter to [House Speaker John] Boehner, Holder criticized portions of the congressional debate leading up to the law’s passage, saying they had undermined the prospects for defending the measure. “The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus that the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against,” Holder wrote.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources holds more public meetings this week to discuss water quality standards. A few days later, Republican legislators continue their series of forums around the state to bash government rules and regulations that are supposedly too burdensome for businesses. Details on those and other events are after the jump.

As always, please leave a comment in this thread or contact me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com if you know of an event that should be mentioned here.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Some news that caught my eye recently:

Tens of thousands of people in Wisconsin have protested against efforts by Republican Governor Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled legislature to impose big benefit cuts on public employees and curtail their collective bargaining rights. The 14 Democrats in the Wisconsin Senate left the state to deny Republicans a quorum for passing the anti-union bill. I’ve been following the day to day news on the Uppity Wisconsin blog.

Joel Northup, a wrestler for Linn-Mar high school, qualified for the state tournament but defaulted when his bracket paired him with Cassy Herkelman, a girl from Cedar Falls. Herkelman and Megan Black of Ottumwa made history this year by becoming the first girls to qualify for the Iowa high school state wrestling tournament.

Johnson County supervisors voted 5-0 on Thursday to ban firearms and dangerous weapons from buildings, lands and vehicles owned by the county. Some Republicans in the Iowa legislature are pushing a bill that would bar local governments from restricting guns in that manner.

State Senator Mark Chelgren’s stupid comments about Iowa’s voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds prompted Mr. desmoinesdem to look up information about pre-primary education in the Communist bloc. Contrary to Chelgren’s assertion that the Soviets started indoctrinating children early, when “they’re so malleable,” the USSR provided essentially day care rather than formal education for children under age 7.

The Internal Revenue Service declared this month that breast pumps are a tax-deductible expense, reversing a determination made last fall. A quality pump can cost hundreds of dollars. Pumping has its detractors but can be invaluable for working women who want to continue breastfeeding, or for women whose babies are unable to breastfeed.

Zach Wahls, whose testimony against the marriage amendment at an Iowa House public hearing went viral on YouTube, appeared on the Ellen show this week.

Governor Terry Branstad’s double-dipping (continuing to draw his $50,000 state pension while receiving a $130,000 salary as governor) made news in Iowa a few days ago. Branstad’s communications director, Tim Albrecht, said the governor “made a significant personal sacrifice” by resigning as president of Des Moines University. In that job he had received more than $350,000 per year.

One low-profile story that should be getting more attention is the wide-ranging spending cut bill under consideration in the House of Representatives. H.R. 1 would decimate funding for too many good programs to list in this post. For example, Iowa would lose $12 million in K-12 funding for various programs, $116 million in Pell grant funds, $1.4 million for vocational and adult education, $6.9 million for job training, $1 million for mental health and substance abuse treatment grants, $4.3 million for various low-income housing programs, $28 million in clean water-related funds, $28 million for Community Development Block Grants, and $1.3 million for justice assistance grants. Key transportation programs nationwide would also lose funding, including public transit and high-speed rail.

This is an open thread.

I’m late getting my calendar up this week. As always, please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of a public event worth mentioning here.

Various advocacy organizations continue to hold lobby days at the state capitol as the first “funnel” deadline for legislation approaches. The Department of Natural Resources is holding public meetings around the state this month to discuss air and water quality issues. Also, the sixth annual Iowa Governors Conference on LGBTQ Youth takes place on February 24. Details on those events and more are after the jump.

Excerpt from the post.culture.shock blog

When I was in middle school, I earned spare money by babysitting for a lot of the neighborhood kids. One of the parents I was employed by was Kim Pearson, one of the sponsors of the bill in the Iowa House to amend the Constitution to ban not only gay marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships. This is my letter to her. (edited somewhat with the recognition that this is now going to a lot of folks who don’t know me as well as Kim did, and who likely don’t care what I’ve been up to since I spent a summer taking care of her kids)

Proud to be an Iowan. Period. Thanks Zach.

After a crowded public hearing last night and about three hours of floor debate today, the Iowa House approved House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban all legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Iowa. All 59 Republicans present voted for the amendment, as did three House Democrats who represent rural districts: Kurt Swaim, Dan Muhlbauer and Brian Quirk. The bill now goes to the Iowa Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has pledged to keep it from receiving a floor vote.

Many of the 37 House Democrats who voted no on the amendment took to the floor to speak out against the bill. You can read excerpts from their remarks here, here, here and here. (UPDATE: Several of the House Democrats’ speeches from the chamber are on YouTube as well.)

In contrast, only a few Republicans gave prepared remarks supporting the amendment, including lead sponsor Dwayne Alons (rarely afraid to say something ridiculous) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rich Anderson. Anderson justified the amendment as serving the state’s interest in promoting childbearing:

“We want to drive procreation into a stable relationship and procreation only happens between a male and a female. See a male and a female can do something that a homosexual couple cannot: They can create children accidently. That’s the issue. It’s not about love. It’s not about romance. It’s about driving state policy toward responsible procreation.”

The Iowa Supreme Court addressed and rejected that argument on pages 59 and 60 of the Varnum v Brien ruling. Anderson also raised the familiar “slippery slope” concern that legal same-sex marriage would lead to state recognition of incestuous and polygamous unions. No one’s tried to do that in the other four U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriages, or in Canada or any of the European countries that do the same.

Given how strongly the Republican base supports overturning same-sex marriage rights, I was surprised more Republicans weren’t eager to explain their votes on the House floor. Tea party favorites Kim Pearson and Glen Massie even declined to yield to a question from Democrat Nathan Willems on whether the equal protection clause applies to all Iowans. House Majority Whip Erik Helland “answered” Willems’ question, but in a non-responsive way.  

It got me wondering: deep down, are they not proud of what they’re doing? Perhaps some of them secretly agree with former Republican State Senator Jeff Angelo, who has changed his position on marriage equality and now views a constitutional amendment as “government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens.” Rarely do legislators vote to change the constitution, and Iowa has never before approved an amendment to limit the rights of citizens. If House Republicans believe the public interest demands putting minority rights up for a majority vote, they owe us compelling arguments.

