Gay Marriage in...Iowa?

Gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut and...Iowa. Yep, you heard right. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled this morning that the state cannot bar gay couples from seeking to marry.

It's a decision, obviously, that will have wide-ranging ramifications that stretch far beyond Iowa's cornfields, becoming a test case for how this issue will play in the Heartland. You'd be hard pressed to find a more middle of the road state than Iowa, where I grew up. It is neither red (though it went for Bush in 2000), nor blue (though it voted Obama, twice, by comfortable margins), but solidly purple, veering back and forth depending on the political climate of the country.

The Republican Party in the state has been taken over by social conservatives, which is one reason Democrats have had success at the statewide level in recent years. These Republicans are sure to react with fury to the court's decision. Congressman Steve King, an outspoken right-winger from western Iowa (the most conservative part of the state), released this statement today:

"Now it is the Iowa legislature's responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court's latest experiment in social engineering."

But King doesn't speak for most Iowans, who tend to be pretty moderate--though not overtly liberal--when it comes to cultural issues. As the Des Moines register pointed out today, a February 2008 poll found that six in ten Iowans believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman but the same number supported civil unions for gay couples. The court's ruling, of course, goes further than that, which is why Governor Chet Culver and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin reacted to the ruling with a degree of caution.

Culver was vague:

"The decision released this morning by Supreme Court addresses a complicated and emotional issue, one on which Iowans have strong views and opinions on both sides. The next responsible step is to thoroughly review this decision, which I am doing with my legal counsel and the Attorney General, before reacting to what it means for Iowa."

Harkin, a longtime liberal champion in Congress, was a bit more specific, reflecting the complexity of the issue in many Iowans minds:

"My personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept. But I also fundamentally believe that same sex couples in a civil union should be entitled to all the basic legal protections and benefits of marriage. The Court found that it is necessary to afford same sex couples the ability to marry in order to allow them those legal protections and benefits. I will respect and support that decision and I hope that other Iowans can do the same. I know that this decision will be very hard for many to accept but I also know that it will provide many committed same sex couples and families important rights, as well as an important sense of recognition and belonging."

Meanwhile, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Speaker Pat Murphy, both Democrats, reacted with joy, noting that "Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights." Their statement:

"In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

"In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the US Supreme Court reached the same decision.

"In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the US Supreme Court reached the same decision.

"In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

"In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

"Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws."

Will Iowa now become a hotbed of the culture wars? I doubt it. In the midst of a huge economic crisis and two wars abroad, the issue of gay marriage probably won't benefit the Right like it did in 2004. Sure, some activists will fight the court's decision to the bitter end. But my guess is that most Iowans will look at the ruling, shrug, and go back to the business of finding a job or keeping the one they have.

This video from State Senator Matt McCoy of West Des Moines, the first only openly gay legislator in Iowa, sums up the ruling and its likely ramifications quite nicely (and movingly)

Comments (31)

1. civil unions for everybody sanctioned by the state...

   "marriage" sanctioned by church...not state...

   could solve so many "issues"

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/03/2009 @ 1:31pm

2. Thanks for not saying "LGBTQ."

   Posted by gangpapist at 04/03/2009 @ 1:34pm

3. Not exactly Castro District in San Fran in Ottumwa, is it?

   Seems Larry may have to risk it and move to El Salvador anyway to escape "Sodom and Gomorrah".

   'cept a socialist runs it!....LOL

   Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:49pm

4. 'cept a socialist runs it!....LOL

   Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   that place was REALLY antisocialist a couple of decades back. so antisocialist may as well call it "facsist"!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/03/2009 @ 2:00pm

5. I am so proud of Iowa, thanks for the history, I never knew that Iowa was such a vanguard state. If marriage was still a sacred institution where vows and committemtns were solemn promises, we might want to protect it but marriage is no longer a sacred institution. now it is a legal or civil union with only symbolic vows and committments. so of course, gays should be able to enter into legal and civil unions and take advantage of the same benefits. Gays have never been a threat to marriage or families. since I am a domestic violence specialist I see the real threat to marriage and families every day, and it looks like hetersexuality (adultery between a man and a woman)and violence are the real threats. why don't the conservatives and evangelicals use their clout to the end those things.

   Posted by ChristianLiberal at 04/03/2009 @ 2:04pm

6. civil unions for everybody sanctioned by the state...

   "marriage" sanctioned by church...not state...

   could solve so many "issues"

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/03/2009 @ 1:31pm

   I kind of agree with you here. Removing the word marriage from all laws, do a massive (Ctrl F) and replace the word marriage, marry, etc. Replace it with civil union and civilly united.

   But then I think about the time and tax dollars that would take, wouldn't it just be simpler to allow same sex marriages? I also don't believe that marriage is a term that is purely religous, so I don't think churches should have a monopoly on its use.

   Posted by Extraneous at 04/03/2009 @ 2:15pm

7. Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/03/2009 @ 2:00pm

   Afraid Mauricio Funes' election has thrown Larry's "escape plan" into a lurch. He's not making the usual noises of a Salvadoran leader...like shooting Commies (and any villagers that get in the way) and doing whatever the Corporations tell him to.

