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.  

When some Republicans tried to convince county recorders not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples last April, Iowa Department of Public Health officials made clear that ignoring the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling was not an option. Unfortunately, the IDPH has determined that marriage equality does not require equal treatment for married gay couples who become parents. Now IDPH Director Tom Newton has foolishly decided to fight a lawsuit brought by a married lesbian couple seeking to have the non-birthing spouse listed on their child’s birth certificate. Heather and Melissa Gartner sued senior IDPH officials on behalf of their daughter this week, having tried and failed to resolve the matter through administrative channels.

Based on advice from the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, the IDPH contends that the non-birthing spouse must complete the adoption process in order to be listed as the second parent on a child’s birth certificate, even if the child was born after the parents were legally married. I’m a big fan of Attorney General Tom Miller, but his office blew it on this one.  

Everyone who moderates a debate this year could learn from the journalists who guided the May 1 Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidates’ debate: Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Paul Yeager of Iowa Public Television, and Jeneane Beck of Iowa Public Radio. Too many journalists ask long-winded questions that are easy to evade, or ask about hot topics of no lasting importance, or ask about policies outside the scope of the office the candidates are seeking.

In contrast, almost every question the panelists asked during Saturday’s debate was direct and addressed an issue the next governor of Iowa will face. Here are a few examples:

“Can you name one service government provides today that it should stop providing in the interest of saving the budget?”

“If elected, will you continue to support the Iowa Values Fund, the business grant and loan program created during the Vilsack administration, and also the renewable energy grant program established by Governor Culver known as the Iowa Power Fund?”

“Is there a role that government should play in limiting premium increases by Iowa insurance companies?”

“Do you believe that obesity is a problem that should be addressed through government action such as limiting unhealthy ingredients in food?”

Mind you, asking a direct, unambiguous question doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get a straight answer from a politician. Look what happened when Dorman asked the Republicans, “Can you identify one tangible way Iowa has been harmed during a full year of legal same-sex marriage?”

One year ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect. From April 27, 2009 through the end of last year, at least 1,783 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Iowa. The real number is probably higher, because about 900 marriage licenses did not specify the gender of the couple involved. Despite a petition drive led by some Iowa Republicans and the Iowa Family Policy Center, not a single county recorder denied a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

Although all three Republican candidates for governor say they want to overturn the Varnum v Brien ruling, marriage equality is probably here to stay. Conservative groups are not urging voters to pass a ballot initiative calling for a constitutional convention, which would be the quickest path to amend the Iowa constitution. Bob Vander Plaats probably won’t win the Republican nomination for governor, much less the November election, and even if he did, his plan to halt gay marriage by executive order is a non-starter.

That leaves the self-styled defenders of traditional marriage one path: approving an amendment restricting marriage rights in two separately elected Iowa legislatures, then convincing a majority of Iowans to vote for that amendment (in November 2014 at the earliest).

Republicans have an outside shot at winning a majority in the Iowa House in 2010, but they have virtually no chance of taking back the Iowa Senate this year. Democrats currently hold a 32-18 majority in the upper chamber. A net gain of four or five seats is the best-case scenario for the GOP, and I consider a net gain of two or three seats much more likely. That leaves Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal in a position to block all efforts to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a floor vote during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions.

Gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts claims he could force Democrats to allow a marriage vote. His plan is to veto all legislation, including the state budget, until the Iowa House and Senate have voted on a marriage amendment. I doubt a Republican could win that game of chicken even if Governor Chet Culver is defeated this November. Polling indicates that most Iowans are not eager to ban gay marriage and think the state legislature has more important things to do. Anyway, the most likely Republican nominee, Terry Branstad, has an incoherent position on gay marriage and probably would make only a token effort to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Share any thoughts about same-sex marriage in Iowa in this thread.

Speaking of civil rights, some reports indicate that the House of Representatives will vote this year to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which has ended far too many military careers. Click here to read a moving open letter to President Obama from an Air Force major who was discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

One year ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that our state’s Defense of Marriage Act violated the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. From the day that ruling went into effect through the end of 2009, at least 1,783 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Iowa. The real number is probably higher, because about 900 marriage licenses did not specify the gender of the couple involved.

Follow me after the jump for a review of news about marriage equality in Iowa, stories featuring happy couples, and thoughts about the future politics of this issue.  

Next week will mark the first anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien. Seven justices unanimously concluded that the section of the Iowa Code enacted through our state’s Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Since the day that decision was announced, many Iowa Republicans have called for overturning the court’s ruling. Some have denied that county recorders were obliged to implement the ruling, or insisted that government officials may ignore a court’s opinion about the constitutionality of a law. Others have called on Iowans to vote against retaining justices who supposedly overreached their authority. For example, gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts said last November,

“We need to send a message to the Iowa Supreme Court that they are accountable to the people of Iowa,” said Roberts, who has made restoring the role of the people in state government a centerpiece of his campaign. “The problem with judicial activism is that it thwarts the will of the legislature and of the people of Iowa.”

Now that Congress has approved a health insurance reform bill Republicans don’t like, some GOP politicians have decided judicial activism isn’t so bad after all. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats pledged to “invoke the Constitution’s 10th Amendment to protect Iowans from new federal mandates” on health care. Rod Roberts followed Vander Plaats’ lead:

Roberts said that if the federal government passes a nationalized health care plan that conflicts with the Roberts Amendment, as governor he will file a lawsuit in federal court against President Obama to have the plan struck down as a violation of Iowans’ Tenth Amendment rights. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that powers not delegated to the federal government (such as the regulation of health insurance) are reserved for the states.

Gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad also supported the idea of using the courts to nullify the will of Congress: “Given the massive scope and effect of this [health insurance reform] bill, it is likely that various provisions will be challenged in the courts. Those challenges are both timely and appropriate.”

Any constitutional lawyer can tell you that the U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Law professor Mark Hall explains in detail here why constitutional arguments against an individual mandate to purchase health insurance are wrong. As for the broader 10th amendment claim that the constitution doesn’t empower the federal government to regulate health insurance, Hall notes, “Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s ‘Commerce Clause’ to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.”

Conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh likewise does not find the constitutional arguments against health insurance reform convincing:

While I agree that the recent commerce clause cases hold that Congress may not regulate noneconomic activity, as such, they also state that Congress may reach otherwise unregulable conduct as part of an overarching regulatory scheme, where the regulation of such conduct is necessary and proper to the success of such scheme. In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of “commerce” as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate. (Among other things, if health care reform requires insurers to issue insurance to all comers, and prohibits refusals for pre-existing conditions, then a mandate is necessary to prevent opportunistic behavior by individuals who simply wait to purchase insurance until they get sick.)

The U.S. Supreme Court could overrule the will of Congress on health insurance reform only by reversing several decades of precedent about the definition of commerce. That’s textbook “judicial activism,” but it’s ok with some Iowa Republicans if it achieves the political end they are seeking.

By the way, Vander Plaats claims that as governor, he could issue an executive order halting same-sex marriages in Iowa. I wonder if he also thinks President Barack Obama could issue an executive order overturning a possible Supreme Court ruling against health insurance reform.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum considers prospects for a lawsuit challenging the individual mandate to buy health insurance. He makes the same point about Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce and adds,

What’s more, the penalties for not buying insurance are tax penalties, and if anything, Congress has even wider scope in the tax area than in the commerce area. The Supreme Court has frequently ruled that Congress can pass tax laws that essentially force people to do things that Congress doesn’t have the direct power to require.