Politically, it was probably wise for House Republicans to keep quiet during today’s debate. Many must realize that they’re on the wrong side of history, as public opinion polls show increasing support for same-sex marriage rights. A “loud and proud” statement for the public record supporting this bill could be embarrassing 10 or 20 years from now.

Still, I wonder if voting for House Joint Resolution 6 will ever become a political liability for any of today’s Republican lawmakers. During the 1980s and 1990s, decades-old opposition to school desegregation or other policies of the civil rights era occasionally became a campaign issue. I remember many politicians apologizing for things they said or votes they took in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 2008 presidential race, Republican candidate John McCain felt compelled to admit he had been “wrong” to oppose a holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

After the jump I discuss a half-dozen members of the Iowa House Republican caucus who may one day wish they’d had the courage to be out in front accepting marriage equality.

A busy week at the Iowa legislature kicks off Monday evening with what’s sure to be a packed Iowa House hearing on a constitutional amendment to ban legal recognition for same-sex relationships. Groups supporting conservation of Iowa’s natural resources have several rallies and lobby days planned during the next two weeks. Those and other event details are after the jump. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of an event that should be included on this calendar.

Yet another winter storm is heading for Iowa this week, but spring rains aren’t too far off. Gardeners and anyone who cares about conserving water and reducing runoff may be interested in a sale of rain barrels (all repurposed to keep waste out of landfills). Proceeds benefit the non-profit 1000 Friends of Iowa, specifically to “support the development of an educational exhibit which focuses on land use and water as it relates to run-off from non-porous surfaces as well as to bring attention to the many uses for collected rain water.” Those uses include watering gardens, washing cars and general housecleaning. Click here for more information about the rain barrels and here to order by February 11.

A constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to couples of the opposite sex advanced on January 24 in both a subcommittee of the Iowa House Judiciary Committee and the full committee. House Joint Resolution 6 states, “Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.” Iowa Republicans have promised for months to approve a constitutional amendment overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 decision striking down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. This amendment goes further, barring any kind of legal union apart from marriage and therefore any legal recognition for same-sex relationships.  

After an emotionally charged subcommittee hearing with more than 200 observers present, Republicans Dwayne Alons and Chris Hagenow voted to advance the amendment, while Democrat Beth Wessel-Kroeschell voted no. Later in the day, the full House Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a 13 to 8 vote. Democrat Kurt Swaim joined all 12 Republicans in voting yes, while the other Democrats on the committee voted no. Click here for a list of House Judiciary Committee members.

Reading the news coverage of yesterday’s debate, I was struck by how many misleading talking points were used to justify denying rights and privileges to thousands of Iowans.  

Nearly the entire Iowa House Republican caucus is co-sponsoring House Joint Resolution 6, a constitutional amendment that would ban not only same-sex marriages, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples in Iowa. The bill was introduced today, although the text of HJR 6 is not yet available on the legislature’s official website.

Fifty-six of the 60 Republicans in the Iowa House are listed as sponsors of the bill. No Democrats have signed onto the bill as a sponsor.

Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, is leading the resolution and said he offered it to all Republicans to sign as sponsors as well as some Democrats.   Democrats and the four Republicans declined to sign this version, he said.

The four Republicans who declined to sign are Reps Steve Lukan of New Vienna, Peter Cownie of West Des Moines, Scott Raecker of Urbandale and David Tjepkes of Gowrie.

Cownie told the Des Moines Register’s Jason Clayworth that he plans to vote for the bill on the House floor, and I assume Lukan, Raecker and Tjepkes will too.

Once upon a time, Republicans pretended they didn’t mean to write discrimination into the state constitution, they only wanted to protect a traditional definition of marriage. I’m “shocked, shocked” to learn that Republicans want not only to exclude some couples from civil marriage, but also to foreclose any legal recognition of or protection for same-sex relationships.

That position clearly does not reflect popular opinion in Iowa. Even before the Varnum v Brien ruling, a Hawkeye poll conducted in March 2009 found that 26 percent of Iowans supported same-sex marriage rights and another 28 percent supported civil unions, while just 37 percent opposed any legal recognition of same-sex relationships and 9 percent did not know. An Iowa poll this month by Public Policy Polling did not ask about civil unions but found that 41 percent of respondents supported same-sex marriage rights. In the same poll, 52 percent of respondents said same-sex marriage should not be legal, but presumably a significant portion of that group would back civil unions or some form of legal protection.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has said he will block any marriage amendment from coming to a vote in the upper chamber, so Iowa House approval is probably the end of the road for House Joint Resolution 6 this session. If the GOP wins an Iowa Senate majority in 2012, this kind of amendment would likely pass in 2013. Republicans would have to hold both chambers of the legislature and pass the bill again in 2015 or 2016 in order to get a marriage amendment on the November 2016 ballot. A simple majority of yes votes would be needed to approve the amendment.

One Iowa is urging supporters of marriage equality to contact their state representatives and senators immediately. It might be worth mentioning that New Hampshire Republicans, who control both chambers of the legislature, have decided not to try to repeal same-sex marriage rights this year. The GOP leader of the New Hampshire House, D.J. Bettencourt, has said “social issues must take a backseat” to legislation focused on jobs and the economy.

UPDATE: Alons showed the logical reasoning skills that make him one of Iowa’s most clueless legislators when speaking to the Des Moines Register yesterday:

“I think the biggest issue is that if that (a same-sex marriage ban) is carried forward, and then Iowa does civil unions and recognizes that as a substitute status, then, from what I’ve seen in other states,” people would come to consider same-sex civil unions as equal to marriage, Alons said.

Tuesday is shaping up to be the big day in Iowa politics this week, with a special election to fill a state Senate seat and a public hearing on the first bill to clear a House committee during the 2011 session.

Details on those and other events are after the jump. Activists and politicians, send me your public schedule so I can add the information to these calendars.

