An Iowa Backlash?

So now that the Iowa Supreme Court has essentially legalized gay marriage, what's next? Some right-wingers (like Iowa Congressman Steve King and William Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation) are already promising to put a defense of marriage amendment in front of Iowa voters. But they have a long road ahead of them. Iowa law says that a constitutional ammendment must pass TWO consecutive sessions of the state legislature before it appears on a ballot. So the earliest one could see a DOMA on the ballot is 2011, but with Democrats in control of both houses and with both the House speaker and the Senate majority leader on record supporting the decision--there's virtually no chance that such an amendment would even come up for a vote this session.

That leaves the right-wing with a daunting task: defeat enough Democrats to take control of both houses (Dems currently enjoy a 56-44 and 32-18 advantage), replace them with Christian right Republicans who are willing to champion a marriage amendement and peel off enough remaining Democrats (to offset any moderate GOP defectors) to squeeze through four rounds of yes votes. Only then will they even have the chance to put the issue in front of voters--sometime in 2013 or 2014 if all the stars align. Then, they still have to win that campaign in a political climate in which increasing numbers of voters support gay rights. Oh yeah, and the vote will take place after Iowans have witnessed 5-6 years of ho-hum same-sex nuptials of which the most radical, earth-shaking element is that one of the grooms is a 50-year old church organist named Otter Dreaming (one of the named appellees in the Iowa decision). As Ari Berman points out, Iowa isn't exactly the hotbed of culture war antagonism--despite being square one for GOP presidential wrangling--so my strong hunch is that Mr. Dreaming's marriage will endure at least any legal and political challenges.

So with the Prop 8 route effectively closed to them, what will Iowa's right wing do? They might try to mount a campaign to recall the "activist judges" that voted for same-sex marriage (one tactic recently suggested by Christian right activists in California). Except here they run into political and formal roadblocks. First, the decision was unanimous--signed by all seven justices on the court, including two appointed by a Republican governor (Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justice Mark Cady). It will be difficult for the right to smear any one of them in particular. Second, the justices are appointed by the governor, now Democrat Chet Culver, who isn't exactly a fan of gay marriage, but the idea that he'd refuse to reappoint any of these justices is laughable. Third, the Iowa right could try to impeach the justices as payback, but impeachment in Iowa requires a majority of the House and then conviction by 2/3 of the Senate. If the right has the votes to do that, they'd go after a DOMA in the first place.

There is one small avenue open to the right: Iowa's justices face the electorate in what's called a "retention election" (when voters give an up or down on keeping the justice; there are no opposition candidates). Three justices--David Baker, Ternus and Michael Streit--face retention elections in 2010, and it's possible the right will target them. But without a standard bearer, such a campaign could only take the form of a smear and would amount to political suicide in a national election year. Of course, that doesn't mean the GOP won't try it.

One thing to note briefly here is the positively Midwestern sturdiness of the Iowa Constitution and political system, which makes sure that impeachment and Constitutional amendments go through the democratic process. California: take note!

So, here's my guess as to what the right can and will do. They'll move to amend Iowa's marriage law so that it requires in-state residency. Currently, Iowa (like California and unlike Massachusetts) does not have any such restriction (prompting claims that Iowa will become the Mecca of gay marriage). Of course, because of the court's equal protection ruling, any such change will have to apply to both gay and straight couples, but the collateral benefit for the right would be in limiting the number of gay couples who can marry in Iowa and then sue in other states. But after thousands of out-of-state couples got married in CA and will likely stay married no matter how the CA Supreme Court rules on Prop 8's broader legality--there's not much use in raising this hurdle.

Then, there's the broader marriage map. Iowa is smack in the middle of a cluster of Midwestern states that are "undecided" on same-sex marriage. Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana--these states neither have state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage nor have legalized same-sex marriage or civil unions. Neither Indiana nor Illinois are facing immediate DOMA votes. But earlier this month, the right put up a DOMA in the Minnesota state legislature, like it has in every recent year only to fail each year to get it passed (or even out of committee in some years). But Minnesota this year is also considering bills to legalize gay marriage, create civil unions and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. So, expect the Iowa decision to reverberate in Minnesota in what promises to be a muddy slate of conflicting legislation.

