My colleague Jon Rauch reminds me that at the end of August an Iowa state judge ruled that the Hawkeye state's constitution required marriage equality for same-sex couples, a decision that was immediately stayed pending the resolution of an appeal to the Iowa supreme court.
So, why hasn't same-sex marriage become an issue in the red-hot caucus race? As Jon said to me, "you'd have thought Republicans would be jumping all over this."
Seems that the gay marriage card is no longer seen as red meat to incite GOP voters, at least in Iowa-certainly a good sign, especially if it holds up nationally.
More. Similarly, New Hampshire's new civil union law just took effect, a week before the first presidential primary. Again, marriage equality hasn't been much of an issue there for the GOP contenders, although last April Giuliani, no doubt expecting a backlash, felt compelled to say that the Granite state had gone too far. Given the lack of heat that marriage equality has generated (so far), that seems to be a capitulation to the right that wasn't necessary, and indeed counter-productive for Rudy as it undercut his attacks on Romeny as a flip-flopper. If the flipper fits…
Tangentially, "One of the benefits of marriage is divorce," which presents major hardships, financial and otherwise, for same-sex couples. That's due in no small part to the fact that the federal government and many states look at gays who were married or civil unionized elsewhere as legal strangers.
15 Comments for “The Dog that Didn’t Bark.”
posted by Brian Miller on
Voters in Iowa are tolerant — especially in Des Moines, where the decision was handed down.
Interestingly enough, the attorney general who has made the decision to appeal the court decision is a Democrat who ran unopposed in the last couple of elections for his seat. I’m sure the usual suspects like ETJB will be around shortly to “explain” why he deserves to return to office — he’s a Democrat, after all. 😉
posted by Hank on
I grew up in Iowa, and like many of my friends, headed for warmer places with more opportunities. But it will always be home.
Brian is right. There was some uproar when the ruling first came down. For the most part, though, even conservative religious people there are tolerant – it’s kind of a live and let live place.
Several years ago there was an anti gay activist there who worked hard to cause trouble for us. He eventually gave up and moved to greener pastures – for his message anyway – in Oklahoma.
posted by ETJB on
Fact 1: A State Attorney General is almost always legally bound to defend State law in court.
Fact 2: Does the State AG ‘deserve’ to be relected? Iresspective of party affiliation, what are the viable alternatives?
posted by Jimbo on
Well, it looks like my prediction has come to fruition. As more & more states adopt either civil unions &/or same-sex marriage, it will seem less threatening. People will scratch their heads 10 years from now & wonder what all the fuss was about. Here in Maine, we have the 2 Mike H’s (Michael Heath & Michael Hein) who are trying desperately to stir things up & create a ruckus. Personally I love the fact that they are the visible face of the oppostion. Those 2 are nuttier than a fruitcake & full of paranoia & conspiracy theories.
posted by Brian Miller on
A State Attorney General is almost always legally bound to defend State law in court.
He’s not a state attorney general. He’s a district attorney general. He’s under no obligation to attempt to argue the marriage law either way — he has chosen to.
The State AG hasn’t even gotten involved yet.
Does the State AG ‘deserve’ to be relected?
An irrelevant question. He’s the regional AG, not the state one.
Although, my instinct that you’d defend Democratic Party homophobia was, as usual, correct. 😉
Democrats who rush to explain away their party’s dismal record on gay issues are no different from the Republican analogues they’re always criticizing for the same thing.
posted by ETJB on
Brian;
If the law is being challenged in his or her own state/district, the AG is almost always obligated to be involved.
When the constitutionality of a law comes before the court, the State (at some level) will be on hand to defend the law.
I am not defending any political party. Your insistence that I do so, is frankly amazingly dishonest.
Again, if you want to make the case that the (state/district) AG should not be re-elected, then make your case. What is the viable alternative?
You are the one who rushes to defend (often falsely) your prefered political party’s record on LGBT rights issues.
posted by ETJB on
BTW, the recent Ron Paul article is amazingly accurate and honest.
Congressman Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is someone who knows how to talk like a libertarian, social conservative, right-winger, or conspiracy theorist when it suits his own interests.
Congressman Dennis K is in a similar position and both men are in the race for similar reasons (IMHO).
posted by Brian Miller on
If the law is being challenged in his or her own state/district, the AG is almost always obligated to be involved.