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady addresses the Iowa legislature this morning in what will surely be the most-watched ever state of the judiciary speech. Iowa Public Television is carrying the live feed at 10 am, and I’ll liveblog after the jump. Cady is the senior justice remaining on the high court, having been appointed by Governor Terry Branstad in 1998. He is also the author of the 2009 Varnum v Brien ruling, which struck down Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. That decision sparked a successful campaign against retaining Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker in November. The four remaining justices chose Cady to serve as chief justice until replacements for Ternus, Streit and Baker have been appointed.

So far 61 people have applied for a position on the Iowa Supreme Court. The current list is here, but more applications may come in by the deadline (January 14). So far applicants include 10 women and 51 men from many different towns and cities of the state. Most are in their 40s or 50s. The few applicants in their 30s include both U.S. attorneys appointed by George W. Bush for Iowa (Matt Whitaker and Matt Dummermuth). One Republican state legislator, Iowa House Judiciary Committee Chair Rich Anderson, has applied as well. The Des Moines Register noted that one applicant, University of Iowa law professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig, submitted a brief in support of same-sex marriage when the Supreme Court was considering the Varnum v Brien case. Another applicant, Michael Keller, has praised that ruling, which allowed him to marry his partner.

State Court Administrator David Boyd told the Des Moines Register that “he was ‘very pleased, and maybe a little surprised’ with the quality and number of applicants, given the intense public scrutiny on the court since the election.” The state judicial nominating commission “welcomes written comments from the public about the qualifications of any of the applicants.” After interviewing the candidates, the judicial nominating commission will send a short list of nine names to Branstad, who will fill the three vacancies.

P.S. This week a report by the National Institute on Money in State Politics summarized the independent expenditures in last year’s retention campaign. Supporters of retaining Ternus, Streit and Baker were vastly outspent by groups seeking to oust the justices.

UPDATE: Liveblog starting now after the jump. Iowa Public TV will rebroadcast the speech at 9:30 pm on Wednesday.

THURSDAY UPDATE: House Judiciary Committee Chair Anderson seems to be closing the door on impeachment.

Rep. Rich Anderson, R-Clarinda, said he personally believes that the justices’ actions in issuing a ruling that in effect legalized same-sex marriage do not meet the standard for impeachment spelled out in the Iowa Constitution: “misdemeanor or malfeasance in office.” The court ruled that an Iowa law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional.

He said his gut reaction is that the yet-to-be-filed bill won’t make it out of his committee, one of the first steps in the legislative process.

“I don’t believe there’s any likelihood of impeachment,” Anderson said.

I’ve posted more reactions to Cady’s speech from state legislators below.  

The U.S. Senate ratified the START arms control treaty today by a 71 to 26 vote. Thirteen Republicans joined all 58 members of the Democratic caucus to ratify the treaty, which needed support from two-thirds of the senators present to pass. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley voted no, as did Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and most of the Republican caucus. According to Major Garrett, no Senate minority leader has ever before opposed a major treaty that the chamber ratified.

Grassley said he voted against ratifying START “because it makes the United States give up more than Russia, it’s silent on the major issue of tactical nuclear weapons, and the verification mechanism is weaker than START I, which I supported in 1992.” I’ve posted his full statement on the treaty after the jump. Every former secretary of state alive, plus various Reagan administration officials, agreed that approving the treaty is in U.S. security interests. Tom Harkin’s statement, which is also posted below, hailed the treaty’s ratification, adding, “The fact that it was subjected to months of obstruction and delay underlines the dysfunction that has taken hold in the U.S. Senate.”

Also today, senators passed by unanimous consent a bill on health care for 9/11 responders. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, backed by his GOP colleagues, had been holding up that bill for some time. Senators from both parties worked out a compromise on the bill, reducing its cost and sunsetting the Victims Compensation Fund, among other things. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will approve this bill later today, before Congress adjourns for Christmas.

Earlier today, President Barack Obama signed the bill that will lead to repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. However, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network cautioned, “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will still be the law until 60 days after the Commander-in-Chief, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify repeal can happen.” The SLDN’s full warning to service members is here. Bottom line: “Do NOT come out. At this time, lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members can still be investigated and discharged under DADT.”

Chris Geidner analyzed the Senate numbers on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and found that just two current senators (Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer) voted “against DADT at every stage in its history.” Grassley was one of five current senators who voted to keep Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on December 18 and also voted for the 1993 defense authorization bill enacting the policy. Tom Harkin was among 18 current members of the Democratic caucus who voted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell despite having voted for the 1993 defense authorization. Caveat: Harkin and most of that group had previously voted for a Boxer amendment to strip Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from that 1993 bill.

In other Congressional news, momentum is building for some kind of filibuster reform when the new Senate convenes in January, but it sounds as if the changes will not reduce the number of senators needed to overcome a filibuster (60).

The U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion on the DREAM Act today by a vote of 55 to 41. At least 60 yes votes were needed to move forward the bill, which would give some undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children a path to citizenship. Iowa’s Tom Harkin voted yes, as did most of the Democratic caucus. Chuck Grassley voted no, along with most Senate Republicans. Six cowardly and mean-spirited Democrats voted no: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. (Correction: it looks like Manchin missed the vote, but his office released a statement this morning saying he could not support the bill because it didn’t require people seeking citizenship to receive a college degree. Jackass.)

Only three Republicans voted yes on the DREAM Act: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Bob Bennett of Utah. Fake GOP moderates Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois all voted against the bill. Sickening. President Barack Obama nominally supports the DREAM Act, but as far as I can tell, the White House did nothing to convince wavering senators to vote for it.

After the DREAM Act failed, the Senate moved to a cloture motion on a stand-alone bill to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. The Senate approved that cloture motion 63 to 33, with Iowa’s senators splitting the usual way (Harkin for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Grassley against). The Senate will vote on the bill itself early next week later today, and it should easily pass.

UPDATE: Click here for the roll call on the DREAM Act cloture motion. The roll call for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell vote is here. Congratulations, Chuck Grassley, you put yourself on the wrong side of history twice in one day.

SECOND UPDATE: The bill repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell passed the Senate by 65 to 31 (roll call). Harkin yes, Grassley no, of course. After the jump I’ve posted Harkin’s statements on the DREAM Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Grassley’s office hasn’t issued a statement on either vote; typically he sends out a press release every time the Senate considers major legislation.