Finally, there's the political calculus of how this will impact the Iowa GOP caucus in 2012. The ninja-like Mitt Romney is already out of the gate on this one, telling Chris Cillizza, "I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts." No word yet from Palin, Sanford, Jindal or Huckabee (who won Iowa in 2008). But it looks like Iowa 2012 could become a five way race to the top of homophobia hill, and since nationwide, voters of all persuasions rank gay marriage below the economy, war, terrorism, taxes and healthcare--whoever makes it there first will face a long drop later. That's good news.

Comments (39)

1. Three cheers for the judicial branch protecting the constitution in IOWA!

   Hip hip hooray

   Hip hip hooray

   Hip hip hooray!

   Boo on those that would segregate society based on a couple of lines from the mud hut dwellers.

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/03/2009 @ 4:54pm

2. Question:

   Has the divorce rate dropped post DOMA?

   If not, it appears to be an abject failure defending marriage.

   But a great "git out the vote" campaign for the fearful sheep.

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/03/2009 @ 4:57pm

3. My question to those who oppose same sex marriage, is why do you care? What is it that you fear?

   Posted by Extraneous at 04/03/2009 @ 5:01pm

4. "Same-sex 'marriage' continues to be a movement driven by a liberal judicial elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. The casual dismissal of the facts of human biology and thousands of years of human history, simply to pander to a small band of social radicals, is bizarre and indefensible," said Tony Perkins, FRC president.

   This is the fourth state supreme court to legalize same-sex marriage, FRC noted: So far, NO state has done so DEMOCRATICALLY!

   The real truth of the matter is that the Demoncrats and their social elitist friends such as the homosexual lobby continually LIE about upholding the constitution and the tenents of the rule of law consistently! They rail against "legislating morality" but wholely embrace judicial activism falsely legislating IMMORALITY!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/03/2009 @ 5:07pm

5. Posted by comancheamerican at 04/03/2009 @ 5:07pm

   And I thought all Americans were considered equal in the eyes of the law.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 04/03/2009 @ 5:26pm

6. Same-sex 'marriage' continues to be a movement driven by a liberal judicial elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well.

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/03/2009 @ 5:07pm

   A liberal judicial elite? Who is that? "activist judges"? I love the crazy jargon developed by the right to create fear of out of a non-issue.

   "determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well" How can you not laugh at the insanity of this statement? It amazes me that people actually buy this crap.

   Same sex marriage has absolutely no relavance to anyone except the two people being married.

   Posted by Extraneous at 04/03/2009 @ 5:46pm

7. What, pray tell (okay, bad pun)...is the 'homosexual lobby', Comanche? Sex toy manufacturers and lubricant vendors?

   I seriously, have NO IDEA what you mean when you say that.

   Posted by snowball666 at 04/03/2009 @ 5:

   It's the homosexuals trying replace the moral sanctions like marriage with their perversions.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 5:57pm

8. ComancheAmerican brings up an excellent point. Why can't we just wait for democracy to eventually bring equal rights to a minority group? I'm certain that if it weren't for the Liberal Elite artillery, the Activist Militias of the Civil War, slavery would have been democratically eliminated by 1974.

   Posted by cyrano at 04/03/2009 @ 6:10pm

9. It's the homosexuals trying replace the moral sanctions like marriage with their perversions.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 5:57pm |

   Marriage is a moral sanction? What the hell does that mean? Marriage is a contract, in the strictest sense of the word. With this decision, people's inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness moves one step closer to a universal truth in America. Being pissed off about that is the real perversion. Larry, why the hell do you care? Does this affect your marriage? Does it break your leg or pick your pocket, as Jefferson once referenced? If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry a guy.

   Posted by jmusolino at 04/03/2009 @ 6:50pm

10. Posted by cyrano at 04/03/2009 @ 6:10pm: I don't know if I would want to compare slavery to same sex marriage...

    The truth is, every time the same sex marriage issue goes before the people, it is defeated fair and square. Hint: It doesn't help your side to show video of the gay pride parade in SF... Though it IS entertaining in a weird sort of way.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/03/2009 @ 7:34pm

11. I am fully convinced--and there seems more than enough anecdotal evidence with Larry Craig, that goofy Colorado preacher, and numerous others--that people so vehemently against gay marriage (see Comanche Nation and the crank formerly known as LuvLiberty) are closeted homosexuals who hate themselves because they have been indoctrinated to hate themselves for being as god made them.