[…]here’s the thing: if the Supreme Court decided to overturn decades of precedent and strike down the mandate even though Kevin Drum says they shouldn’t (hard to imagine, I know), the insurance industry will go ballistic. If they’re required to cover all comers, even those with expensive pre-existing conditions, then they have to have a mandate in order to get all the healthy people into the insurance pool too. So they would argue very persuasively that unless Congress figures out a fix, they’ll drive private insurers out of business in short order. And that, in turn, will almost certainly be enough incentive for both Democrats and Republicans to find a way to enforce a mandate by other means. If necessary, there are ways to rewrite the rules so that people aren’t literally required to get insurance, but are incentivized so strongly that nearly everyone will do it. As an example, Congress might pass a law making state Medicaid funding dependent on states passing laws requiring residents to buy insurance. Dependent funding is something Congress does routinely, and states don’t have any constitutional issues when it comes to requiring residents to buy insurance. They all do it with auto insurance and Massachusetts does it with health insurance.

Like Drum, I view these proposed legal challenges as Republican posturing rather than a serious threat to nullify the law Obama signed this morning.

Shortly after the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously cleared the way for same-sex marriage rights in April 2009, prominent social conservatives in Iowa vowed to vote out three Supreme Court justices who face retention elections in November 2010. Those are Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker.

Judges do not campaign actively for retention, but today Ternus commented on the upcoming elections during an Iowa Public Radio appearance. (continues after the jump)

Republican State Representative Kent Sorenson is trying to amend the Iowa Constitution to bring back elections for the seven state Supreme Court justices.

Republicans Dwayne Alons and Jason Schultz joined Sorenson in introducing House Joint Resolution 2013 this week. It would amend the constitution to require Supreme Court justices to be elected to six-year terms. Lower-court judges would continue to be appointed, as they have been since Iowa approved a constitutional amendment in 1962 to eliminate judicial elections. Under the current system, the governor appoints district and Supreme Court judges from lists of nominees submitted by judicial nominating commissions.

Other social conservatives have vowed to defeat the three Supreme Court justices who are up for retention in 2010 because of last year’s Varnum v Brien ruling, which cleared the way for same-sex marriage in Iowa. But even that isn’t good enough for Sorenson and his allies. They are so upset about one court ruling that they would toss out a method for selecting judges which has worked well for nearly a half-century. The Des Moines-based American Judicature Society has plenty of resources on the importance of judicial independence and the benefits of a merit-based system over judicial elections. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United case lifted restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections, providing another reason not to mess with Iowa’s judicial selection process.

Sorenson’s constitutional amendment probably won’t go anywhere, but he may use the proposal as a rallying cry in his campaign against Staci Appel in Iowa Senate district 37 this year. Appel’s husband, Brent Appel, is an Iowa Supreme Court justice. He is not up for retention this November.

UPDATE: Via the latest from Todd Dorman I learned that State Representative Rod Roberts, a Republican candidate for governor, has introduced his own constitutional amendment:

His proposal, House Joint Resolution 2012, calls for appointing nine justices – one from each judicial district and one at-large. It would require justices to continue to live in the district as long as they sit on the court.

“Even people in the legal profession tell me this would help the court get connected at the grass roots level,” he said.

Dorman comments,

Justices should answer to the state constitution, the law and precedent, not to public sentiment. They’re appointed through a bipartisan, drama-free process that focuses on their experience and qualifications. They already face regular retention votes.

So explain to me why we would throw out that system in favor of open electioneering. It’s a horrible idea.

And picking them by geography instead of qualifications isn’t much better.

How is this stuff conservative?

You don’t want judges who “legislate from the bench,” so you elect them just like legislators?

The Iowa Bar Association opposes the proposals from Sorenson and Roberts.

I expected 2009 to be a relatively quiet year in Iowa politics, but was I ever wrong.

The governor’s race heated up, state revenues melted down, key bills lived and died during the legislative session, and the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien became one of this state’s major events of the decade.

After the jump I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from January through June 2009. Any comments about the year that passed are welcome in this thread.

Although I wrote a lot of posts last year, there were many important stories I didn’t manage to cover. I recommend reading Iowa Independent’s compilation of “Iowa’s most overlooked and under reported stories of 2009,” as well as that blog’s review of “stories that will continue to impact Iowa in 2010.”

Sioux City businessman and Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats got a surprising endorsement on Monday from Keith Ratliff, pastor of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines and president of the Iowa-Nebraska chapter of the NAACP.

Vander Plaats was the front-runner in the Republican field until former Governor Terry Branstad entered the race. Ratliff said Vander Plaats’ position on same-sex marriage rights was “an important factor” in his endorsement.

Marriage equality is here to stay in Iowa, if the latest statewide poll for the Des Moines Register is any guide:

Forty-one percent say they would vote for a [constitutional amendment to] ban [same-sex marriage], and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure. […]

The overwhelming majority of Iowans – 92 percent – say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives. […]

The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April’s unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don’t care much or are not sure.

Despite the 43 percent opposition to the ruling, 61 percent of Iowans say other issues will influence their decision on whether to vote to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections.

Selzer and Co. surveyed 803 Iowans between September 14 and 16, and the poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

I recommend clicking through to view the chart showing the breakdown by party affiliation on this issue. Among independents, only 44 percent either oppose or strongly oppose the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision that cleared the way for marriage equality, while 32 percent “don’t care much” and 22 percent either favor or strongly favor it.

Many Iowa Republicans are convinced that they can gain traction in next year’s legislative elections by bashing statehouse Democrats who oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. However, the Republican candidate fell just short in the recent special election in Iowa House district 90, even though the National Organization for Marriage poured nearly $90,000 into ads supporting the Republican because of the marriage issue. (The NOM plans to be involved in next year’s Iowa elections as well.)

A poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog in July indicated that two-thirds of Iowans wanted a public vote on same-sex marriage, but that poll framed the question as follows: “The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled gay marriages can legally be conducted in the state. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, do you think Iowa voters should have the chance to vote on a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution or is the issue best decided by the Supreme Court?” Todd Dorman was right to point out that it would have been more enlightening to ask respondents how they would vote on a marriage amendment.

The Register’s poll could strengthen the hand of Republicans like Doug Gross, who have been saying all year that the GOP should downplay divisive social issues and focus on the economy in next year’s elections. On the other hand, 51 percent of Republicans surveyed by Selzer and Co strongly oppose the Supreme Court decision, while 11 percent just oppose the decision, 27 percent don’t care much and only 10 percent either favor or strongly favor it. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats promises to issue an executive order on day one halting same-sex marriages if elected, and he will find plenty of support among the Republican rank and file.

I’ve been telling my friends, “Don’t worry, be happy,” since the Iowa Supreme Court announced its Varnum v Brien decision in April. I figured that with each passing year, more Iowans would understand that no one is harmed and thousands are helped by granting gays and lesbians civil marriage rights. I also felt that Republicans would not be able to win many races on this issue in 2010, let alone in subsequent years. Still, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see a poll this year showing majority support for overturning the Supreme Court ruling. Learning that a constitutional amendment on marriage lacks majority support even now makes me that much more optimistic. (UPDATE: Forgot to add that Iowa has a lengthy constitutional amendment process.)

Now it’s imperative to defeat Proposition 1 in Maine this November. Please help if you can.

Like Cityview’s Civic Skinny, I’ve been hearing some chatter about former Governor Terry Branstad considering another gubernatorial bid. Branstad ruled out running for governor in May but has made ambiguous comments more recently. He may be encouraged by The Iowa Republican poll’s finding that he leads Governor Chet Culver 53 percent to 37 percent in a hypothetical matchup. In a hypothetical Republican primary, Branstad has 35 percent support to 31 percent for Bob Vander Plaats, with 19 percent of respondents unsure and all other candidates in single digits.