Harkin’s statement on DREAM noted that the original 2003 bill had 15 Republican co-sponsors, which prompted me to look them up here. Lo and behold, there’s our Chuck Grassley, one of 47 sponsors of Senator Orrin Hatch’s “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003.” No wonder he doesn’t want to explain his vote today to block the bill from consideration.

The House of Representatives approved a stand-alone bill today to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The vote was 250 to 175, with just 15 Republicans crossing party lines to vote yes and 15 Democrats voting no. Iowa’s Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted for repeal, while Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against. Boswell is the only veteran among Iowa’s current House delegation. He served in the Army for 20 years, including two tours in Vietnam.

I haven’t seen any Iowa poll on this subject, but numerous national polls have indicated that more than 70 percent of Americans believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. That figure was 77 percent in the most recent poll on the issue, conducted by Langer Research for ABC News and the Washington Post. A Pentagon survey this year found that “70 percent of surveyed service members believe that the impact on their units would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.” Support for ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was significantly lower among Marines, however.

The ban on gays in the military appears likely to live on despite broad public support for letting gays serve openly and a Pentagon review showing repeal would pose a “low risk” to the armed forces. Democrats in Congress attached a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal provision to the 2011 defense authorization bill. But on December 9 the U.S. Senate rejected a cloture motion to proceed with considering that bill on a mostly party-line vote of 57-40. Iowa’s Tom Harkin was among 56 Democrats who voted to proceed with the bill; newly-elected Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia gave a convoluted excuse for voting no, while just-defeated Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas did not vote. Chuck Grassley was among all but three Republicans who voted no; two didn’t vote and Senator Susan Collins of Maine voted yes. Three Republicans who have claimed to support repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy upheld yesterday’s filibuster: Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada.

Negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Collins of Maine appear to have broken down over how Reid would allow amendments to be offered to the bill, and/or the length of time he would permit for debate. Collins and Senator Joe Lieberman say they will offer a stand-alone bill to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but whether that bill could clear the Senate before the end of the year is a big question mark. Even if it does, the House may not have time to vote on it before the new Congress takes office.

President Barack Obama publicly opposes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but he has so far declined to order a moratorium on discharges under the policy. That means federal courts will have the final say on whether the ban survives. A federal judge declared Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional earlier this year, and the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take up the case next year.

In other Senate news yesterday, Republicans showed they were serious when they promised to block every single piece of legislation until the Bush tax cuts were all extended. The GOP caucus unanimously blocked consideration of a bill “that would provide medical benefits and compensation for emergency workers who were first on the scene of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” The vote was 57 Democrats in favor, including Harkin, and 42 Republicans opposed, including Grassley. According to the New York Times, “Republicans have been raising concerns about how to pay for the $7.4 billion measure,” which is laughable, because they have no problem voting for trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts.  Republican priorities disgust me, but they do know how to stay united, unlike Democrats.

Incidentally, Grassley said in a statement yesterday that he was able to get a full extension of ethanol and biodiesel tax credits included into the tax deal Obama negotiated with Republicans. Sounds like he will definitely support the package on the Senate floor (no concern from the phony deficit hawk about finding a way to offset the $858 billion price tag). Harkin hasn’t committed to voting yes or no on the tax cut deal. Grassley believes a short-term extension of unemployment benefits might have been possible even without a deal on the tax cuts. That would fall way short of what’s needed to help unemployed people and stimulate the economy. I am frustrated that no Congressional leaders in either party are serious about getting help to the “99ers” who have exhausted all their unemployment benefits.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack submitted a video this week to the It Gets Better Project “because he wants LGBT youth – especially youth in small-town and rural America – to know that they are never alone.” The “It Gets Better” Project grew out of syndicated columnist Dan Savage’s reaction to several suicides this year by teenagers who were bullied for being gay or being perceived to be gay. The project’s mission is to help LGBT youth “imagine a future for themselves.”

I posted Vilsack’s video after the jump. Excerpts (my transcription):

I’ve been made fun of for being different. Growing up, I was chubby and I was teased for being overweight. […]

Today, if you’ve been bullied, I want to let you know that it gets better. I know that it can be particularly hard as an LGBT youth in a small community or in a rural town. You might never have known an openly gay adult. But know that in rural America, there are thousands of gay adults and teens leading normal, happy lives.

The USDA also provided these links and resources for young people who have been bullied or harassed.

As Iowa governor, Vilsack was a strong supporter of anti-bullying policies. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission created the GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force in 2002. Vilsack publicly supported that commission’s work, but Republicans lawmakers repeatedly blocked legislation to address bullying in schools. Under Democratic control, the Iowa House and Senate passed an anti-bullying law during the first year of Chet Culver’s administration.

Time with extended family means less time for blogging, so I’m posting the weekend open thread early. Here are some links to get the conversation going.

Rural voters were a crucial factor helping Republicans retake the U.S. House. Of the 125 most rural Congressional districts, Republicans held all 64 seats they had going into the election and flipped 39 Democratic districts (that alone would have been enough to give them a majority). Going into the election, Democrats held 61 of the 125 most rural Congressional districts. Now they hold only 22 of those districts, including IA-01 (Bruce Braley) and IA-02 (Dave Loebsack).

Smart Politics looked at what it calls “Iowa’s Schizophrenic 2010 Electorate” and observed, “Never before in the history of Iowa elections have Republicans won a majority of seats in the Iowa House while Democrats won a majority of the Hawkeye State’s U.S. House seats.”

I listed the Iowa House and Senate Democrats before and after the election, grouped by Congressional district. Bleeding Heartland user American007 created red and blue Iowa maps showing which parties held state House and Senate districts before the election and after.

Fred Karger, a Republican political strategist and gay activist who’s exploring a presidential bid, has been running this commercial on the Fox network this week in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Quad Cities, Mason City, Ames, Burlington and Fort Dodge. Have you seen it? Hard to imagine a strong base of support for Karger in Iowa, but I’m glad a moderate may be running for president on the Republican side.

If Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels runs for president in 2012, some Iowa Republicans will not forgive him for supporting merit-based judicial selection in his state.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said all the “right” things about Iowa judges during his recent Des Moines visit. But this week Huckabee described the controversial searches of airline passengers as a “humiliating and degrading, totally unconstitutional, intrusion of their privacy.” Uh oh! Social conservatives don’t typically acknowledge that there is a constitutional right to privacy. That dreaded “penumbra” underlies U.S. Supreme Court rulings affirming reproductive rights.

I learned this week that New Hampshire has some elected Republican officias who support marriage equality. It’s not clear whether there are enough of them to stop large GOP majorities from repealing same-sex marriage rights in that state. I wonder when (if ever) a current Republican office-holder in Iowa will defend equality.

Iowa First Lady Mari Culver says she accomplished what she set out to do during her husband’s term as governor, and her kids are excited to be moving back to their West Des Moines home full-time.

What’s on your mind this holiday weekend?  

The Iowa Senate Democratic caucus on November 14 re-elected Mike Gronstal as majority leader and Jack Kibbie as Senate president. Five senators will serve as assistant majority leaders: Joe Bolkcom of Iowa City, Bill Dotzler of Waterloo, Wally Horn of Cedar Rapids, Amanda Ragan of Mason City, and Steve Sodders of State Center. Linn County Supervisor Brent Oleson got Iowa Republicans excited on Saturday by tweeting that Horn would challenge Gronstal, but according to this Des Moines Register report by Jennifer Jacobs, “No one mounted a challenge for either leadership role, several senators said.”

More Iowa Senate news is after the jump.

Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal promised this week to block an Iowa Senate vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, even if a majority of senators sign a petition asking for a vote. The Republican reaction to Gronstal’s comments makes me wonder whether gay marriage will be in the coming decade what the death penalty was to Iowa Republicans in the 1980s and 1990.

Reinstating the death penalty was a major theme in all of Terry Branstad’s previous election campaigns. But as governor he didn’t deploy his political capital to push that bill through the state legislature, even when Republicans controlled both chambers during his last two years in office. Many Iowa Democrats believed Branstad valued having the issue to run on more than he cared about the policy.

In light of Tuesday’s election results, Republicans sound surprisingly resigned to failure on passing a marriage amendment in the new legislature.

The retention election results for Iowa Supreme Court justices were a particularly low point on a generally dismal night. Never before had Iowans failed to retain a Supreme Court justice. Thanks to one unpopular ruling, unofficial results show Chief Justice Marsha Ternus received 45.0 percent yes votes and 55.0 percent no votes. Justice David Baker received 45.75 percent yes and 54.25 percent no. Justice Michael Streit received 45.6 percent yes and 54.4 percent no. Ternus spent 17 years on the high court, four of them as chief justice. Streit served for nine years and Baker just two.

It was bad luck that so many justices came up for retention in the first year following the Varnum v Brien ruling. The Des Moines Register reported that only Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins is up for retention in 2012, and the other three current justices won’t face the voters until 2016. The last group includes Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the decision striking down Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act.

All lower-court Iowa judges appear to have been retained, including three who were targeted by some social conservatives. In Polk County, fifth circuit District Court Judge Robert Hanson received 66.34 percent yes votes, and District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg received 68.84 percent yes votes. Robocalls paid for by a conservative group urged Polk County residents to reject both judges. Hanson issued the lower-court ruling in Varnum v Brien in August 2007. Rosenberg signed a waiver allowing two men to marry after Hanson’s decision was announced, before an appeal put a stay on that decision.

In Sioux City, third circuit District Court Judge Jeffrey Neary received 58.5 percent yes votes. Conservatives tried and failed to oust him in 2004 and again this year, because in 2003 he granted a divorce to a lesbian couple who had a civil union from Vermont. At the time, Neary didn’t realize both parties seeking that divorce were women.

The judicial retention vote doesn’t affect same-sex couples’ marriage rights in Iowa. Voters rejected an initiative to call a constitutional convention, so the only way to overturn marriage equality would be to pass a constitutional amendment through the normal path. The new Republican majority in the Iowa House will approve a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal may or may not be able to keep that amendment from passing the Iowa Senate. If the legislature approves a marriage amendment in 2011 or 2012, a separately elected Iowa House and Senate would have to approve it again in 2013 or 2014 before it could appear on the 2014 general election ballot. At that point, the amendment would require a simple majority of yes votes statewide to be added to the Iowa Constitution.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

On Monday, Family Research Council Action and the National Organization for Marriage will launch a “Judge Bus Tour” to campaign against retaining Iowa Supreme Court justices Marsha Ternus, Michael Streit and David Baker. Organizers will take their bus through 45 Iowa counties, stopping at 20 planned rallies. Featured speakers at the rallies will include nationally-known heroes on the religious right: Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown, Representative Steve King of Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

My hunch is the big purple judge-hating bus will drive more votes toward retaining than ousting the Supreme Court justices.

President Barack Obama supposedly wants to end the ban on gays and lesbians openly serving in the U.S. military. His administration has backed a legislative compromise that would probably lead to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell next year. However, the votes aren’t there in the Senate to attach that provision to this year’s defense authorization act. The Senate will consider the bill again after the November election, but I doubt senators would vote to lift the ban on gays in the military during a lame-duck session. Next year the issue will be off the table in a House and Senate with many more Republican votes, and possibly Republican majorities.

Yesterday a U.S. District Court judge in California gave Obama an easy way to keep his promise on ending the ban:  

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ permanent worldwide injunction — praised by gay rights organizations — orders the military “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced” under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. […]

In her ruling Tuesday, Phillips stated the policy infringes on the rights of military personnel. “Furthermore, there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent the continued violation of servicemembers’ rights or to compensate them for violation of their rights,” the judge wrote.

Now the question is whether Obama will have his administration appeal this ruling:

President Barack Obama has backed a Democratic effort in Congress to repeal the law, rather than in an executive order or in court.