    Sad, really.

    Posted by onthehelm at 04/03/2009 @ 8:38pm

12. My question to those who oppose same sex marriage, is why do you care? What is it that you fear?

    Posted by Extraneous at 04/03/2009 @ 5:01pm

    Are you serious? This whole gay mess has little to do with getting access to secular "benefits" that straight people have, this has everything to do with the Church. The states can legalize gay "marriage" or "civil unions" and pass out marriage certificates all day long, but it won't get them the one thing they truly desire...to be accepted by all the main houses of worship.

    Posted by ACook at 04/03/2009 @ 9:20pm

13. Posted by onthehelm at 04/03/2009 @ 8:38pm

    No, the sad thing is that folks like you think people are "born" gay, even when science can't prove it.

    Posted by ACook at 04/03/2009 @ 9:22pm

14. "It's the homosexuals trying replace the moral sanctions like marriage with their perversions.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 5:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

    And that's what this is about, not the Constitution or the protection of marriage, but the bigotry of people like LL.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/03/2009 @ 9:51pm

15. Posted by ACook at 04/03/2009 @ 9:20pm

    Please conduct a Google search on "Annie Leibovitz and gay tax", do some reading and get back to us.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/03/2009 @ 10:18pm

16. to be accepted by all the main houses of worship.

    Posted by ACook at 04/03/2009 @ 9:20pm

    BS.

    The cons use some fancy dancing to hide their bigotry and fear of The Other.

    ANTI- do your perversions include doggy style? Anything other than missionary, with a sheet 'tween you and spousy, is perverted. So say Orthodox Jews I know. Can't argue with them, they have it straight from G-d. Shall we pass some laws?

    Hey Mr. Taliban, tally some perversions.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/04/2009 @ 04:27am

17. Posted by pyeatte at 04/03/2009 @ 7:34pm

    The Truth is; the referendums passed by "the people" are unconstitutional. So sayeth the Court. That is how the system works. That is how...how shall I put this....the tyranny of the majority is kept at bay.

    This time the tyranny of The Right.

    don't ya love that, Anti-nit?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/04/2009 @ 04:29am

18. ANTI, ACOOK, PYATTE;

    How many marriages have been saved by DOMA?

    Has DOMA reduced the rate of heterosexual divorce?

    If roughly 1/2 of heterosexual marriage ends in divorce, why the fight to keep others from joining in the fun? Obviously mawwage is not so sanctified that it cannot be sundered by Man.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/04/2009 @ 04:34am

19. The states can legalize gay "marriage" or "civil unions" and pass out marriage certificates all day long, but it won't get them the one thing they truly desire...to be accepted by all the main houses of worship.

    Posted by ACook at 04/03/2009 @ 9:20pm

    Really... Gays are just dying to be accepted in church? Wow, this gay-lesbian cabal you speak of are too clever by half.

    It has nothing to do with the church.

    The question that I've never heard a right-winger answer on this topic is how gay marriage would effect heterosexual marriage? I wonder why that is? Is it possible that Iowa will now have a spike in their numbers of heterosexual divorces?

    Maybe the right-wing cabal can "arrange" this so that they can "prove" gay marriage is truly 'scandalous.'

    Posted by erazma at 04/04/2009 @ 08:42am

20. I think you mean affect (unless you meant to imply that gay marriages will inspire Churchies to 'compete')..

    you're right....and while we're checking grammar and usage, I also used the verb 'are' with 'cabal' when I should have used 'is.' Now I feel better.

    Posted by erazma at 04/04/2009 @ 10:54am

21. Believe me when I say that same sex marriage is safe here in Iowa. In the heart of middle america. In the heart of the country. Same sex marriage is here to stay.

    Iowa has a "rock hard" (pun intended) State Constitution. Especially with all judges concurring. Finally some sanity. The rights of all minorities can now celebrate a victory for all of us.