I’m skeptical about a Branstad resurgence. First, I doubt he would give up his prominent, lucrative job as president of Des Moines University. Second, the Iowa electorate has become much more Democratic than it was in Branstad’s day.

Third, I don’t think the Republican field would clear for him. I am not convinced the evangelical conservatives who were his base of support in the 1980s and 1990s will remain loyal. Branstad appointed two of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices who cleared the way for same-sex marriage rights, including Mark Cady, who wrote the Varnum v Brien decision. Moreover, he declined to condemn those justices after the ruling.

Most important, Branstad nearly lost his own party’s primary as a three-term incumbent in 1994. There’s a reason so many elected Republicans, like then State Auditor Richard Johnson, backed Congressman Fred Grandy in that race. The phrases “two sets of books” and “cooking the books” may ring a bell with Bleeding Heartland readers of a certain age.

I don’t expect Branstad to run for governor again, but if he does he should expect his management of state finances to come under a lot more scrutiny. Likely candidate Chris Rants told The Iowa Republican blog this month,

I am worried that we are backsliding to those days in the late 80’s when the governor and legislature fudged the numbers to look good for an election. They didn’t abide by generally acceptable accounting principles. That led to bigger problems and late payments to local school districts.

It’s frankly a joke to portray Branstad as more fiscally responsible than Culver. Branstad managed this state during tough times by keeping two sets of books and digging us into a hole. Under Culver, Iowa still has a healthy reserve fund and a AAA bond rating. He has made budget cuts when necessary and is ready to do so again if need be after final revenue figures come in.

Share any thoughts about the governor’s race in this thread.

UPDATE: Fascinating comment thread under Craig Robinson’s post at The Iowa Republican. It didn’t take long for someone to post news clippings from 1994 about Branstad “cooking the books” and Johnson endorsing Grandy. Also, I noticed a few social conservatives predicting that people would not abandon Vander Plaats for Branstad.  

The Iowa Attorney General’s Office has advised the Iowa Department of Public Health that a married lesbian who gives birth cannot list her spouse on the child’s birth certificate, according to Michael Gartner’s must-read scathing commentary in this week’s Cityview. Excerpt:

[Attorney General Tom] Miller’s lawyers based their advice on the fact that the decision made no direct reference to the Iowa Code section on birth certificates, which refers to “husband.” “The Supreme Court ruling “does not authorize an interpretation of chapter 144 (vital statistics, including birth certificates) in a manner that would allow for a same-sex spouse to be automatically listed as the parent on birth certificates,” they said. And, insultingly and gratuitously, they added: “Using the adoption process is the best way to protect the interests and rights of all parties involved.”

How shameful.

For more than 125 years, the Iowa Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the legitimate child of the woman and her spouse – even if the woman was pregnant by another man at the time of the wedding, even if the woman was impregnated by another man during her marriage. “The law presumes that a child born in wedlock is legitimate,” the court said in 1882. More than 100 years later, in 1995, the court ruled in a similar case that “the state’s interests involve preserving the integrity of the family [and] the best interests of the child….” Yes, “the best interests of the child.”

The Iowa Code couldn’t be clearer. Section 252 says: “A child or children born of parents who, at any time prior or subsequent to the birth of such child, have entered into a civil or religious marriage ceremony, shall be deemed the legitimate child or children of both parents, regardless of the validity of such marriage.” And the Supreme Court says gays can marry one another.

Go read Gartner’s whole piece, which highlights key passages from the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Varnum v Brien. He also points out that adopting a child involves significant time and expense.

I’m surprised that the Attorney General’s Office would give the Iowa Department of Public Health bad advice on this matter. Tom Miller strongly praised the court’s “clear and well-reasoned opinion” the day Varnum v Brien was announced. Miller’s advice helped persuade Governor Chet Culver not to seek to overturn the ruling. Assistant Attorney General Heather Adams wrote a memo reminding all Iowa county recorders that they must comply with the decision and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Iowa Department of Public Health should give married spouses equal protection under the law.

I’m grateful that the Iowa Independent bloggers listen to our local Rush Limbaugh clones so I don’t have to. If anything newsworthy comes out of some right-wing radio show, I can read about it online.  

I learned recently that no matter how crazy Congressman Steve King seems, there are some conservatives who think he should be further outside the mainstream.

After the jump I have a few thoughts on the spat between King and wingnut Bill Salier, best known for almost beating establishment favorite Greg Ganske in the 2002 Republican Senate primary.

Several Bleeding Heartland readers living in different Iowa counties have received robocalls in the past few days featuring Congressman Steve “10 Worst” King. Like the calls King recorded in early April, these calls are paid for by the National Organization for Marriage.

I have not heard the call, but from what others have told me, it sounds like this fake survey is designed to raise money, identify and mobilize supporters. (In contrast, a “push-poll” usually seeks to spread information that would change people’s minds about an issue or candidate.) The details are after the jump.

I was so sorry to hear today’s news out of California. While I have no doubt that a future referendum will reverse Prop 8, that process will take years and resources that could have been spent organizing in other states.

Couples left in legal limbo should be aware that the state of Iowa recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples who tied the knot in California last year. Moving halfway across the country clearly won’t be an option for everyone, but Iowa has a low cost of living and a good quality of life (more affordable housing, relatively low rates of crime and unemployment, short commutes, and decent public schools in many communities).

Of course, couples from California or anywhere else can still come to Iowa to get married.

Since the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect on April 27, hundreds of same-sex couples have been married here. More than half of Iowa’s 99 counties have issued at least one marriage license to a same-sex couple. Despite an extensive petition drive to pressure county recorders, no county recorder has refused to issue a marriage license to a couple seeking one.

In my opinion, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court ruling will not get anywhere. I explain why after the jump.

Charlotte Eby reported at Covering Iowa Politics that the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee

voted unanimously Tuesday to dismiss an ethics complaint against a lawmaker who had encouraged county recorders to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, has been one of the most vocal critics of the Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. On his Web site, Bartz had encouraged Iowans who also are opposed to same-sex marriage to sign petitions asking county recorders to not issue same-sex licenses.

Members of the ethics committee said Bartz was simply exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech, and voted 6-0 to reject the complaint after a short discussion.

Last month I posted the full text of the petition along with the language Bartz used to promote the drive on his official Iowa Senate website.

Ed and Lynn Fallon of I’M for Iowa filed the ethics complaint against Bartz, saying he should not have encouraged elected county officials to fail to comply with an Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

The petition drive did not succeed in blocking same-sex marriages; so far no county recorders in Iowa have refused to issue marriage licenses. On the other hand, I read that some petitions containing some 17,000 signatures were delivered to county recorders the week of April 27.

If even a fraction of the people who collected signatures followed Bartz’s instructions to send copies to Chuck Hurley’s Iowa Family Policy Center, then the drive will turn out to be a list-building bonanza for that organization.

On Tuesday I complained that I hadn’t heard any Republicans stand up and defend the Supreme Court’s authority to strike down unconstitutional laws.

Today I need to give credit to former Governor Terry Branstad and his chief of staff, Doug Gross, because they went on record supporting the concepts of separation of powers and judicial review, even though they sometimes disagree with the Iowa Supreme Court’s decisions.

The details are after the jump.

I’m still waiting for some Republican, any Republican, to explain the concept of judicial review to religious conservatives who refuse to accept the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien.

GOP moderates led by Doug Gross have been warning that Republican candidates won’t win in 2010 if gay marriage is their only campaign issue. But I haven’t heard anyone challenge the assertion by many conservatives that the Supreme Court’s decision is just an opinion with no legal force.