But U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ injunction leaves the administration with a choice: Continue defending a law it opposes with an appeal, or do nothing, let the policy be overturned, and add an explosive issue to a midterm election with Republicans poised to make major gains.[…]

If the government does not appeal, the injunction cannot be reversed and would remain in effect. If it does, it can seek a temporary freeze, or stay, of her ruling. An appeal would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Either side could then take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Pentagon did not immediately comment, and a Justice Department spokeswoman said the government was reviewing the decision. Meanwhile, a group of 19 Democrat senators signed a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to let the injunction stand.

As of yesterday, Senator Tom Harkin was not among the Democrats who co-signed that letter. I am seeking comment from his office on whether he supports a Justice Department appeal of Judge Phillips’ ruling.

The Iowa Catholic Conference this week endorsed a ballot initiative calling for a constitutional convention, which church leaders view as a path to banning same-sex marriages. Democrats have blocked several efforts to bring a marriage amendment to the floor of the Iowa House and Senate.

More details on Catholic advocacy against marriage equality are after the jump.  

Back when George W. Bush was president, Republicans assailed any vote against any military funding bill as not supporting our troops on the battlefield. But the Republican caucus was united yesterday as the Senate voted 56-43 to block debate on this year’s Defense Authorization Act. The bill included a compromise likely to lead to lifting the ban on gays openly serving in the military. Even Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who says she’s for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, stuck with her caucus over complaints about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s restrictions on amendments during debate over the bill. One amendment Reid had planned to allow would have added the DREAM Act to the defense authorization bill. The DREAM Act “would allow undocumented students brought to America as children to earn a path to citizenship through completion of higher education or military service.”

Only two Democrats sided with Republicans to block debate on this bill: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. (Reid switched his vote to “no” at the last minute for procedural reasons, so he would be able to bring it up again later this year.) Lincoln’s excuse was the same as Collins’: she claimed to be for the DREAM Act and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell compromise, but was angered by limits on amendments during the debate. Senate procedure is more important to these people than civil rights. At least Lincoln’s going to lose her re-election campaign anyway.

Although President Barack Obama has said he’s for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, there’s no indication he or other White House officials lifted a finger to influence yesterday’s vote in the Senate. Nor did the president accuse those who blocked debate of undercutting soldiers at war, the way George Bush surely would have done in similar circumstances.

In Iowa, critics of Senator Chuck Grassley reacted quickly to his vote blocking debate on the defense bill. A statement from One Iowa accused him of compromising military readiness:

“Senator Grassley should stop playing politics with our national security,” said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. “Gay and lesbian servicemembers provide additional expertise and skills the military needs. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell compromises the integrity of our armed sources and puts gay servicemembers at risk.”

Although Democratic Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin has long advocated civil equality for gays and lesbians, her campaign strangely sidestepped the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell angle in its statement yesterday:

“This is just one more inexcusable vote from Iowa’s senior Senator,” said Paulee Lipsman, spokesperson for the United States Senate campaign of Roxanne Conlin.  “His action denies a pay raise for the very men and women who are risking their lives for their country in the Middle East.  These families should not have to be on food stamps while a member of their family is off fighting in Afghanistan. Grassley’s vote denies better health care for those who are wounded.  It denies better equipment for those in combat.”

“Over the past two years, Senator Grassley has followed the advice of Senator Jim DeMint that Republicans block everything proposed by the Obama administration.  This partisanship is why Washington is broken.”

Key provisions of the bill include:

·         Authorize an across the board 1.4% pay raise for the military.

·         Improve the quality of life of the men and women of the all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and their families through fair pay, policies and benefits, including first rate health care, and address the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured service members and their families.

·         Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment (especially force protection) and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations.

·         Enhance the capability of the Armed Forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations and apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan, as appropriate.

I don’t think Grassley was proud of this vote. His Senate office put out several press releases yesterday, but nothing on the Defense Authorization Act.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: During her September 22 meeting with the Sioux City Journal editorial board, Conlin called for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to be overturned:

Closeted gays ably serve in the military today, she said, but cited that 13,000 have left service at a time when the military needs positions filled by well-prepared Americans.

“We are granting waivers to convicted felons and we are throwing out people, experienced West Point graduates. It makes no sense,” Conlin said.

She continued: “It is not as though, right now, gay people are not serving. They are, they’re there, they’re fighting for us, they are dying for us. The only question is – can they do it without living a lie? The answer to that, in the United States of America, has to be ‘yes.’ “

Iowa marked an anniversary on September 1: three years since all accredited schools in the state had to start implementing the Iowa Safe Schools law. I wasn’t able to attend the event celebrating this milestone, but I looked up more information on Senate File 61, “an act relating to the establishment of state and school antiharassment and antibullying policies.” The Iowa legislature passed this law in March 2007, thanks to the leadership of State Representative Roger Wendt and State Senator Mike Connolly. Governor Chet Culver signed it right away, but it didn’t take effect until September 1.

The law defined “harassment” and “bullying” as “any electronic, written, verbal, or physical act or conduct toward a student which is based on any actual or perceived trait or characteristic of the student and which creates an objectively hostile school environment […].” The law further defined “trait or characteristic of the student” as any of the following 17 categories: “age, color, creed, national origin, race, religion, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical attributes, physical or mental ability or disability, ancestry, political party preference, political belief, socioeconomic status, or familial status.”

That’s quite an inclusive list, but you won’t be surprised to learn that when this bill was under consideration, activists on the religious right opposed what they characterized as special rights for the LGBT community. I read through the bill history for Senate File 61 and downloaded the Iowa House and Senate journals for the days the bill was debated on the floor. Republicans offered one weakening amendment after another, most of which were rejected or withdrawn. But in the end, six Iowa Senate Republicans joined all 30 Democrats in the upper chamber to pass the bill. Nine Iowa House Republicans joined 53 Democrats in the lower chamber to pass the bill.

Although their votes weren’t needed to pass Senate File 61, the Republicans who sought to reduce bullying and harassment in Iowa schools should be commended. They went against their caucus leaders on that vote. Many represented suburban districts where tolerance for the LGBT community is more widespread.