You’re talking about the state AG. I’m talking about the regional AG. Different animals.
if you want to make the case that the (state/district) AG should not be re-elected, then make your case
The case is incredibly clear. You’re reflexively defending the district AG because he’s a Democrat. You wouldn’t be doing the same thing if he was a Republican — in fact, you’d be slamming someone like ND-30 if he was making the same argument that you’re making now.
The state has an obligation to defend the law at trial. It doesn’t have a requirement to challenge the overruling of a law all the way to the Supreme Court through the appeals process — and the vast majority of state laws ruled unconstitutional by a federal court are left to die in federal court.
Very few laws go through this sort of repeat appeals process. However, this Democrat is opposed to gay marriage and has made the political decision to exhaust all appeals.
Reality? Democrats are anti-gay. And you’re covering for an anti-gay Democrat because he’s a Democrat.
That sort of thinking — and knee-jerk loyalty — undermines LGBT rights in both the short term and long term. Gay people who give money to the Democratic Party, as you demand, will be subsidizing this guy’s re-election campaign so he can keep pushing to undermine their rights.
posted by Karen on
The problem, Brian, is one of alternatives.
You speak as if there is race with two people in it – a pro-gay candidate waiting in the wings to take this guy’s place. And all the gay community has to do is vote for that person instead of this Democrat guy.
But the reality is that we’re usually presented with the choice between an anti-gay Democrat and an even MORE anti-gay Republican. There are a few pro-gay Republican and independent politicians, but precious few. Any given pro-gay candidate is statistically very likely to be a Democrat.
Yes, we are trying to make more pro-gay politicians in general. Yes, we should put pressure on the Democratic party to be strong on gay rights. But it doesn’t make sense to be so idealogically pure that we cut off our nose to spite our face.
Given the choice between equally anti-gay candidates, I would usually choose the one whose party at least gives lip service to gay rights – it’s better than the party whose only major divide on the issue is over whether gay marriage should be unconsitutional, or merely illegal.
It also helps that my other political beliefs line up a little better with the Dems than with the Republicans.
Should this guy be re-elected? I can’t make that choice until I know the field of alternative candidates. Should this guy make me join the Republicans? Um, no, because they are LESS likely to come up with a candidate I like. Should this guy make me mad? Well, yes, and he does, and I would sure like to see him replaced by a pro-gay AG, but just because I WANT that doesn’t mean it’s going to HAPPEN.
I’m sure everyone’s guilty of a little “my team” mentality when it comes to members of “their” party sometimes. ETJB is probably doing that, he’s probably wrong about the AG’s obligations here.
But when you say “Democrats are anti-gay”, that statement is somewhat true but you have to take into account the context. Half the COUNTRY is anti-gay, and most people (even gay people) don’t make their political affiliation decision based solely on gay issues. We’re doing what we can, but in the current social climate it would be literally impossible to create a relevant political party that doesn’t tolerate ANY homophobia in its ranks.
posted by Karen on
…Just as it has been impossible for anti-gay forces to create a political party that doesn’t tolerate ANY pro-gayness in its ranks. I’m all for Log Cabin Republicans. But even if you remove gay issues from consideration, I’m still moderately liberal, so I’m not one.
posted by ETJB on
When a law is being challenged in court, someone from the State must provide a formal reply to the legal challenge. This is basic Constitutuinal Law 101.
Who represents the State depends on who is named in the lawsuit against the State, the particular law being challenged, etc.
I am not “reflexively defending” the district AG because of his political affiliation. I am simply stating a few basic facts.
Again, you seem to insist, without proof, that I am some sort of ‘yellow dog Democrat’. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If you want to argue that he should be replaced, then you need to come up with a viable alternative.
In America, a political party is not anti-gay simple because of the actions of certain individuals. Why? Both major parties are heavily influenced by regionalism, and intra-party primaries.
I have never “demanded” that LGBT people give money to any political party.
posted by ETJB on
Brian, for all his misleadings statements, does have a valid point.
This situation does illustrate a frequent problem with how ‘we’ often chose to conduct, organize and implement elections in the United States.
Too few Americans show much interest in the procedural elements of representative democracy, and how they can be made better.
posted by a123 on
yjuyutiuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
posted by a474937321 on
im gay.21old
posted by a474937321 on
allfriends.2008@yahoo.com.cn
im gay and 21 years old