Since no Republican has stepped up to the plate, I’m offering a brief lesson on judicial review after the jump.

While visiting a friend in Pella today, I found an orange piece of paper lying on her doorstep. I picked it up, expecting to see publicity for some local event like next month’s Tulip Time festival.

Instead, I found a flier comparing Iowa Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley to a “chicken,” because he “refuses to do what it takes to get a vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.” McKinley asked Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal to co-sponsor a leadership bill with him so that the Senate could debate a constitutional amendment on marriage, but Gronstal refused.

Public Advocate of the US, a right-wing group based in Falls Church, Virginia, paid for this flier, according to text at the bottom. That group’s president, Eugene Delgaudio, has been using direct mail and “conservative political street theater” to advance anti-gay views for years. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him show up in Iowa on Monday, when same-sex marriages become legal.

The stated goal of the flier is to generate phone calls urging McKinley to take bolder action on the Iowa Marriage Amendment, but I wonder whether the real purpose is to support different leadership for the Senate Republican caucus. McKinley was elected Senate Republican leader last November on a pledge “to rebuild this party from the ground up,” but according to the Iowa Republican blog, some conservatives,

including WHO Radio talk show host Steve Deace, don’t think that the Republicans in the Senate have done all they can since they have not made a motion to suspend the Senate rules and force the Democrats’ hand.

Republican State Representative Chris Rants tried to attach a marriage amendment to unrelated legislation in the House and forced a vote on suspending House rules. Only two House Democrats, Geri Huser and Dolores Mertz, voted with Republicans on the procedural motion. Presumably Republican candidates and interest groups will attack the other 54 House Democrats next fall for not backing up Rants.

Alternatively, the flier could be nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to raise the profile (and mailing list) of Delgaudio’s group in Iowa. Does any Bleeding Heartland reader know whether Public Advocate of the US has ties to any rival of McKinley’s within the Republican Party of Iowa?

I don’t know whether this piece is being circulated in conservative neighborhoods across Iowa, or mainly in heavily Republican Pella. If you’ve seen it in your town or county, please post a comment in this thread or send an e-mail to desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

The full text of the one-sided, 8 1/2 by 11-inch flier is after the jump.

UPDATE: McKinley criticized the Iowa Senate’s failure to take up the marriage amendment in his closing remarks on the final day of the 2009 session.

Iowa Senate Republicans are using their official website to push a petition drive to pressure county recorders not to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

We already knew that prominent Iowa Republicans have trouble with the concept of judicial review, but Senator Merlin Bartz, who tried last week to give county recorders the right to ignore the law, has taken it to a new level.

Senator Bartz’s page on the Iowa Senate Republicans website is promoting a petition being circulated by Chuck Hurley’s Iowa Family Policy Center.

The disgraceful details are after the jump.

While writing about lots of other topics during the past week I got behind on Iowa marriage equality news. I did some catching up after the jump.

First things first, though. If you are planning a same-sex marriage in Iowa, please note that this will become possible on April 27, not April 24 as was widely reported after the Iowa Supreme Court announced its Varnum v Brien decision. Iowa’s marriage application forms have already been changed, but the Supreme Court needs to issue an order putting its ruling into effect. Because of furloughs related to budget cuts, the court pushed back that date from April 24 to April 27.

One Iowa wants to hear from people planning same-sex marriages in Iowa. They have some helpful resources. You can also sign up to follow One Iowa on Twitter here.

More links and a few laughs are below the fold.

No one who applies for a marriage license needs your blessing.

According to Republican State Senator Merlin Bartz, at least one of you (or perhaps several of you) may be ready to resign rather than issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. We all can think of marriages we disapprove of, but if your moral objections to marriage equality render you unable to perform the duties of your job, by all means resign. Filling a county government position with good benefits is never a problem, especially in this economy.

Rest assured, as much as you dislike the idea of gays and lesbians getting married, people like me dislike the idea of taxpayer dollars going to someone like you.  

Don’t count on Senator Bartz to bail you out with his give-recorders-a-free-pass-to-discriminate amendment either. Senate President Jack Kibbie ruled that amendment out of order on Tuesday, and Bartz won’t succeed in getting it attached to a different bill for you. You need to either process same-sex couples’ applications for marriage licenses or find some other vocation, preferably in the private sector.

Speaking of which, Bartz seems to think that he and the disgruntled county recorders swore an oath to a different constitution than the one Iowa’s Supreme Court justices were interpreting when they unanimously struck down Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. If Bartz doesn’t understand the concepts of checks and balances or judicial review, then like many of his fellow Republicans, he’s not well suited for a political career.  

Is there any way to arrange a remedial civics class for prominent Iowa Republicans? Here’s Bob Vander Plaats on Monday:

“If I have the opportunity to serve as your next governor,” Bob Vander Plaats told a crowd of about 350 people at a rally, “and if no leadership has been taken to that point, on my first day of office I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote, and when we vote we can affirm and amend the Constitution.”

Another highlight from the same rally:

Co-founder of Everyday America, Bill Salier, told the crowd that state lawmakers need to thank the Supreme Court justices for their opinion but say it’s merely opinion and the law is still on the books.

Salier said: “(Lawmakers) can face down the court and say, ‘We passed DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. You claim that it is stricken. And yet unless some magic eraser came down from the sky, it’s still in code.'”

Then there’s Republican State Representative Chris Rants, who is trying to amend the tax reform bill so that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman. Rants failed last week to replace a huge health care bill with an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, Republican State Senator Merlin Bartz is pushing an amendment that would allow county recorders not to issue marriage licenses.

This daughter of a Rockefeller Republican is shaking her head and has a few more things to say after the jump.

Congressman Steve King is still “royally ticked” about the “unanimous decision on the part of seven unelected Iowa judges who decided to take the law into their own hands and usurp the legitimate authority of the Iowa Legislature […].” He doesn’t seem real clear on the concept of judicial review, whereby courts can strike down laws that violate citizens’ constitutional rights.

Then again, maybe King does understand that legislators can’t pass unconstitutional laws. As David Waldman pointed out, last month King complained that a bill to restrict bonus payments to executives from bailed-out financial institutions was “a dangerous and unconstitutional disruption of America’s free-market system.”

In any event, King is bringing his crusade against marriage equality to a telephone near you. Several Bleeding Heartland readers in different parts of the state have told me that they received the robocall corncam diaried here. Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, the call features King asking if you are a registered voter in Iowa. If you say yes, King asks if you believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. If you say no, King thanks you and says good-bye.

We need someone to say yes, take detailed notes about the rest of this robocall, and post a diary here about it. Obviously it’s a voter ID call for a group that will be campaigning to overturn the Varnum v Brien ruling, but what talking points are they using, and what information are they collecting from sympathetic respondents?

Some people have wondered whether King recorded this call in order to raise his profile for a future statewide campaign. Last week King told the Omaha World-Herald that he would be more likely to run for governor in 2010 if Chet Culver did not work hard to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien. Although I’d love for King to leave Congress, I agree with Iowa Senate Democratic leader Mike Gronstal, who says “Steve King’s too chicken to run for governor because he knows he’d get his butt beat.”

King responded by accusing Gronstal of being “afraid to allow a vote on marriage,” which made me laugh. If Gronstal were afraid of backlash on this issue, he would be making cautious statements that grudgingly accept the Supreme Court ruling while emphasizing his own belief in “traditional marriage.” Instead, Gronstal has made clear that he welcomes marriage equality and will not “insert discrimination into our state constitution.”

The Steve Kings of the world are scared because they know Iowans and Americans increasingly support legal recognition of committed relationships, regardless of sexual orientation.  