Sadly, to my knowledge none of the Republican legislators who voted for this bill in 2007 attended the September 1 celebration, nor did any current Republican elected official or candidate. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.) According to a source who was there, the crowd included First Lady Mari Culver and many other Iowa Democrats, but only one well-known Republican: former Lieutenant Governor Joy Corning. Her pro-equality stance has been known to send Republicans into conniption fits.

State Senator Brad Zaun’s vote for the bullying bill briefly became an issue in this year’s GOP primary in the third Congressional district. Although he offered a couple of weakening amendments and voted for many others during the Iowa Senate floor debate, Zaun ultimately recognized the importance of this bill. Kids should not be bullied in school. Too bad that’s not a politically correct position for the Republican base.

Speaking of schools, the U.S. Department of Education formally approved $96.5 million for Iowa school districts last week. The funding came from the fiscal aid package Congress approved last month. Governor Chet Culver hailed the decision:

“This will allow our schools to recover almost completely from the difficult budget cuts created by the economic downturn. It will mean more teachers staying on the job and fewer students per classroom. I encourage school districts to use these funds immediately to offset previous budget cuts, as that is the intent of the Education Jobs Act.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad opposed the bill that allocated extra federal funds to state education and Medicaid budgets. If he and Congressional Republicans had gotten their way, many Iowa teachers would not have their jobs back. In my children’s school district, elementary school students would have less time for art, music and physical education.

This is an open thread. What’s up with you this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?  

In two cases that could affect married same-sex couples in Iowa, federal Judge Joseph Tauro ruled Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional today, Lisa Keen reported for Bay Windows. Regarding Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services,

Maura T. Healey, chief of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division, told Judge Tauro that Section 3 of DOMA — the section that limits the definition of marriage for federal benefits to straight couples — violates the state’s right under the federal constitution to sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents. Healey called DOMA an “animus-based national marriage law” that intrudes on core state authority and “forces the state to discriminate against its own citizens.”

Christopher Hall, representing HHS, said Congress should be able to control the meaning of terms, such as “marriage,” used in its own statutes, and should be able to control how federal money is allocated for federal benefits provided to persons based on their marital status. Tauro essentially replied that the government’s power is not unlimited.

The other case was Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD):

GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto told Tauro that DOMA constitutes a “classic equal protection” violation, by taking one class of married people in Massachusetts and dividing it into two. One class, she noted, gets federal benefits, the other does not. Just as the federal government cannot take the word “person” and say it means only Caucasians or only women, said Bonauto, it should not be able to take the word “marriage” and say it means only heterosexual couples. Bonauto said the government has no reason to withhold the more than 1,000 federal benefits of marriage from same-sex couples, and noted that a House Judiciary Committee report “explicitly stated the purpose of DOMA was to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.”

Keen notes that the plaintiffs in both cases asked the judge to apply a strict scrutiny standard, which “requires the government to come up with a fairly significant reason for treating gay couples differently under the law.” Judge Tauro found that Section 3 of DOMA fails even a “rational basis” standard, which is easier for the government to satisfy.

If today’s rulings are upheld by the First Circuit U.S. Appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court, hundreds of Iowa couples married since April 2009 may be able to receive federal benefits.

UPDATE: Andrew Cohen, CBS News Radio Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor, is going through the rulings. He notes Judge Tauro held that Congress has no interest in uniform definition of marriage rights and that the federal government should have left marriage policy to the states. In addition, the judge determined that “facts upon which DOMA was based [are] now obsolete or at least overshadowed by more recent science on same-sex marriage-childrearing.”

SECOND UPDATE: Speaking of marriage equality, NBC has opened up a wedding contest to same-sex couples. Initially only heterosexual couples were eligible to enter.

THIRD UPDATE: The Constitutional Law Prof blog summarized Judge Tauro’s legal reasoning and posted links to pdf files of both rulings.

FOURTH UPDATE: Adam Bink discusses the debate in LGBT circles on whether it would be better or worse for the U.S. Department of Justice to appeal this ruling.

The result was overshadowed by other competitive races, but Democratic voters in Iowa House district 66 produced a big victory for marriage equality yesterday. Elder Clair Rudison, a socially conservative pastor, challenged two-term State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad. Rudison sent out at least five direct-mail pieces attacking Ako’s record, two of which mentioned gay marriage (I posted those here).

Most Iowa politics-watchers were confident Ako would win this primary, but in a low-turnout environment anything can happen, so I was relieved to see Ako won 75 percent of the vote yesterday. The result is important because the only Iowa House Democrat who has consistently worked with Republicans to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a vote is retiring this year. If Rudison had won the primary, Republicans would be able to continue to claim bipartisan support for their battle against equality and reproductive rights.

One Iowa released a statment on the House district 66 results. Excerpt:

Voters rejected the negative and divisive tactics he and the Iowa Family Policy Center used to try to smear his opponent. “We congratulate Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad on his decisive victory and welcome his continued leadership at the statehouse,” said Jenison.

Chuck Hurley and his followers at the Iowa Family Policy Center recruited Clair Rudison to run against long-time community activist and current state representative Ako Abdul-Samad in the Democratic primary simply because Abdul-Samad supports marriage equality for all Iowans.

“For more than a year, the Iowa Family Policy Center said repeatedly that the legislative elections in 2010 will be about one thing: gay marriage,” said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. “Tonight’s results prove them wrong. Iowans are not interested in writing discrimination into our constitution. They are concerned with creating jobs, improving our schools, and moving our state forward.”

The recent Research 2000 Iowa poll for KCCI-TV should be a warning to Republicans who think bashing gay marriage will be their winning ticket in November. About 53 percent of respondents said they favored marriage rights for same-sex couples, while only 41 percent opposed them. KCCI’s managing editor for internet broadcasting provided the cross-tabs for that part of the poll. They indicate that support for equality is stronger among women (57-36) than among men (49-46). The KCCI poll showed independents supporting same-sex marriage rights by 58-31, closer to the Democratic numbers of 81-17 than to the Republican respondents, who oppose marriage equality by 83-14.

Research 2000’s latest Iowa poll for KCCI-TV contains good news for supporters of marriage equality. The survey asked, “Now that more than a year has gone by since the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, do you favor or oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples?” 53 percent respondents said they favor those rights, 41 percent opposed them and 6 percent were unsure.

I haven’t seen the full poll results, showing support for same-sex marriage rights among men, women, Democrats, Republicans and independents. I will update this post with a link to the cross-tabs when I find them. Bryan English of the Iowa Family Policy Center told KCCI he didn’t think the poll was representative of Iowans’ views, but several other statewide polls have shown that the majority of Iowans are not eager to overturn marriage equality. As time passes, public acceptance should increase if the experience of Vermont and Massachusetts are guides.

The KCCI poll also found that 62 percent of respondents support legalizing medical marijuana in Iowa, 33 percent oppose doing so and 5 percent are unsure.

Getting back to the same-sex marriage issue, I give huge credit to the Libertarian candidate for Iowa governor, Eric Cooper. On Thursday he made the case for tolerance while speaking to the Ames Conservative Breakfast Club.

Here’s my rough transcript of the first part of this clip:

You know who the Pilgrims were? The Pilgrims were a group of people in England, and everybody in England hated their guts. And you know what they did? They came to America to live here. And the reason–they came here because we were the land of the free. We started the land of the free. That is, even if everyone in surrounding society hates your guts, in America as long as you’re not hurting other people and their property, you can live the way that you want, as long as you’re being peaceful.

To me, that’s the most American story there is. If you’re a peaceful person who’s not hurting other people, you get to live your life according to your cultural traditions. OK, well, guess what? There are some homosexuals in America today, and to me, they’re the Pilgrims, ok? Surrounding society doesn’t like ’em very much, but you know what? What America is, is you get to live the way that you want to live. And if their cultural tradition is that they can get married, I think that’s America, to allow them to follow that cultural tradition. No, I don’t think that’s [unintelligible] surrounding society as a whole, and I think if we’re gonna restrict that, we’re not America anymore, we’re England, ok? And we’re better than England, we’re America.

Now people say, “Well shouldn’t we be allowed to vote on marriage and what marriage means in the state of Iowa?” Well, yeah, legally, there are mechanisms by which a sufficiently large supermajority can persecute any minority they want. Yes, legally, we could all vote to persecute the Pilgrims if we wanted to and yeah, legally, we could all vote to say, you know, gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry if we want to. But that’s not America anymore, ok?

Cooper’s a bit off on the history. The Pilgrims were far from laid-back and accepting of other people’s traditions. In fact, “New England Puritans, long viewed as a persecuted group in England, were the least tolerant of other faiths.” But I cut Cooper slack. He’s a neuroscientist, not a historian, and what he did took guts.

You’d expect a Libertarian addressing a Republican group to focus on likely areas of agreement: reducing taxes and the size of government. Instead of just preaching to the choir, Cooper challenged his audience to think about a charged issue differently. He had to know that most people at that breakfast club oppose what the Iowa Supreme Court did.

Post any thoughts on same-sex marriage in Iowa in this thread. The Des Moines Register reports that Iowa’s leading gay wedding planner may star in a television “docu-reality series” about his work. Beau Fodor created Gay Weddings With Panache soon after the Varnum v Brien decision was announced last year.

UPDATE: On Sunday the Des Moines Register published results from a Selzer and Co. Iowa poll of 501 likely Iowa Republican primary voters, which was in the field from June 1 through June 3. The survey included several questions about gay marriage. About 77 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that “Iowans should have a chance to vote on changing the constitution to specifically ban gay marriage,” but 20 percent disagreed with that statement. Meanwhile, only 50 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that “Iowans should vote to remove current Supreme Court justices from their office because of their decision on gay marriage.” About 45 percent disagreed with that statement. Regarding the statement, “Some Iowans have overreacted to this issue, and having gay marriage in Iowa is just not that big a deal,” 35 percent of likely Republican primary voters agreed, while 62 percent disagreed. I find those numbers encouraging.

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 today to pass a compromise that will probably lead to repeal of the prohibition on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote for the compromise. Jim Webb of Virginia was the only Democrat to vote against it. I wouldn’t have predicted that Webb would vote no when people like Evan Bayh, Robert Byrd and Ben Nelson voted yes.

This bill appears to have the votes to pass on the Senate floor. Representative Patrick Murphy (an Iraq War veteran) is offering a comparable amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in the House. Technically, it’s not correct to call this a “repeal” of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, because the legislation allows officials at the White House, Pentagon and Joint Chiefs to leave the policy in place. Here’s what will happen if the amendment makes it into the final bill passed by the House and Senate:

When the President signs the Department of Defense Authorization bill into law, DADT will not instantly be repealed. Repeal would take place only after the study group completes its work in December 2010 and after the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense all certify that repeal will not hurt military readiness or unit cohesion.

So, gay and lesbian soldiers will continue to be discharged several months (and perhaps several years) from now. Still, I agree with Adam Bink; this has to be viewed as a “giant step” toward taking Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell off the books. Ideally, Congress would have passed stronger legislation, but I’d rather have them pass this deal now than shoot for something better next year. If Republicans took control of the House or Senate, we’d have no hope of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for a long time.

Iowa’s senators don’t have seats on the Armed Services Committee, but Tom Harkin is expected to support repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Chuck Grassley opposes moving forward on this issue until the Pentagon has completed its review of the policy, and it sounds like even if the report recommends repeal, Grassley is a likely no vote: “I’m going to be listening to see what it does for readiness and our national security. Because we’ve had the policy in place for 18 years… and it seems to have worked and not affected the readiness.”

Senator, that policy didn’t work so well for “over 13,500 well trained, able-bodied soldiers willing to take a bullet for their country” who have been “kicked out of the military simply because they were gay.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The House passed the amendment 234 to 194 tonight, with five Republicans voting yes and 26 Democrats voting no. I will post a link to the roll call when it’s available, but I think all three Iowa Democrats voted yes. Leonard Boswell’s statement on why he supports repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is after the jump.

UPDATE: Here is the House roll call. Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack did vote yes, along with most of the Democratic caucus. Tom Latham and Steve King voted no, with almost all the House Republicans.