Activists wave flags before the start of a rally in Iowa City celebrating Iowa Supreme Court ruling upholding a lower court decision legalizing same sex marriage, April 3.
(Liz Martin/ The Gazette/ AP/ File)Photos (1 of 1)
Gay marriage foe announces its next big target: Iowa
One of the groups behind California's Proposition 8 said this week that it will seek to ban same-sex marriage in the state through a referendum. The state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in April.
By Michael B. Farrell | Staff writer/ August 25, 2009 edition
San Francisco
One of the country’s leading groups against gay marriage has announced its intention to lead a revolt against same-sex marriage in Iowa.
Its goal is to put a referendum on the state ballot to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision this April that legalized marriages between same-sex couples.
The issue would most likely not come to a vote for another two years. But the decision instantly makes Iowa a central front in the battle to either curtail or expand gay marriage.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is leading the effort in Iowa, says similar constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage have passed in 30 states – every state in which the question was put to voters. Now, the first Midwestern state to legalize gay marriage will be a test of that streak.
“Whenever we can go directly to the people, we’re confident that we can win,” says Brian Brown, executive director of NOM.
NOM’s push to overturn gay marriages in Iowa – which the group is calling the Reclaim Iowa Project – is part of larger national effort to “intervene not just in legislative debates, but also in key races across the country where a handful of house or senate seats could make the difference between whether a same-sex marriage bill or state marriage amendment passes or fails,” the group said in a statement.
This week, NOM began a $100,000 television and radio ad campaign in support of Stephen Burgmeier, a Republican and vocal opponent of gay marriage, who is running in a Sept. 1 special election for a seat in the Iowa House.
The importance that NOM is placing on that vote – to replace someone who accepted an Obama administration job – is indicative of how important the legislature will be to NOM’s effort. Proposals for amendments must pass the legislature twice before Iowans have their say.
“The battle in Iowa is a legislative battle now,” says Brown.
Gay marriage opponents want more Republicans in Des Moines in order to push through plans for a marriage referendum.
Meanwhile, gay rights groups are urging their supporters back the Democrat, Curt Hanson, and gearing up for plans to defend April’s Supreme Court ruling.
“It’s something we expected,” says Justin Uebelhor, communications director for One Iowa, a leading gay rights group in the state. “There’s a really good chance that Republicans will push this through the legislature next year.”
If there is a referendum, the issue would be central to Iowa’s upcoming gubernatorial race, too, since it would take at least two years to put the question to voters.
The fight could have ripple effects across the country.
When the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a statute limiting civil marriages to heterosexual couples violated the Iowa constitution, it was a major victory for gay-marriage advocates. It brought same-sex marriage to the heartland and soon thereafter three other states – Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire – legalized gay marriages.
Six states now allow same-sex marriage.
But where gay-rights groups see success, organizations like NOM see courts and legislatures making decisions counter to most Americans’ values.
NOM was one of the main backers of Proposition 8 in California, which banned gay marriage after the state Supreme Court legalized those marriages. Earlier this year, that same court upheld the voter-approved initiative.
Comments
2. Chris | 08.26.09
Reminds me of when mixed race marriage was illegal. There were plenty of folk against legalising that too. But people have short memories.. The marriage of Obama’s parents was actually illegal in several US states at the time.
3. Tim | 08.26.09
Iowa has always been on the forefront of civil rights. We were one of the original abolitionist states. We were a major hub in the underground railroad. We were one of the first states to allow interracial marriage. And now we are one of the first to allow gay marriage. As an Iowan, I am proud of our history of civil rights leadership. I think NOM may be surprised to find out just how progressive we are here.
I, for one, will be voting in favor of keeping same sex marriage legal in Iowa. I hope it does not come to a vote, and the legislature accepts that it is a civil rights issue, not a political one.
4. Teressa Spencer | 08.26.09
I can’t believe that groups like NOM get their jollies out of fighting against two people in a loving, committed relationship for life. Hmm, fighting against love. I guess that’s what churches and social militants have become these days. Kind of like Iran.
I say, if you don’t like the idea of same sex marriage, don’t enter into one.
6. Denis | 08.26.09
Homosexuality is not a civil rights issue. It is a morality issue. Voters are beginning to wise up to the ploy by activist homosexual groups to disguise it as a civil rights issue.