   He also mentioned Hawaii....which seems even stranger given HI is still in the United States as well as not known as a "Red State", is it?...LOL

   Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 2:26pm

8. Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 2:26pm

   You are the conficker of these threads. You hijack every blog and turn it into a symposium on the views of antisoc on various and sundry, unrelated topics, interspersed by snarky questions from you.

   Other posters may be guilty of lesser thread-crimes from hyperbole to dishonesty to orthodoxy, but your unique brand of ass-grabbery is enemy number one to raucous, rowdy, necessary, debate.

   Posted by gangpapist at 04/03/2009 @ 3:13pm

9. Gangpapist you are welcome to leave here for a pro-censorship rightwing site any time you want. AS/LL has earned everything he gets from Mask with his hysterical overreactions to any leftwing drift of this country and his extreme bible twisting to support his Randian/Neoconservative views.

   Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 3:54pm

10. 'cept a socialist runs it!....LOL

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 1:49pm Afraid Mauricio Funes' election has thrown Larry's "escape plan" into a lurch. He's not making the usual noises of a Salvadoran leader...like shooting Commies (and any villagers that get in the way) and doing whatever the Corporations tell him to.

    He also mentioned Hawaii....which seems even stranger given HI is still in the United States as well as not known as a "Red State", is it?...LOL

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2009 @ 2:26pm

    No, we are still making our plans for 2011 to retire to El Salvador. We are certainly learning a lot about President Funes.

    Like his demand from the FMLN supporters during the campaign to provide him with a proper mansion to live in and the money he has been spending on his personal life; just like any good capitalist.

    Funes was picked to give an acceptable face and ideology to the FMLN. But he is certainly turning out to be anything but a leftist.

    He has promised not to pursue a close relationship with Chavez. He will keep the dollar as the currency. And he wants to continue to attract US and South Korean investors.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 4:04pm

11. Also please point me to the thread where this "necessary debate" is occurring. There is certainly a rowdy raucous catfight, but you have to look elsewhere for a serious intellectual debate. These boards are for entertainment purposes only.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 4:11pm

12. AS/LL has earned everything he gets from Mask with his hysterical overreactions to any leftwing drift of this country and his extreme bible twisting to support his Randian/Neoconservative views.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 3:54pm

    As opposed to liberals who never got hysterical about what they perceived as a rightwing drift in this country.

    BTW, I don't support Ayn Rand or her views. I never read anything she wrote.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 4:14pm

13. Unfortunately I have read about 2/3s of Atlas Shrugged (I quit after the third or fourth time of being bludgeoned with Ayn's philosophy with minimal plot advancement) and amazingly your views about the role of government in society are extremely similar to hers. Even if you have never read her, you have been influenced by those who have.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 4:22pm

14. Unfortunately I have read about 2/3s of Atlas Shrugged (I quit after the third or fourth time of being bludgeoned with Ayn's philosophy with minimal plot advancement) and amazingly your views about the role of government in society are extremely similar to hers. Even if you have never read her, you have been influenced by those who have.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 4:22pm

    No I developed my views mainly from reading the founders and the constitution.

    I don't read the books by any modern political types.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 4:28pm

15. So you don't read any right wing magazines or listen to any right wing radio? You only read The Nation online? Interesting choice for someone of your views.

    Credit where credit is due... I've never heard you ask for quarter from people throwing your past postings in your face. I might question your intelectual flexibility, sanity or empathy, but you definately have courage. I'd trust you in a foxhole, but not with a nuclear weapon.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 4:40pm

16. I should qualify I would trust you in a fox hole if we were on the same side, not if the war was "God's Chosen" vs. "the godless socialists". I'm sure you would be trying to kill me in that one.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 4:43pm

17. Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 3:54pm

    Not into censorship, guiles. It's not about what LL or whoever deserves. Only Mask will take a blog about gay marriage and right from the start, derail it into a discussion of Larry's travel plans.

    Some intellectual debate does happen here; Mask's shenanigans don't help it any. That's my opinion, don't censor me, bruh.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/03/2009 @ 4:56pm

18. People who claim that a 3% tax hike is the dawning of a socialist america do alot more damage to any useful debate than sarcastic asides.

    Mask is at heart a monday morning campaign manager. He speaks in the dialect of the politically possible, and enjoys the barbs gotchas of a political campaign. I've been reading him for years and I'm still not sure what his core beliefs are. If you can't appreciate him as these boards mini James Carville, then you should just ignore him.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 5:14pm

19. So you don't read any right wing magazines or listen to any right wing radio? You only read The Nation online? Interesting choice for someone of your views.

    Credit where credit is due... I've never heard you ask for quarter from people throwing your past postings in your face. I might question your intelectual flexibility, sanity or empathy, but you definately have courage. I'd trust you in a foxhole, but not with a nuclear weapon.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 4:40pm

    No rightwing radio, tv or magazines. I already know what my beliefs are. I watch and/or listen to Democracy Now, Free speech TV, Link TV, Pacifica Radio (KPFK in Los Angeles), and MSNBC. Mainly because it's important to know what the opposing view is saying. I don't rely upon 3rd party statements about the left.