Speaking of campaigns, Politico reported on April 3 that the Federal Election Commission has questioned why King’s campaign committee paid the Congressman’s son Jeff King $156,000 during the past five years. An attorney for the campaign committee responded that Jeff King is the sole full-time employee of the campaign, and that he was paid a “fair market value” salary for “bona fide campaign-related services.”

King isn’t the most energetic campaigner, so I find it surprising that he employs a full-time year-round campaign staffer, but to me this is a non-issue. Many politicians employ close relatives on their campaigns. If King’s contributors don’t mind his paying his son $30,000 a year, then who am I to argue?

What bothers me are the elected officials who hire close relatives to do taxpayer-funded work–especially when those officials pretend to care about allegedly unethical campaign payments.

Thursday was a great day for marriage equality in Iowa. All but two Iowa House Democrats stood firm against Republican efforts to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the House floor.

The same day, the Des Moines Register quoted Governor Chet Culver confirming that he opposes such an amendment:

“I think we have to be very respectful of the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. This court in a unanimous decision has stated that it is discriminatory to deny people rights that they’re given under the current Constitution,” [Culver] said.

Culver released a statement accepting the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling on April 7, four days after the court announced its decision. Most other prominent Iowa Democrats reacted more quickly, but Culver told the Des Moines Register that he didn’t want to make a “knee-jerk reaction”:

“I think it’s appropriate to take as much time as necessary, and in my case about four days, to thoroughly read the decision. … It’s 69 pages long. It involves a lot of complex legal arguments on both sides,” he said.

Culver said he sat down with Attorney General Tom Miller on Monday to talk about the ruling. He had conversations with other “interested parties.” He read many of the “thousands” of messages his office received.

Truth be told, I want to believe Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08’s hunch about the reason for the delay:

Hopefully […] this means they conducted a quickie poll and found little enthusiasm for amending the constitution.

Iowa Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal is on a tear this week. On Monday he rejected Republican efforts to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Senate floor. Read his remarks here (scroll to the bottom) or watch the video:

On Tuesday Gronstal in effect dared conservatives to push for a Constitutional Convention, which might consider adopting an amendment to ban gay marriage. From the Des Moines Register:

“I’m inclined to hope they succeed, if that’s their strategy,” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, who has saluted Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage. “There’s a lot of good, progressive issues that we could pursue: a woman’s right to choose, guaranteed health care for all Iowa citizens, workers’ rights – so if there are people that want to help us get to a constitutional convention, that’s kind of my dream world.”

If Iowa voters approve a ballot initiative next November on calling a Constitutional Convention, the Iowa legislature will draw up rules for selecting delegates to that body. If the convention approves proposed constitutional amendments, a special election will be scheduled, and voters will consider each amendment separately, not as a bloc.

Some Iowa Republicans don’t sound eager to roll the dice on this procedure:

Sen. Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said he will likely vote against holding a convention. “We have bumps in the road but we’re operating pretty well without going in and messing with the Constitution,” Wieck said.

Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley said he will continue to push for a second route toward a constitutional amendment on gay marriage: votes by the Iowa House and Iowa Senate in two consecutive general assemblies followed by a vote of the people.

But McKinley understands why some might have an interest in a constitutional convention.

“I think the reason there is some appeal at least on the surface is citizens feel very disenfranchised from their government,” McKinley said. “Democracies are crazy things. Sometimes the people want to do things that maybe the elites don’t agree with.”

Although I’m confident that over time a large majority of Iowans will come to support marriage equality, I confess that I am a bit nervous about the issue coming to a statewide vote in 2010 or 2011. At the same time, like Gronstal, I can imagine lots of good amendments that might come out of a Constitutional Convention.

Share any relevant thoughts or speculation in this thread.

Governor Chet Culver released a statement today confirming that he will not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Iowa. The governor said his personal faith still holds that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and he emphasized that the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien

reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision does not require that churches recognize marriages between persons of the same gender or officiate over such unions.

After reassuring Iowans that religious marriage is not affected by the ruling, the governor noted:

Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.

“As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

I’ve posted the full text of Culver’s statement after the jump.

Here’s to the governor for doing the right thing.  Republicans will hammer Culver for not doing “whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman,” but they weren’t voting for him anyway.

More important, as Attorney General Tom Miller noted last Friday, the court issued a unanimous “clear and well-reasoned opinion.” Social conservatives don’t have to change their religious beliefs, but their faith-based objections to gay unions are not grounds to deny other citizens the benefits of civil marriage. Marriage equality does not threaten heterosexual marriage in any way.  

I cross-posted my piece on amending the Iowa Constitution at Daily Kos last night, and Daily Kos user InMyLifeIowa wrote,

this weekend I received two robo calls wanting me to call my leaders to tell them not to support gay marriage. I hung up. Not even worth listening to it.

If you get a robocall on this issue, please do not hang up the phone. Grab something to write with, take detailed notes, and post a diary here afterwards. Be sure to listen until the very end of the call, when they are supposed to indicate who paid for the call and provide a phone number.

Click here for more advice on what to do if you get push-polled on this or any other issue. We need to know what opponents of marriage equality are doing in Iowa.

If you are a respondent for a legitimate survey about gay marriage in Iowa, please write down as much as you can remember about the questions and the firm conducting the survey. Last week I wrote up a Republican poll on the 2010 gubernatorial race in Iowa. If you write up a current poll in that level of detail, I will promote your diary to the front page of Bleeding Heartland.

There’s nothing opponents of marriage equality can do to stop gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Iowa starting on April 24. Over at Daily Kos, Wee Mama posted information about getting a marriage license in Iowa for those who live elsewhere. If you would like to have a religious ceremony, I recommend contacting The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa for help in finding a sympathetic officiant, most likely to be from a United Church of Christ, United Methodist or Unitarian Universalist congregation. Couples wanting a Jewish wedding should contact Rabbi David Kaufman of Temple B’nai Jeshurun in Des Moines, if at least one partner is Jewish and the couple is open to raising children as Jews. Rabbi Kaufman has officiated at a same-sex commitment ceremony and published this blog post on Friday demolishing the arguments against legalizing gay marriage in Iowa.

The political battle over marriage equality will go on for a long time after wedding bells start ringing.

After the jump I will bring you up to date on prospects for amending Iowa’s constitution and the latest statewide opinion poll on same-sex marriage.

UPDATE: Scroll to the bottom of this post to read a very strong statement Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal released the evening of April 6.  

Oliver Willis concisely summarized the religious right’s reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien:

People getting married: clearly the worst thing in the world. If they’re gay.

I laughed, but in truth it’s not that simple. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza sees the case as “one of those critical moments in the making of the next Republican presidential nominee.” He quotes likely repeat candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee reacting negatively to the ruling.

I’m more interested in how the battle over marriage equality will affect the balance of forces within the Republican Party of Iowa as its leaders attempt to climb out of the very deep hole they’re in.

Join me after the jump for more on the conservative Republican response to Friday’s events. I didn’t see any Republican moderates speaking out in support of the unanimous ruling. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I would like to give credit to such brave souls if they are out there. It’s worth noting that Republican Governor Terry Branstad appointed two of the seven current Supreme Court justices, including the author of the Varnum v Brien decision, Mark Cady.

Numerous politicians and interest groups have issued statements since the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously paved the way for legal gay marriage by striking down Iowa’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. Iowa Politics has links to many of the statements, as well as Iowa blog posts on today’s ruling, and I’ve also received some statements via e-mail.

Click “there’s more” to read the statements from key Iowa Democrats and watch a video featuring the only openly gay Iowa legislator.

I will write a separate post later on Republican reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a lower-court ruling that struck down Iowa’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act. Various legal experts who watched the oral arguments in December expected the plaintiffs in Varnum v Brien to prevail, but it is still very welcome news for marriage equality supporters across the country.

High traffic has been interfering with the Iowa Supreme Court’s server (Bleeding Heartland’s too!), but the Iowa Politics site has created pdf files you can download if you want to read the Supreme Court’s summary and/or the full text of the opinion.

Rallies celebrating the freedom to marry in Iowa will take place in many locations today. Go to the One Iowa website for event details. Many business owners will also be celebrating today, because the wedding and hospitality industries will benefit from a wave of same-sex marriages across the state.

State budget revenues will increase as well. Last year the Williams Institute at UCLA law school considered the economic impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry in Iowa and concluded:

Using the best data available, we estimate that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in a net gain of approximately $5.3 million each year for the State. This net impact will be the result of savings in expenditures on state means-tested public benefit programs and an increase in state income and sales tax revenue.

The Republican Party of Iowa will surely be leading a charge to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, but Iowa is not California. It’s a lot harder to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot here. An amendment banning gay marriage would need to be approved by two consecutive legislative sessions (the 2009/2010 session and the 2011/2012 session) before going to the public in a general-election referendum. So, the earliest Iowa voters would be able to weigh in on this issue would be in November 2011.

I heard on Iowa Public Radio this morning that legislative leaders say there is no time to consider an amendment on marriage this year. The legislative session is scheduled to end within a couple of weeks, and the “funnel” date by which bills had to clear a legislative committee passed nearly a month ago.

The 56-44 Democratic majority in the Iowa House may or may not be solid on this issue, but I believe that the 32-18 Democratic majority in the Iowa Senate will be enough to block any Proposition 8-style constitutional amendment during the 2010 session. (UPDATE: After reading today’s joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy, I am convinced that a constitutional amendment on this issue is going nowhere in 2010.)

Even if Republicans made electoral gains on this issue and picked up seats in November 2010, they would have to get a constitutional amendment through the 2011-2012 legislature and the 2013-2014 legislature before the amendment could get on the ballot. That would mean Iowans could vote on same-sex marriage rights in November 2013. By that time I believe support for gay marriage will have grown substantially.

No doubt we will soon see new Iowa polls on the marriage equality issue. I’ll be interested to see whether the coverage of the Varnum v. Brien case has moved public opinion since a Big Ten poll in October 2008 found that 28 percent of Iowans supported gay marriage, with another 30 percent in favor of same-sex civil unions.

In February I posted some links on making the case for marriage equality, which may be helpful if you have friends or relatives who are upset by the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling. An important point to stress is that this judgment relates to civil marriage. It does not require any clergy to officiate at same-sex marriages, or any church to recognize them.

Also, the Iowa Supreme Court can’t force anyone to approve of gay marriages. As I wrote in December,

Most of us can think of marriages we don’t approve of. Depending on your values, that could be 17-year-olds who dropped out of high school, a couple who are several decades apart in age, a professor marrying a former student, an impulsive remarriage after someone was widowed, an “open marriage” between non-monogamous heterosexuals, or a person who appears to have married a rich person for money. I know people who disapprove of my own marriage, because my husband is not Jewish. But no one would dispute that all of these marriages are valid under state law.

In an ideal world, I would want everyone to accept all loving couples and not be judgmental, but I think we need people to understand that they can still disapprove of gay marriage, even if it is legal. Widespread tolerance of gay relationships would be great, but it is not essential.

Please share your thoughts on the legal and political implications of today’s ruling. My overwhelming feeling is that it’s a great day to be an Iowan!

I’ll put up a post later today with early reaction to the ruling.

I received an e-mail from One Iowa announcing that the Iowa Supreme Court will hand down its ruling in the Varnum v. Brien same-sex marriage case tomorrow (April 3). The court heard oral arguments in the case in December. Frankly, I was hoping the ruling would come out after the legislature had adjourned, but no matter what the court decides or when it announces the ruling, the political battle over gay marriage will continue in Iowa.

Bleeding Heartland user jpmassar went over the legal issues concerning Varnum v Brien here. Daily Kos user Osorio also wrote a good legal primer on this case.

Click here to read my summary of the main points from the oral arguments, along with some analysis of the hearing.

I’ll put up a post as soon as I can tomorrow once the ruling becomes public.

Win or lose, One Iowa is planning to hold rallies in the following cities: Ames, Cedar Falls/Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Decorah, Des Moines, Iowa City, Grinnell/Newton, Mason City, Quad Cities and Sioux City. Go here to sign up to attend one of these rallies.

UPDATE: I posted a press release from I’M for Iowa after the jump. Ed Fallon voted against Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act when he served in the Iowa House.  

If you know of an event I’ve left out, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Monday, February 23:

From Iowa Global Warming:

February- Leadership for Coal and Climate

A chance for informed and concerned citizens to take concrete action.

This is your Invitation:

An Iowa Activist Evening

Iowa Global Warming Offices

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

6:00PM

505 5th Avenue Suite 333

Des Moines

   Limited Seating

Please RSVP (515) 244-3113 cucles@iowaglobalwarming.org

Implemting ICCAC Recommendations

How we can stop the Marshalltown Plant

Send your voice to Washington

Get High Speed Rail Service to Des Moines

Screening of “Fighting Goliath” A short film about the fight for coal in texas. Food and film snacks will be provided.

Sponsors: Sierra Club, Iowa Interfaith Power & Light, Iowa Global Warming Campaign, Sierra Student Coalition.

There is a PFLAG meeting featuring One Iowa regional organizer, Ryan Crane, at  St. Benedict’s Catholic Church, 309 W. Main St. in Decorah, 7 pm.

Wednesday, February 25:

Friends of Iowa Midwives is having its lobby day at the state capitol from 10 am to 3 pm. To register, or for more information, email info@friendsofiowamidwives.org, or click here:

http://www.friendsofiowamidwiv…

Thursday, February 26:

From One Iowa:

As Iowa Goes So Goes the Nation Symposium: Varnum v. Brien and its Impact on Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples

Sponsored by the Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice and featuring a keynote by Dan Savage

University of Iowa School of Law, Iowa City

Click here for more information or to register.

Someone post a diary afterwards to tell us how Dan Savage did!

From the Center on Sustainable Communities:

Leadership Forum on Sustainable Building With Marc Richmond Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:45am – 2:00pm

LOCATION: Raccoon River Park Nature Lodge, 2500 Grand Avenue in West Des Moines.

PROGRAM: As Iowa’s leading resource on sustainable building education, COSC is conducting a Leadership Forum with Marc Richmond for Iowa’s business leaders, community leaders, state agency leaders, and policy makers.  The session will define the key components of sustainable building and illustrate strategies for building sustainable communities based on national models.

You will find more information at www.icosc.com.

Friday, February 27:

The symposium on Varnum v Brien continues at the University of Iowa law school.

Saturday, February 28:

Democracy for America is holding its acclaimed Training Academy in Des Moines on Saturday, February 28 and Sunday, March 1. Click here for more details. Iowa blogger noneed4thneed will be there!

The Polk County Soil and Water Conservation District is sponsoring a “sustainable living seminar” for “everyone interested in gardening, landscaping, conservation, and the environment” at DMACC from 9:30 am to 2:30 pm. I put the full agenda after the jump–looks like a great program.