7. Tilliespants | 08.26.09
I believe in God and the philosphy of marriage between Adam and Eve …not Adam and Steve! Something to do with creating a family as God intended.
8. Phillip M. | 08.26.09
Whether or not to allow gay marriage is a policy issue not a civil rights issue.
We should look at the institution of federal marriage recognition as a whole and debate whether it is even worth saving since divorce rates are so high.
9. Amy | 08.27.09
@Denis
It sounds like your are arguing against homosexuality, more than gay marriage. FYI, sodomy laws are non-existent now, even in conservative Texas, where I live.
Quoted from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law):
In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that state laws criminalizing private, non-commercial sexual activity between consenting adults at home on the grounds of morality are unconstitutional since there is insufficient justification for intruding into people’s liberty and privacy.
In other words, morality doesn’t define law.
10. DeeH | 08.27.09
I wonder if this is journalism (unbiased reporting) or if it’s merely The Christian Science Monitor stating its religious bias against gays?
11. Kate Hall | 08.27.09
To all those using the bible or their belief in God as justification for the continued condemnation of gay marriage, can you please bring evidence accepted by all to control people’s personal lives? I’m an athiest, which is not really the point, but I’m tired of justifications based on a belief system I, and many others, don’t acknowledge. Anything else is just forcing others to live by your religious preferences, something specifically avoided in this wonderful country. If you don’t want to recognize their marriage, then don’t, and if your church refuses to marry gay couples - fine, but state laws should in no way reflect values specifically based on religious documents and stories (ala Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve).
12. Linda | 08.27.09
@Denis
Civil rights is the class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from the government, and state power, to insure the ability to participate fully in the civil and political life of the state. They include due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
How is a ban on marriage not a violation of civil rights? How is being kicked out of the military for sexual orientation not a violation of the right to participate fully in the state?
Marriage is a civil institution. Religious ceremonies sanctifying marriage are separate from civil law. If your religion does not approve of gay marriage that’s fine, it is a tenant of your religion. When people can marry in a Satanist temple as long as they are of different gender, it kind of hard to argue that God defines what civil policy should be.
13. Robert | 08.28.09
If this is about equality, then why do blacks refuse to accept homosexual marriage? Why is it that the race that has been most victim to inequality does not want to support homosexuals’ political ambitions?
14. Nassau County Civic Association, Inc. | 08.29.09
Marriage is an issue of public policy. It is not a right. The question is simple, what is the benefit of marriage to our society as a whole? The answer; it is the bedrock of the nuclear family. While other situations exist in terms of raising children, they are not optimal in comparison to a traditional family. This is why society through the use of public policy, ie tax laws, benefits, etc has encouraged the most effective model of society, the traditional family. As to the false claim of discrimination, please see an excerpt from the top court of New York.
“First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. … The Legislature could [also] rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.”
“The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.”
15. Teressa Spencer | 08.31.09
Rep. John Lewis, longtime ally and close associate of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., has said,
“I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism.”
I think he has more credibility on the subject of civil rights than any of you.
16. Tony M. | 08.31.09
Let’s not even start on “sanctity of marriage” or “optimal family unit” type arguments.
You know who else thinks marriage is sacred? Linda Lou Taylor, an Indiana woman who has been married 23 times. One of her marriages lasted 36 hours. Her most recent marriage was a publicity stunt. Glynn “Scotty” Wolfe was the most married man in the world when he made his 29th trip down the aisle with Taylor. They thought it would be “fun” to be in the Guinness World Records together. I cannot fathom how this is sacred. Taylor can’t remember her husbands’ names in order, yet all her relationships were legally valid. But it is gay couples who somehow diminish marriage?
Or how about Liz Taylor? Or Britney Spears’ two-week marriage and ensuing reality TV show about it. The entire concept of ‘The Bachelor’ and ‘The Bachelorette,’ ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8,’ etc.
Heterosexuals don’t have much credibility trotting out such arguments after what they’ve done with marriage.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Gay marriage foe announces its next big target: Iowa | csmonitor.com « Meanings of Words | 08.30.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Phil | 08.25.09
• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
• Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.