[KSig RC]

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.