Saw this on the Sierra Club Iowa Topics list:

Plymouth Church UCC, Des Moines, Green Team will sponsor the showing of the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” after the Saturday evening Service (service 5:30-6:30) on February 28. “This 2006 documentary film explores the creation, limited commercialization, and subsequent destruction of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s.  The film explores the roles of automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology.” Admission is free. Plymouth Church is located at the corner of 42nd and Ingersoll Avenue in Des Moines.  The church is 2 blks south of the 42nd St exit of I-235.  The Green Team has a new blog on the Plymouth website: plymouthgreen.org where they discuss “our own struggles with adopting a greener lifestyle and welcome your comments.”  Plymouth Church is a Cool Congregation.

In December the Sioux City Council tabled a resolution defining marriage as between a man and a woman in order to seek an opinion from the Iowa Attorney General’s office on the legality of such a measure.

On Monday night, however, three of the five City Council members got tired of waiting for the opinion and passed the resolution in a packed room. The other two council members voted no because local authorities lack legal standing on this issue, but according to the Sioux City Journal, they emphasized that they do not support same-sex marriage.

The resolution has no legal force, and I find it ironic that the self-styled crusaders against “judicial activism” want to use local government to weigh in on a matter outside its jurisdiction. Supporters of the resolution note that it asks the state legislature to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to oppose same-sex marriage. City councils have often requested legislative action on this or that issue.

Those who support same-sex marriage need to be ready for a lot more battles like this if the Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in the Varnum v Brien case later this year. The religious right will lean hard on local officials and state legislators to demand a constitutional amendment. We will need to persuade not only elected officials, but also our friends and relatives who may eventually vote on the matter.

One Iowa executive director Carolyn Jenison is absolutely right to call the Sioux City Council’s resolution “divisive, demeaning, and shameful” as well as “mean-spirited.”

I also think ridicule can be a potent weapon, as Sioux City resident Brian Vakulskas demonstrated with a comment posted on the front page of the Sioux City Journal’s website:  

Every time I swerve to miss a pothole in Sioux City, I take solace in the fact that the City Council has defined marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman.

Daily Kos user Lava20 recently posted some tips on how to talk with opponents of gay marriage.

You can get involved with One Iowa or one of the PFLAG chapters in Iowa if this issue is important to you.

There are of course no guarantees that the Iowa Supreme Court will permit same-sex marriage, but I am hopeful that the ruling will be favorable. Even if the religious right and their allies manage to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot, I am hopeful that the effort can be defeated. Once people realize that the sky didn’t fall because some couples made their lifetime commitments official, the public backlash against gay marriage will be limited.

For your times they are a-changin’ file, I offer this story. A couple of weeks ago I ran into two women who recently became engaged, anticipating a favorable outcome in Varnum v Brien. (They have been together for a long time.) They have started looking at wedding dresses, and while shopping around they stopped in a store in a relatively small city (population under 30,000, and not a liberal college town).  Apparently the main reaction of the shop owner there was, “Cha-ching! Two dresses!”

I believe the majority of Iowans will accept gay marriage within a few years if it becomes legal.

Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I’ve linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I’ll do a review of Bleeding Heartland’s 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

You can use the search engine on the left side of the screen to look for past Bleeding Heartland diaries about any person or issue.

It’s been a week since the Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Varnum v Brien. You can view the video of the proceedings here (scroll down the page). For three different analyses of the legal issues in this case, see the legal primers that jpmassar and Osorio wrote before the Supreme Court hearing, or this piece Chase Martyn published today.

Grant Schulte of the Des Moines Register summarized the key points raised by each side in this article. Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle argued that:

*the district court judge erroneously threw out expert testimony;

*the Polk County recorder being sued had no choice but to follow the Defense of Marriage Act;

*allowing same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy becoming legal;

*allowing same-sex marriage could hurt children being raised by heterosexual parents;

*allowing same-sex marriage could hurt the institution of marriage, because future generations would know marriage is no longer about procreation;

*the Iowa legislature (not courts) should decide this matter.

Dennis Johnson, the attorney for the six couples seeking marriage rights, argued that:

*Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection and due process provisions of Iowa’s Constitution;

*arguments about potential damage to the institution of marriage are “highly speculative”;

*the district court judge was right to reject the expert testimony concerning the benefits of having a mother and a father;

*marriage is not about procreation, because Iowa issues marriage licenses to many people who cannot have children or who would be bad parents (e.g. sex offenders);

*Iowa already permits same-sex couples to be foster parents and adopt children;

*gay marriage would not lead to legalizing marriages between more than two people.

Drake University Law Professor Sally Frank wrote a brief play-by-play of the arguments, which she observed from the courtroom. (Side note: Iowans may not be aware that Frank is well-known for filing the lawsuit that ended gender discrimination at Princeton University’s eating clubs.) I agree with Frank’s comments about the weakest point for plaintiffs’ attorney Johnson:

The lawyer for the Plaintiffs’ (six couples seeking marriage) […] had a little trouble distinguishing his argument that marriage was a fundamental right that could not be limited to heterosexuals from the question of polygamists also having a fundamental right to marry. At one point though, he pointed out that no other Iowa laws that deal with marriage in any way would need to be changed if same sex couples were allowed to marry. This would not be the case with polygamy.

When questioned about whether Iowa would be forced to permit polygamy if the court allowed gay marriage, Johnson’s first response was to say that marriage had always been about two individuals–not strong turf when the rest of your case holds that the tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman is not sufficient grounds to deny same-sex couples those rights. He was correct to point out shortly thereafter that certain laws (e.g. related to custody or inheritance) would have to be changed if Iowa allowed polygamy.

Several people I’ve spoken with felt that Kuhle, who is an excellent attorney, was not at the top of his game last Tuesday while being questioned by the judges. They speculated that either he did not prepare enough or did not believe all of the arguments he was making.

The Iowa City Press-Citizen editorial board said watching the arguments made them

even more confused as to what compelling interest the state has in denying otherwise qualifying same-sex partners from applying for and receiving a state marriage license.

The Des Moines Register editorial board also felt many of Kuhle’s arguments were weak:

If the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately upholds Iowa’s law limiting marriage to a man and a woman, it will have to have a better reason than the one offered by defenders of the law at Tuesday’s oral argument.

Legal experts quoted in this article by Jason Hancock said they could not tell how the court will rule on this case from observing the oral arguments.

As a non-lawyer, I found it difficult to follow some of the discussion during the hearing. At Iowa Independent, Lynda Waddington wrote a good piece explaining the significance of all that talk over whether the court should apply a “rational basis” or a “strict scrutiny” standard in this case. She interviewed former Iowa Supreme Court judge Mark McCormick:

“The Court has decided quite a number of equal protection clause cases,” said McCormick. “A good deal of what the court does in [those] cases depends on what the test or standard is.”

When a case involves a routine economic issue, the court typically applies a rational basis test, he said. That means the judges seek to decide if the Legislature could have had any reasonable basis for making the classification that it did. If the judges conclude that the state had a rational reason for the law, the court won’t interfere with it, but will defer to the Legislature.

“Strict scrutiny” is a more demanding standard, he said.

“Where you are dealing with an issue like race or citizenship or something that is considered a fundamental constitutional right, the burden is on the government to prove a compelling need for the classification,” he explained.

Some prominent social conservatives in Iowa expect the court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, clearing a path to same-sex marriage in this state.

University of Iowa law professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig told the Iowa City Press-Citizen that she also expects the state law to be overturned. The same article noted that while the legal arguments made in this case resemble those made in other states, the attorneys for the plaintiffs also relied on legal precedents specific to Iowa:

Camilla Taylor, a senior staff attorney with Lambda Legal and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, foresees several possible outcomes of the hearing.

