In the big, gay-related but non-Larry Craig story last week, on Thursday in Polk County, Iowa, a trial court declared the state's exclusion of gay couples from marriage unconstitutional. After one gay male couple (college students) received a license and were legally wed, the decision was stayed on Friday, pending appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
PoliticsIowa.com reports that Republicans denounced the ruling, and the Iowa Democratic Party declined to comment. So, what's new?
The conventional wisdom is that the decision won't stand, or if it does, the state constitution is likely to be amended to reverse it (probably barring civil unions along the way). Politicslowa.com also suggests that the ruling could swing the closely divided Iowa legislature to the GOP; Iowa isn't Massachusetts.
But it will be interesting to see how this plays out. If it ends badly, it will be yet another sign that judicial rulings for same-sex marriage in states where the electorate is strongly opposed serve only to set things back, and not to drive our equality forward. But if by some miracle the ruling survives judicial and legislative challenge, it could signify a backlash against the backlash. But given that Iowa is "a traditionally conservative Midwestern state" (as the Chicago Tribune put it), I'm not holding my breath.
More. From The Politico, Gay rights advance may be Pyrrhic victory:
Iowa's new state Democratic regime, for its part, may feel pressured to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage-a proposed constitutional amendment must pass two consecutively elected state legislatures and a public referendum to be adopted-to avoid charges of being weak on traditional marriage during their reelection campaigns.
All of which makes it difficult to see how last week's ruling will help gay couples achieve the American dream, even if one couple did manage to tie the knot before the Polk County decision was stayed. In fact, the most favorable outcome for gay couples nationwide may be for Iowa's Supreme Court to end the political drama by overturning last week's decision.
23 Comments for “Iowa Marriage, for Less than a Day”
posted by Brian Miller on
The Polk County Attorney, John Sarcone, is a Democrat. He’s also the one who has made the decision to appeal the decision all the way to the Supreme Court, rather than accept the judge’s ruling.
Polk County contains Des Moines and is Iowa’s center of gay culture and gay life.
Sarcone ran unopposed for his seat.
Considering that of the three national parties, only the Libertarian Party supports same-sex marriage in Iowa, if a Libertarian candidate ran against Sarcone in the election, things could get very interesting, especially given the amount of national attention this is receiving.
posted by Jim C. on
I do fear that Lambda was acting out of its own interest rather than the movement’s. They maybe feel that they always need an active marriage litigation case to guarantee continued funding. Plus, lawyers have a hard time thinking beyond litigation strategies for any kind of long-term social change.
National groups would perhaps be more effective if they start funneling their money to smart local and statewide organizations with strategies in place to win over a middle that is more uncomfortable with gay marriage than ideologically opposed.
posted by Bobby on
Just when the same-sex marriage debacle was cooling down, someone had to stirr the pot up again. This is great for the homophobes, now they have credibility when they send their donations letters.
But I guess it doesn’t matter. Seriously, gay marriage or any marriage whatsoever is such a hateful thing. First of all, I’m supposed the rights of two people to get married and be happy. How the fuck does that benefit me?
IF I support drugs, I can buy drugs (not that I would, but who knows, maybe someday). If I support prostitutes, I can hire prostitutes. If I support the second amendment, I might get to carry an AK-47 someday. Supporting low taxes means paying less taxes, nuclear energy means a lower electric bill, pretty much every issue you can support has a direct benefit to the individual supporting that issue.
But who does gay marriage benefit? The happy assholes who’re gonna have their stupid gay weddings. Just what the world needs, more happy fucking people.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Yeah…I hate happiness, too! And puppies and fuzzy sweaters…what have they ever done for me? Nothing, that’s what!
posted by Virgil on
Bobby’s comments may be the saving grace for how this plays out in Iowa: happy people.
The mistake made in other states can be seen by the way the media covered the marriage equality issue. The media and the gay rights establishment elsewhere (e.g. Wisconsin, where I was living during that amendment fight) portrayed gay folks as uppity whiners. No matter what was really happenning, it came off sounding like: “I just want a wedding, too, like Muriel had in that movie.”
But the Iowa coverage strikes me as different. The folks queued up at the courthouse, a binding legal marriage between two friendly-looking white guys, the lack of shrill political pronouncements from HRC.