    And I am a white anglo saxon male heterosexual with absolutely nothing to gain personally from this decision. Except the delight of sticking it to the right wing fascist christian religio extremists that would deign to control our lives.

    Well, and the hope that the reputation of white anglo saxon heterosexual males might be improved...

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/04/2009 @ 10:56am

22. And the idea of two gay women getting married and what they might do on their wedding night.. just.. well never mind..

    I'm such a dog!

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/04/2009 @ 11:11am

23. No hope for whitey, Chaos...not as long as Chuck Norris walks the earth.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/04/2009 @ 11:11am

    Damn! I just knew someone would bring that asshole up.. Crap. Him and Huckabee..

    I guess we have a lot of work to do.

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/04/2009 @ 11:17am

24. not as long as Chuck Norris walks the earth.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/04/2009 @ 11:11am |

    When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

    Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

    There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

    Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Chuck Norris.

    Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.

    Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.

    Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.

    Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice.

    There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist.

    When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.

    Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.

    Chuck Norris' hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.

    Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.

    Chuck Norris doesn't wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.

    Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.

    Chuck Norris does not get frostbite. Chuck Norris bites frost

    Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on Satellite TV.

    Contrary to popular belief, America is not a democracy, it is a Chucktatorship.

    Posted by Benchrest at 04/04/2009 @ 1:16pm

25. Posted by erazma at 04/04/2009 @ 08:42am: Why? A tradition that goes back several thousand years. I don't think we are wise enough to change that. We are just people after all, and human nature has not changed nor will it.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/04/2009 @ 2:01pm

26. "Except the delight of sticking it to the right wing fascist christian religio extremists that would deign to control our lives."

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/04/2009 @ 10:56am

    Yeah, that's what it's about. I'm neutral on gay marriage, though the civil unions for all argument does make some sense to me. I can see the upside: allowing gays to marry might be one step away from the overly promiscuous, instant gratification culture pushed on the kids by the MSM from the time they can walk.

    Gays advocating for gay marriage makes sense, and so does straights who want the same rights for gays. But for some on the Left, I don't know how many, that's not what it's about. Antisocs sixth sense is spot on, in this case.

    It never fails to nauseate me how the Lefties who want negotiations with the Taliban, and fawn and coo over the unwashed masses world over, almost all of whom are more "fascist religio extremist" than their bohunk American counterparts, cannot find an ounce of parity for their faithful country-mates.

    Where my real haters at?

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/04/2009 @ 3:09pm

27. "bear some resemblance to Black Shirts on patrol for cracking some skulls?"

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/04/2009 @ 4:39pm

    I wouldn't go that far. I'm not denying that there is anti-gay bigotry, though I'd bet most of it comes from not very religious redneck types.

    The concept of gay marriage is pretty new. The gay thing is still perceived by some as a purely sexual thang. Those parades don't help. Religious folk were likely bewildered on the sidelines of the initial AIDS crisis, overhearing internal arguments about whether having anonymous, unprotected sex in bath houses was prudent given the circumstances.

    That was then. Gays are winning now. Gay marriage is an inevitability. This is not to say that gays should just be patient and wait a few decades. The response to the large percentage of blacks that voted for Prop 8 was a lot of "we need to reach out to the black community." Can the white christian homies get some love?

    Instead of boiling down the hillbilly half to its dark, evil essence, persuade! Persuade, it's working!

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/04/2009 @ 5:32pm

28. All this premature posturing belays the perversion of the will of the people by judicial upsurbing constitutional equal powers. Today more than 40 states have laws or constitutional amendments against same sex marriages.

    During the 2006 election cycle 11 MORE states enacted constitutional amendments AGAINST same sex marriage! If anything the Iowa court decision will alert other states that this IS the proper venue and legal imperative to prevent homsexual perversion activism from attempting to subvert the moral charactor and destroy the rights of states granted under the U.S.A. constitution!

    As much as the left and homosexuals hate and despise Christianity there is no other definative sourse of morality, sociological, or human equality, than is represented by the teachings of the Holy Bible that christians revere as the divine word of God to mankind. Just because some desire to make any SIN legal it will NOT grant it respectability in the eyes of the God of final judgement.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/05/2009 @ 12:10am

29. pyette, comanche/RIO....obviously have a point.

    It should have been left upto Southern voters if they wanted to eliminate Jim Crow!

    Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 08:00am

30. "No, the sad thing is that folks like you think that people are "born" gay even when science can't prove it"

    Wow...Can science prove that you were "born" staight?

    Posted by declan at 04/05/2009 @ 10:01am

31. Unfortunately, a time of judgment will come for all who either practice, accept, or condone homosexuality as a "normal" practice.

    Romans 1:24-32

    "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

    And as I answered before on this verse, it isn't describing physical death. It is the spiritual death or seperation from G-d into Hell.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 12:51pm

32. It should have been left upto Southern voters if they wanted to eliminate Jim Crow!

    Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 08:00am |

    Not the same thing. Not even close.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/05/2009 @ 1:00pm

33. I'll be waitin' for you with the safety off...

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 1:12pm

    1. I'm definitely not a King James only theologian.

    2. I do read the Hebrew and Greek texts (thank you seminary and Messianic Congregations for the classes).

    3. The Judge not -like most on the anti-christian side, you leave out the context. It says you will be judged with the same kind of judgment you judge with. I'm perfectly satisfied with that requirement. It is not a prohibition against judging.

    I'm not Catholic, but this Catholic commentary is very solid in explaining the context

    "Verse 1: Judge not. Christ does not here prohibit the public judgments of magistrates, by which they condemn the guilty and absolve the innocent, but only private judgments, and only when they are rash, envious, detractive. For we have not been set to be judges but companions of our neighbors. If we have an evil opinion of our neighbor, we do him an injury and we take away his good name if we let this judgment be heard by others. So S. Jerome, Bede, and Basil. There is hardly any one who is found to be free from this fault." St. Augustine: "Concerning those things, then, which are known to God, unknown to us, we judge our neighbors at our peril. Of this the Lord has said, Judge not. But concerning things which are open and public evils, we may and ought to judge and correct, but still with charity and love, hating not the man, but the sin, detesting not the sick man, but the disease.

    That you may not be judged. St. Augustine: "The your rashness in punishing another will punish yourself. Injustice always injures him who does the wrong."

    http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/matt7.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 1:35pm

34. Snow is onto something. Anti's biblical conjuring of Fellini's Satyricon ain't no sharpshooter. A clusterbomb maybe?

    That gays want to pledge to a life of monogamy with one partner is a step AWAY from the abyss. Juxtapose that to the reps advocacy for Dionysian greedfest on Wall.

    The dilemma: some on the far Left do see gay marriage as a Trojan Horse. Their ultimate goal is to erode the institution through attrition. The fundies know this.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/05/2009 @ 2:20pm

35. Is it YOUR responsibility to punish gays and not G-d's?

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 2:00pm

    No it is not, nor have I ever suggested any such thing. My earlier quote from scripture in fact on the punishment contained an added statement from me that it should not be misinterpreted to suggest that the punishment is physical or during this life.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 2:28pm

36. Matthew 13:44...what's the prop tax on that? ;)

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 3:13pm

    More than anyone can afford

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 3:24pm

37. Wow...Can science prove that you were "born" staight?

    Posted by declan at 04/05/2009 @ 10:01am

    Dearie, I am the way my God made me. I am a woman of color and most definately not confused about who or what I am!! I have a wonderful husband and three beautiful boys.

    This notion of questioning one's sexuality is something White people invented.

    Posted by ACook at 04/05/2009 @ 4:12pm

38. What a curious state of affairs for a kettle to be calling out a pot thus?

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 4:27pm

    I hardly think that Acook could ever have confusion about either her race or her gender.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 5:59pm

39. Then why can't she extend that courtesy to those who "know" they are gay?

    It seems hypocrisy, to me, to claim that she can know herself better than another can.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/05/2009 @ 6:00pm

    Because her identification is not mistakeable from a visual standpoint. She can't pretend to be white or even claim she's actually white. Nor is her genitalia confusing (or her DNA).

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/05/2009 @ 7:18pm