Iowa Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
 

Big news from Iowa today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040303761.html

Hate to be a pessimist here, but politically speaking, the Republican Party of Iowa has just set itself up for a sweep. Not only will they shortly gain complete political power in this state, but they'll also pass a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage.

Don't look for anyone to want to appeal that one to the SCOTUS with the 5-4 that'll probably happen.

That will take until 2010 at the earliest. It has to go through two votes in the legislature and then be put on a ballot for the people to vote on.

I have heard some negative comments, but most people I know have reacted positively. I consider myself to lean more on the conservative side politically, but I wouldn't vote for an amendment to the state constitution making marriage legal to heterosexual couples only.

I feel the same way, but realize that this is a huuuuuuuuge wedge issue. Republicans will do a really good job of getting the church vote out and this thing will pass with flying colors like it did in California. I think here in Oklahoma it passed with 70%+ of the vote. It was kind of embarrassing finding out what a bigoted state I live in.

Congrats, Iowa.

It passed in Michigan too and we're a pretty blue state. Out state (not metro-Detroit) is really red, but this passed by far more than other margins and during a gubernatorial election where we re-elected the female Democrat. This bias against homosexuality is far deeper than party lines. Nonetheless, I'm glad Iowa made some inroads.

I'm pretty indifferent to same sex marriage. I voted against the Georgia Amendment that banned it, but I think there are reasons other than simply a bias against homosexuality that cause people to oppose it. It's a huge social and traditional shift, and some people may simply be uncomfortable with it purely on that level.

While it may seem convenient to frame the issue as purely about bias and hate in hopes that people will support gay marriage because they don't want to be bigots, I think the reaction to prop. 8 in California probably caused more people who were on the fence to turn against SSM than to come around in favor of it.

I think that SSM advocates may be doing more long term damage by pressing the issue now while the reaction to the wedge issue is less likely to be in their favor. In Iowa for instance, I don't think that the people who oppose it will say to themselves, "hey this will take two years to address, let's just forget it." Instead, I think they'll come back in two years with something much more scorched earth on the issue that, if it passes, will set SSM advocates further back than they were today.

I think Americans are becoming gradually more accepting of homosexuality and SSM in particular so waiting ten to 20 years, rather than forcing polarization now, just seems to make sense. Of course, I'm not the one waiting to marry my long term partner.

I don't think this is possible, though, for the reason you mentioned. I can see how it's difficult to be "patient" (using your word) when you're looking for equality. In that instance, patience is equal to more years of feeling like a second class citizen, simply because you were born a certain way.

I'm "indifferent" to the issue, from a political standpoint (it won't cause me to vote or not vote for a candidate based on their beliefs), but again, I can see where people want to advocate for the issue as much as possible.

Yeah, and maybe I'm wrong about how it's affecting public opinion at large. I find myself growing less sympathetic to the issue with the reaction to prop 8, but maybe I'm wrong to generalize.

ETA: I was thinking more about this today and saw this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us...ge.html?ref=us

In these states, public opinion seemed to have shifted and then the legislatures responded. I don't expect there to be much if any backlash, so great.

But when the change is not a reflection of a pervasive change in public opinion but instead, dare I say, judicial activism (isn't "judicial activism" always in the eye of the beholder"), I think there's going to be backlash that causes even worse public reaction.

I was reading earlier about how a pro-prop 8 ad used the language of the San Franciso mayor saying that this is coming "whether you like it or not" to great effect.

I don't think this is unique to SSM. Would abortion have remained an ever present political issue had it been resolved legislatively?

The Equal Rights Amendment for women never passed. We're still waiting to be considered equal citizens. I hope that gay marriage doesn't take as long, but once a state has a constitutional amendment against it, I think it's pretty tough to get rid of that amendment.

Are you seriously comparing women's rights to gay rights?:rolleyes:

Maybe it's just because I work in a male-dominated field and still make more than most of the men I work with, but I don't really see women "suffering injustice" the way I see it for gays...

Admittedly, I can't seem to get my panties in a bunch either way over the issue (I wouldn't care if they legalized gay marriage, but I'm not out crusading for it), but I really think it's unfair to categorize women's rights and gay rights together.

AGDee,

We already are equal citizens which is probably why it never passed. By the time it would have passed, we didn't need it. Can you think of one area that the ERA would have covered that isn't already protected?

In Georgia, our state constitution is apparently pretty easy to amend. I think in a lot of states amendments are pretty common.

I'd just be wary if I were a SSM advocate of pushing the issue too hard while, I think, a federal constitutional amendment banning it could still pass. Sure, it could be repealed later, but it would probably be easier to go a little slower and affect the change state by state once the popular majority was in favor.

If this is something forced on the majority, which I think still oppose it (This article put the percentage favoring it at 30% http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4180335.shtml), I think the backlash will be harder to overcome.

I think there's room for reasonable people, regardless of religious affiliation, to understand that government regulation of marriage isn't exactly important or necessary. In fact, I can't think of one compelling reason for the government to deny or approve of anything marriage-related unless it deals with corner-case wrongs like bestiality or incest. To me, this is supported by the fact that about double the number of people according to national polling support "civil unions" when compared with "marriage."

I'm sure the Iowa GOP will use this as a rallying cry when the issue can finally come to a head (which, given the current legislative calendar, will likely be 2011) - I can't blame them. It'll be interesting to see the Democratic response - the Republican parts of Iowa tend to be heavily of the "get the government smaller and out of my life/personal responsibility/buy American" ilk rather than the Evangelical/religious ilk, and Democratic farm subsidies and pro-union measures made some inroads for them in these areas too. If there's too much bluster, I could see a simple "it's not marriage, it's a civil union, and it's not like there has been a huge influx of gay people anyway" argument carrying the day, even in rural parts of the state.

Much like in California, the GOP will have to rely on a heavy misinformation campaign - with at least two years to see the effects (and time for other states to follow along), that campaign's success is far from guaranteed, especially since there are entirely different sets of motivating characteristics at play in IA compared with CA's prop vote.

The Iowa State Daily had a decent editorial about the issue: here.