    Thx for your compliment. I'm loyal to my friends and those around me with all that I am and have.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 6:03pm

20. Help!

    One thing I never understood from about the anti-gay/whatever marriage crowd: that is, its supposed threatening of the institution of straight marriage.

    As an individual who just couldn't care less who marries whom, (just leave me out of it, thank you) what is this based on?

    P.S. I'm not being sarcastic here.

    Again, how does it affirmatively THREATEN straight peoples' being married???

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/03/2009 @ 7:00pm

21. Again, how does it affirmatively THREATEN straight peoples' being married???

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/03/2009 @ 7:00pm

    I'm not one of those saying that it threatens marriages.

    I'm saying that it is an attempt to redefine a religious term as an affront to the major religions of the world.

    As I've said many times here and on another thread, remove the term marriage from all civil union contracts including heterosexuals and I'm at least satisfied that it is within the perogative of states to define civil contracts between any manner of persons.

    Just stop trying to purposely tread on religions. I thought liberals were for strict seperation of church and state?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 7:05pm

22. The Hawkeye State may indeed become a "Hotbed of cultural wars." It will also gain a lot of good restaurants. Hopefully, that will bring folks together.

    Posted by wbramh at 04/03/2009 @ 8:28pm

23. Just stop trying to purposely tread on religions. I thought liberals were for strict seperation of church and state?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 7:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Thanks.

    I didn't know any particular religion had the copyright.

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

24. We on the right who oppose "gay marriage" do so on the tenet not only on religious grounds, but on a secular argument that state and subsequently federal recognition of gay "marriage" will open up the legal landscape under the "equal protection" clause of the constituiton whereby agrieved parties can demonstrate "harm", or "discrimination" based on their personal relational proclivities. Therefore, incremental court challenges pushing for the recognition of polygamy, and subsequent poly-amourous (group) marriages over the next years and decades will become the norm. The legal arguments will be sufficient to sway state and federal courts to recognize all "legal" claims by "consenting adults" in the future...even incest marriages, whereby the 'interest of the state' is supraceeded by the previous court precedents grounded in the equal protection clause of the constituion. We only have to dig deep in the record to see court challenges to this effect in parts of Europe that have recognized gay marriage in the past. It wont happen over night but in the coming decades. The law of unintended consequences will be profound. By the way I am for full Civil Union recognition and benefits for gay couples.

    Posted by mike63 at 04/04/2009 @ 05:50am

25. Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 7:05pm

    Sounds like you're advocating "separate but equal."

    So if I'm not religious, can I no longer call my (hetero) relationship "marriage?"

    And what about those religious institutions that are willing to "marry" gay couples?

    Posted by metogame at 04/04/2009 @ 06:55am

26. "No I developed my views mainly from reading the founders and the constitution. "

    I've seen your views--you got them from misreading the founders, etc...

    Posted by brunowe at 04/04/2009 @ 09:19am

27. Also please point me to the thread where this "necessary debate" is occurring. There is certainly a rowdy raucous catfight, but you have to look elsewhere for a serious intellectual debate. These boards are for entertainment purposes only.

    Posted by Guiles at 04/03/2009 @ 4:11pm

    Have you ever watched a debate for instance, in the British Parliament? Talk about raucous and rowdy. No highly refined serious intellectual discussion of the issues occurs in that forum. Legislators are often passionate and combative. So why should the "rabble" be any different? Just sayin..

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/04/2009 @ 09:48am

28. As a resident of Des Moines, (currently in good standing) I can tell you that Iowa is more progressive than most people might think. Maybe not the entire state as far as land mass, but the population centers. Which are few. So the population centers like Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Iowa City tend to balance out the much more conservative rural environs.

    So Iowa seems to encompass a much more middle of the road overall average than might be indicated otherwise. We have one very decent progressive Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin.

    It doesn't surprise me that Iowa courts would support Gay marriage. It's a great place to live, and Iowa doesn't care what your sexual orientation is. (Well, most of us anyway..)

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/04/2009 @ 10:08am

29. What are you talking about, it went for Gore in 2000....

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

30. When marriage is fully defined only by a range of purposes then same sex unions, whatever they are, are not by definition marriage.

    So what same sex couples at best get is a dud. If they and the courts like to call their relationships marriage why not humour them both. That would show tolerance and sympathy toward the recipients of a dud and familiarity with the adage "the law is an ass".

    If that worries some of us perhaps we could have two marriage categories.

    eg. "procreational marriage" or "non-procreational marriage". Which public servants would probably list as Marriage P (hetero) or Marriage NP (homo) and thus nobody would be buying a dud.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 04/04/2009 @ 9:18pm

31. I don't read the books by any modern political types.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/03/2009 @ 4:28pm

    This is true. Larry is a staunch 19th Century conservative.

    Posted by Mask at 04/05/2009 @ 08:03am