She said there could be an outright win or loss, the case could be remanded back to trial court to hear from more witnesses, or the court could duplicate rulings on similar cases in New Jersey and Vermont.

In those states, the courts granted civil unions but did not rule on the issue of gay marriage. Taylor said she expected the Legislatures in Vermont and New Jersey to draft legislation supporting same-sex marriage, thus taking it out of the court’s hands.

Taylor said she doubted the Iowa Supreme Court would use the last two options.

“Most likely it will be an outright win because of constitutional precedent. The cases we are relying on are very strong,” she said. “I don’t want to sound presumptuous, but I am optimistic because of the Iowa cases we are relying on.”

Meanwhile, Kate and Trish Varnum, whose name has become famous because of this case, just want to get married.

Whatever the state Supreme Court decides, gay marriage is not going away as a political issue anytime soon in Iowa.

Yesterday the Sioux City Council tabled a resolution that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman:

Instead, the council will seek an attorney general’s opinion about whether a city council can legally pass such a resolution and whether doing so would open the city up to litigation.

The Iowa branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has already come out against the Sioux City proposal, so the idea of litigation against the city is not far-fetched.

Arguments about gay parenting and whether homosexuality should be “normalized” in public schools will likely be prominent in next year’s school board elections. By a 6-1 vote on Monday, the Ankeny school board

denied a request by parents who said “And Tango Makes Three,” a children’s book about two male penguins that raise a chick together, should be off-limits to elementary school students.

Looking beyond Iowa, I imagine that Newsweek’s mailroom is having a busy week after the magazine published a cover story on gay marriage by religion editor Lisa Miller. The opening passage is sure to anger many:

Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel-all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments-especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. “It is better to marry than to burn with passion,” says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple-who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love-turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

This is an open thread for any comments about the politics or the legal issues surrounding the marriage equality debate.

As always, post a comment or drop me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if I’ve left anything out.

Monday, December 15:

One Iowa and Lambda Legal are organizing a townhall forum to celebrate and discuss the oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court in the landmark Varnum v. Brien case. RSVP not required for townhall forums.

Council Bluffs Townhall Forum

Monday, Dec. 15, 2008 – 6:30-7:30 PM

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, 22 Dillman

For more information, contact One Iowa at organize@oneiowa.org or 515-288-4019

From the Iowa Environmental Council’s e-mail bulletin:

Missouri River Group Meeting

December 15-18, Omaha

The new Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee, also known as MRRIC, has scheduled another meeting. The Committee is made up of Federal, State, and Tribal Representatives as well as stakeholders, with an interest in the river, from throughout the basin. The purpose of MRRIC is to offer guidance to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service on future management of the Missouri River. The Committee will offer advice on the recovery process for the three Endangered Species on the river. Those include; the interior least tern, piping plover and the pallid sturgeon. MRRIC will also look at possible social, cultural and economic impacts of the recovery process on people in the basin. The next meeting of MRRIC will be December 15th to the 18th in Omaha. To learn more and to get involved, go to: www.mrric.org

Tuesday, December 16:

Reservations are due for the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa’s Crossroads luncheon on Friday (see below).

From the Center on Sustainable Communities:

Eco-Friendly Home Product Showcase

DATE: Tuesday, December 16, 2008

TIME: 11:30am – 1:30pm

LOCATION:

Meredith Corporation

1716 Locust St.

Des Moines, IA

Meredith Corporation is inviting all COSC members to a showcase of

the latest and greatest environmentally friendly home products.

Join us at a green trade show on

December 16th from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

at Meredith Corporation, 1716 Locust St.

Be sure to stop by to learn about what’s new in green building.  If you plan to attend,

please RSVP to Jenny McCoy at Jennifer.mccoy@meredith.com.  She can

provide more information about the event location and parking.

Center On Sustainable Communities

219 1/2 Fifth Street, Suite A

Historic Valley Junction

West Des Moines, Iowa 50265

(515) 277-6222

1000 Friends of Iowa is presenting the 2008 Best Development Awards:

   * New Residential: Upper Mississippi Valley Redevelopment Company, 1820 East Thirteenth Street, Village of East Davenport Development in Davenport, Iowa

   * Renovated Residential: The HEART Program’s Washington Street Project in Dubuque, Iowa

   * Renovated Commercial/Civic: M+ Architects, ISU Design West development in Sioux City, Iowa

   * New Commercial/Civic: RDG Planning & Design, Marion Arts and Environmental Center at Lowe Park in Marion, Iowa

   * Mixed Use: LADCO Development, Village of Ponderosa in West Des Moines, Iowa

   * Leadership: City of Iowa City, Iowa City Subdivision Code in Iowa City, Iowa

The awards ceremony will be held on December 16, 2008 at 6:30 p.m., at RDG Planning & Design, 301 Grand Avenue, 2nd floor in downtown Des Moines, IA 50309. Parking is available behind the building.

One Iowa and Lambda Legal have another townhall forum scheduled:

Sioux City Townhall Forum

Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2008 – 6:30-7:30 PM

Public Library, Glesson Room, 529 Pierce St.

RSVP not required, but for more information, contact One Iowa at organize@oneiowa.org or 515-288-4019

Wednesday, December 17:

It’s the last day to submit nominations for Talking Points Memo’s “Golden Duke Awards.” For more information, click here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…

Friday, December 19:

From the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa:

Migration, Marriage, and Much More!

Making a Difference

Judie Hoffman , TIA Iowa Action Fund Lobbyist

Brad Clark, One Iowa

Brenda Kole, Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa

Judie Hoffman and Friends will discuss the 2009 Legislative Agenda of The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund and other progressive ally organizations.  Learn about the issues and how you can join with other progressive voices of faith & goodwill from across the state and make a difference.

The Crossroads monthly luncheon is Friday, December 19 from 11:45 am – 1 pm at Plymouth Congregational Church, 42nd & Ingersoll Avenue, Des Moines.

Reservations are required to attend Crossroads and must be received by noon on Tuesday, December 16.  Cost is $8 and is payable at the door. If you make a reservation and are unable to attend, payment for the reservation is appreciated.

For more information or to make a reservation, call (515) 279-8715 or email tiaiowa@dwx.com.

Sunday, December 21:

From the Iowa Renewable Energy Association:

Join I-Renew to Celebrate Renewable Energy on Winter Solstice. Festivities include: Live Music! Free Giveaways! Silent Auction with great renewable holiday gifts! Discussion and fun with like-minded folks interested in renewable energy! The event is on Sunday December 21 at 6:00 PM at the Mill Restaurant, 120 E. Burlington St. Iowa City. The funds raised at the event will go toward I-Renew’s work educating Iowans about sustainable energy production and use. If you would like to donate silent auction items, help promote the event, get more information about sponsorship opportunities, or have any questions, please contact the I-Renew office at:(319) 643-3160 or by emailing irenew@irenew.org.

At 10 am central time this morning, the Iowa Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Varnum v Brien, a case in which six couples are challenging Iowa’s law declaring that “Only a marriage between a male and female is valid.” Polk County has appealed a district judge’s ruling last year that the statute is unconstitutional. Last night jpmassar published a good overview of the legal issues underlying Judge Robert Hanson’s ruling as well as the county’s defense of the statute. (See also Osorio’s legal primer on the case.)

If you like, you can watch a livestream of the oral arguments at the Iowa Supreme Court’s website as well as at several other media sites. You can download pdf files of the district court ruling and the briefs submitted to the Iowa Supreme Court on appeal here.

My focus in this diary is not the legal arguments, but the political case that will need to be made for marriage equality once the Supreme Court has ruled on Varnum v Brien several months from now. Follow me after the jump for more.