Maybe, just maybe, Iowa progressivism and Iowa libertarianism can team up. In small town America, folks is folks, and these folks look harmless and happy. Why are we rying to make their lives miserable by denying them the security of a family?
posted by Casey on
Thank you Virgil – I lived in Iowa for ten years, and while much of that was in Iowa City, another one of the state’s liberal strongholds, I did get a flavor for the sensibility of the state… and that’s just the word for it, sensible. Sure, there are the unthinking religious folks, and change does come slowly, but you’re right, to many Iowans, folks is folks. Call it foolish optimism, but I’m going to try to have faith in that sensibility – and do what I can to contact my old friends and family in the state to try and drum up some more active support. I recommend that rather than complain about individuals bringing lawsuits that The Movement can’t control (praise God for such individuals – where would The Movement be without them?) that others do the same. I promise you, it’s more satisfying.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Bobby, if you are serious in asking who benefit from gay marriage other than the “happy couples” themselves (and it’s hard to tell if you are joking or not), I recommend that you read Jonathan Rauch’s book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America. It makes the case quite well for how society benefits from the mutual commitment and care that marriage represents.
posted by Brian on
I relayed this decision to a friend of mine who hails from Iowa (recently relocated for school but definitely considers it home). He’s staunchly fundamentalist Christian and maintains that being gay is a sin but his reaction to the decisoin was “Wow, I didn’t know people in Iowa cared” and when I told him I was happy for people in his state he said “Yeah, we’re good people.”
I hope he’s an indicator of Christians in Iowa… good people. And good people understand they shouldn’t be standing in the way of other people’s rights. I’m excited to see how this plays out and hopefully for the best.
posted by Scott on
The people of Iowa are good people. They are probably more libertarian than liberal/conservative… so they are a bit socially liberal and a bit economically conservative. We just like having fewer laws and generally being left alone.
posted by Carl on
#1 The legislature is run by Democrats. I don’t know if they would ban civil unions or not.
#2 The Supreme Court is likely to overturn the ruling and say that the ban is staying. That will dampen most anger over this issue, although really, I have not heard about a lot of anger.
#3 The image in the post above of Iowa as some conservative hotbed is baffling. One of their senators, Tom Harkin, is liberal. They have a number of moderate to liberal Congressmen, and have had moderate governors for years now. The state went to Democrats in Presidential races from 1988 to 2000.
posted by dalea on
For many years I did business in Iowa. Nice place, very friendly people. Reserved but friendly. There is a continuous back and forth on literacy rates between Iowa and Minnesota. The prize is first and second in literacy.
Iowa has Scandanavian rates on many desirable things. It is rare, IMHE, to meet an Iowan under 70 who has not had some college. Iowa’s educational system is extensive and college is relatively easy to access.
So, we are looking at an educated, sophisticated group of people. A population that does elect a lot of progressives to public office.
The one thing that may work against us is that Iowa has an older population. It is one of the old people states; like Florida. And most educated Iowans leave the state; there are more UofI graduates in metro Chicago than in the whole state. There is really no urban Iowa; the cities are like small towns and suburbs. With really good upkeep and cleanliness. In many ways, Iowa is like what America used to be and should be.
There are worst places to fight a battle over gay rights.
posted by Hank on
I grew up in Iowa, and like most good Iowans, left for warmer climates or better economic opportunities. But it will always be home.
Iowa is not a “conservative” state. The Republican base is certainly conservative, but the average guy on the street will typically have more of a “live and let live” attitude.
Several years ago there was a wild and crazy anti gay crusader there who worked for restrictive laws. He finally gave up and moved to Oklahoma, where he thought he might have more success.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court overturns the decision, but I also wouldn’t expect the kind of anti gay hysteria that is so evident in other states.
posted by Elizabeth Schmitz on
From Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com
While I was excited to learn of this ruling for gay equality, I fear it will be short lived. The Polk County attorney plans on appealing the ruling to the State Supreme Court, and he has already filed a stay to prevent gay couples from marrying until the appeal is resolved.
What?s worse, Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants is already preparing an anti-gay marriage amendment to Iowa?s constitution.
We saw how the 2003 Massachusetts ruling in favor of marriage equality ushered in backlash across the country, culminating in 27 state amendments denying the right of marriage to gays. I fear this Iowa ruling will have a similar effect, especially with election season upon us. This is why I?m generally against sweeping court decisions like this. I think an incremental steps toward equality such as the ones in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Washington, Virginia, and Michigan.
I may be overly pessimistic?a lot has changed even in the five years since the Massachusetts ruling. In spite of all of the state wide amendments banning gay marriage, we have seen several states move in the opposite direction to provide the status of civil unions to gay couples (though still unequal).
In addition, Rove (mastermind of the gay-baiting tactics to get out the conservative base) is gone. The ?family values? wing of the Republican party is awash with the sex scandals of Senators Craig and Vitter. And recent polling has indicated that social wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion may not have the pull they had in past, what with two failing wars in the Middle East and all.
posted by Carl on
-We saw how the 2003 Massachusetts ruling in favor of marriage equality ushered in backlash across the country, culminating in 27 state amendments denying the right of marriage to gays.-
And then in 2005 and 2006, court rulings on this issue did not have any noticeable impact at the ballot box. The anti-gay amendments will still be pushed, and some will still pass, but now that Republicans have seen the double-edged sword of this trash (the amendment in Wisconsin likely cost them the state senate and a Congressional seat), they may be wary.
posted by ETJB on
Well, the LP is the only party in the state that supports same-sex marriage…unless their is no state Green or Socialist parties. All three of them have about an equal chance of winning ..
posted by Brian Miller on
The Polk County attorney plans on appealing the ruling to the State Supreme Court, and he has already filed a stay to prevent gay couples from marrying until the appeal is resolved.
What?s worse, Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants is already preparing an anti-gay marriage amendment to Iowa?s constitution.
The Libertarian Party is committed to defeating the anti-gay amendment and also defeating the anti-gay Democratic county attorney.
It will be amusing to watch Republican gay people defend their anti-gay state legislature leader, and Democratic apologists (hello ETJB) defend the Democratic Party’s decision to (once again) not fight against anti-gay laws (and not censure their own party members like the county attorney, who are happily pushing for permanent bans on gay equality under the law).
Fortunately, the people of Iowa are a lot more independent than political half-wits give them credit. And we’re going to be working overtime to ensure that there are credible, well-resourced candidates placed strategically in those two races.
As a result, a vote for any candidate other than the Libertarian will be a vote for anti-gay prejudice. That will be a particularly amusing situation for the Democrats, who are running the person most instrumental to “preserving and strengthening” the anti-gay ban.
posted by ETJB on
Hello. I am no aplogist for any political party when it comes to LGBT rights.
I am a political realistic, which is something that some people are not if they think that a fringe or third party matters in modern America.
What the State Libertarian Party thinks about same-sex marriage will not really matter too much. Or the State Green Party or the State Socialist Party.
posted by Bobby on
Richard, thanks for the book recommendation.
I was being a bit sarcastic, joking and not joking.
Basically, I support gay marriage but I’m jealous of the people getting gay married.
posted by Brian Miller on
What the State Libertarian Party thinks about same-sex marriage will not really matter too much.
It will, because it will represent the only organization running candidates that. . . actually supports gay marriage.
Your Democratic Party is identical to the Republicans on this issue — which renders it largely irrelevant. Voters don’t want a Tweedledee-Tweedledum situation.
Your impassioned defense of the Democrats’ anti-gay platform to the contrary is, of course, notwithstanding. 😉
posted by Eva Young on
Iowa isn’t as reactionary as many think. A Republican leader (can’t recall if he was a majority or minority leader) made gay marriage a big part of his platform – he ended up losing in a Republican primary to another candidate who had a broader platform.
I think what needs to be answered is the rantings about “activist judges” – and for those who want to rant about that – ask them about whether they think Marbury vs Madison was wrongly decided.
I prefer a legislative to a judicial approach – for example, I’d have preferred the state of MN would have legislative repealed our sodomy law – which is still technically on the books, though it’s overturned by Lawrence v Texas.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think there’s a role for judicial review of legislation for whether the legislation is constitutional.
posted by Brian Miller on
a legislative to a judicial approach
It’s sometimes preferable, although there’s something to be said for the judiciary too. Unconstitutional laws like DOMA are, by definition, unconstitutional. We should always hope, of course, that legislators aren’t stupid enough to pass unconstitutional laws — but they often are.
When those laws are passed, we shouldn’t accept that one’s constitutional rights are subject to a majority legislative veto — reminding the legislature that they do not have unlimited authority under the Constitution is a healthy thing to do. It reasserts the primacy of individual rights, as laid out in the Bill of Rights, over the thugocracy mob-rule that statists so often insist must rule over us all.
posted by grendel on
“I prefer a legislative to a judicial approach – for example, I’d have preferred the state of MN would have legislative repealed our sodomy law – which is still technically on the books, though it’s overturned by Lawrence v Texas.”
actually, I think Minnesota’s sodomy law was struck down by Minnesota courts themselves prior to the Lawrence decision. I remember the Democratic Attorney General, Mike Hatch I think, got into a little trouble for not defending the law vigourously enough. I think his office submitted a brief of just a couple of pages that essentially outlined the state of the law on the matter, and made no arguement (or even request) for the court to actually uphold the law.
posted by Brian Miller on
If the Iowa Democratic Party passes an anti-gay constitutional amendment in Iowa, then they’ll just be underscoring what I’ve been saying for quite some time now — on marriage equality (as on many other issues), the Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable.