Cake

Iowa's opportunity to provide equality

By: Daily Iowan Editorial Board

Posted: 6/17/08

For Californians, this day is one surrounded either by fame, or by infamy: On May 15, the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on gay marriage; the decision will take effect today. California will then join Massachusetts as the only states offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples - a service once (briefly) provided in Iowa as well. Unfortunately, just as in past struggles for equality and civil rights, closed-minded people continue to make the movement as difficult as it is divisive. But, despite the present discord, history will recognize and commend the leaders of this effort. To that end, the Iowa courts would do well to remove their former ruling from its present stay in limbo. Until that time, it seems "the pursuit of happiness" will remain largely unavailable to many of those who are legally entitled to it.

Depending on whom you ask, Iowa's legalization of gay marriage might be described in any number of ways, but "lengthy" would certainly not be one of them. The day after District Court Judge Robert Hanson deemed Iowa's gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, he promptly issued a stay of his ruling; only one gay couple was actually able to receive a marriage license. Eventually, an appeal will likely bring the issue before the Iowa Supreme Court. Should the court decide to review the case, it can either affirm Hanson's initial ruling or issue a reversal. In the meantime, both sides are doing all they can to rally support.

Of course, the difficulty inherent in the fight for gay rights remains ever persistent, as evidenced by a recent proposal to amend California's Constitution. Aptly referred to as the Limit on Marriage Amendment, the proposal would once again reserve the right to marry for straight couples only. Given marriage's intimate ties to traditional religious and family values, this sort of obstinacy is unlikely to be extinguished by anything other than time. After all, changed minds are rare when both sides of an issue feel a moral obligation to stand their ground. Rather, it seems that regardless of what decision is made, any sort of universal agreement is a long way off.

Ultimately, progress must likely stem from the same source that facilitated change in previous struggles for civil rights. Throughout recent history, America's youth has always been adamant in its various calls for change - each generation helping to chip away at traditional biases that are falsely held in the name of morality. The current movement seems no different; it is most forcibly marked by a dynamic base of young supporters. Indeed, it seems that the greatest social movements can only come from those who have yet to adopt the status quo.

If it is in the interest of the Iowa courts to ensure equal rights among citizens, Hanson's original decision must be upheld. California and Massachusetts have already begun setting the stage for the effort to ensure gay rights. As such, Iowa has the chance to help lead the way in eliminating our time's greatest threat to universal equality. Of course, such a decision is not likely to gain unanimous popularity in the near future, but this sort of social change rarely does. And, considering the undeniable improvements made by America's previous movements for civil rights, it seems that temporary social discord is a price well worth paying.

One Iowa / Lambda Legal Statement:

As you may have heard, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay and lesbian couples from marriage, and California soon will join the list of places where same-sex couples may marry. If you are considering travel to California or elsewhere to marry, the documents below contain information about how to obtain a license in California, and about legal implications for out-of-state couples who travel to California to marry. We encourage you to call Lambda Legal's help desk if you have specific questions about the legal ramifications for you individually, including how marriage to a same-sex spouse is likely to affect your legal obligations and eligibility for particular benefits and protections under Iowa law. For more information regarding whether to travel to California or another state or country to marry, see Lambda Legal's FAQs:

"Traveling to Another State or Country to Marry"

"Marriage for Same Sex Couples in California"

If you do choose to get married in California or elsewhere, we encourage you to call Lambda Legal before filing a lawsuit to seek respect for your marriage once you return home to Iowa. Lambda Legal may be able to assist you in getting your marriage recognized in some circumstances. Additionally, in a joint advisory, four legal groups and five other leading LGBT groups explain that while couples who go to another state or country to marry should ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, filing a lawsuit may not be a good idea. Ill-timed lawsuits are likely to set the fight for marriage back.

For more resources, visit Lambda Legal's Relationship Resources page.

Meanwhile, here in Iowa, Lambda Legal won a trial court victory last August on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, and three of their children. We currently are defending that victory before the Iowa Supreme Court, where we are waiting for oral argument to be scheduled. The Iowa Supreme Court could reach a decision in 2009. While there are never any guarantees in court cases, we are hopeful that the Iowa Supreme Court will affirm the trial court's powerful decision so that Iowa same-sex couples may plan their weddings soon in their own communities, joined by family and friends celebrating their commitment.

Read more about Lambda Legal's groundbreaking marriage lawsuit in Iowa and see a description of the briefs filed by Iowa and national leaders (including elected officials, child advocates, faith leaders, physicians and others) in support of same-sex couples seeking to marry.

Legal Unions Must Be Recognized in Iowa

As appeared in the Opinions Section of the Des Moines Register | June 5, 2008

Even if a majority of Iowa citizens do not wish to recognize gay marriage, that opinion will not matter in the long term. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

This aspect of the Constitution was the justification for the infamous Dred Scott decision, which declared that a slave remained a slave even after crossing into a free state. Under our current Constitution, a gay couple who has been married in another state can move to Iowa, demand and receive all the same rights and services due a traditional married couple.

To my knowledge, this has not yet become an issue, but the legal precedent is clear. When this issue comes to our state, the preferences and opinions of Iowa citizens will not matter under current federal law.

- Corey J. Smith, Iowa City

Constitutional amendment against gay marriage introduced in Congress

Ga. Rep. Paul Broun, 29 others sponsor legislation
By DYANA BAGBY, Southern Voice | May 30, 12:35 PM

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on May 22 to ban same-sex marriage, a result of the backlash by lawmakers upset with the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling legalizing gay marriage.

	U.S. Rep. Paul Brown (R-Ga.) introduced legislation to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. (Photo by AP)

Broun, a freshman Congressman from Augusta, announced his intent to introduce the legislation on May 20 and got 29 co-sponsors to join him in introducing the bill, named the Marriage Protection Amendment. Other Georgians who have signed on as co-sponsors are Republicans Lynn Westmoreland and John Linder.

One co-sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), said in a statement posted on his website May 28 he was joining Broun as a co-sponsor because, “The recent decision by the California Supreme Court to overturn the state’s ban on homosexual marriage is an assault on the Judeo-Christian values of America.

“While North Carolina and numerous other states are fortunate to have strong marriage laws in place, these state laws are not immune from legal efforts to redefine marriage,” Jones said. “To ensure the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Congress needs to pass an amendment to our Constitution that no activist judge can overturn.”

Before it could become part of the Constitution, the amendment would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. House and Senate, and then ratified by 38, or three-fourths, of the state legislatures.

Other co-sponsors of the bill, all Republicans, are: Reps. Tom Feeney of Florida; Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania; John Shimkus of Illinois; Tim Walberg, Peter Hoekstra and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan; Brian Bilbray and Duncan Hunter of California; Dan Burton of Indiana; Trent Franks of Arizona; Barbara Cubin of Wyoming; Todd Akin of Missouri; John Peterson of Pennsylvania; Ralph Hall of Texas; Scott Garrett of New Jersey; Henry Brown of South Carolina; Virgil Goode of Virginia; Virginia Foxx and Robin Hayes of North Carolina; Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland; Mark Souder of Indiana; Robert Anderholt of Alabama, Jeff Miller of Florida, Steve King of Iowa; and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma.

Volunteers Needed for One Iowa Video Project!

One Iowa is gearing up to launch a new multimedia program to highlight equality and oppose intolerance. To that end, One Iowa is looking for volunteers to participate in an exciting video project. The final video will be debuted at all the Iowa Pride festivals this June as well as we move into the future and try to win Fairness for all Families in Iowa. We hope this video will call people to action...to become a part of an Iowa that is welcoming to all its citizens, an Iowa that values ALL families of ALL kinds, One Iowa.

We're looking for anyone and everyone to be a part of this movement for change and part of this video project. Families, individuals, couples, kids, parents, family members, allies, LGBT people, employers, friends, etc.

We'll be shooting video in three locations in Iowa City and Des Moines.

Iowa City
Where: Ped Mall outside the Sheraton
When: Friday, May 30th
What time: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Iowa City
Where: College Green Park
When: Friday, May 30th
What time: 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM

Des Moines
Where: "Gay in the Gateway" West Gateway Park
When: Saturday, May 31st
What time: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Please email Andrea at andrea@oneiowa.org if you'd like to participate. Tell your friends...The more people we have the better!

We'll have a media release for you to sign on site.

Thanks for your participation...If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call, 515.288.4019 ext. 205, and ask for Andrea.

The Culture War Disarmed

By Richard Kim

In mid-May Democrats were finally riding high again. Their contentious primary appeared to be drawing to a close, they had routed Republicans for a third time in a Congressional special election and Americans were looking to them to address a failed war and a failing economy. Then on May 15 the California Supreme Court voted four to three to legalize same-sex marriages. As if on cue, gays and lesbians took to the streets of The Castro, Mayor Gavin Newsom vowed to turn San Francisco's City Hall into a hot pink wedding chapel and right-wing demagogues announced that they would place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on California's fall ballot. Suddenly, conservatives like William Kristol were crowing about how resentment over "judicial activism" would help deliver John McCain the White House, and Democrats were seeing shades of 2004--when anti-gay marriage initiatives supposedly contributed to John Kerry's defeat.

But in fact, California's marital fireworks represent a more comforting reality for Democrats--the beginning of the end of the culture war. Nowhere is this sea change more evident than in the Golden State, where gay marriage has become a thoroughly mainstream proposition. In 2005 and 2007 the California State Legislature passed bills granting gays and lesbians the right to marry; on both occasions, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills. But by directly expressing their support for gay marriage through the democratic process, the State Legislature undercut the right-wing claim that gay marriage is something "activist judges" foist onto an unwilling public. Indeed, the majority on the state's Supreme Court, comprising three Republicans and one Democrat, weren't "legislating from the bench"; they were reaffirming legislative will. And despite his vetoes, Schwarzenegger has said that he respects the court's opinion and opposes an amendment to the California Constitution, something he calls "a waste of time."

None of this will deter conservatives from pouring money, ground troops and vitriol into their campaign to get a marriage amendment passed, and they may well succeed this fall. But even that short-term victory won't change two fundamentals: in the presidential race, California will go to the Democratic candidate, and the idea of gay marriage--endorsed by the State Legislature, accepted by the Republican governor and supported by growing numbers of gay-friendly voters--has become for Californians as banal as a Hollywood divorce.

Indeed, for all the hoopla, the number of new rights California's gay couples picked up from the decision was this: zero. That's because California already had a same-sex domestic partnership statute on the books. Passed by the legislature in 1999 and expanded on several occasions to include more rights, California's domestic partnership laws are the most comprehensive in the nation, granting every right of coupledom a state can give absent federally recognized marriage. All the court did was give queers the m-word. This decision may have legal repercussions down the line, but in terms of actual economic and legal rights like access to spousal health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance, Californians had already arrived at the conclusion that these should be available to all regardless of sexual orientation. To be sure, the symbol of marriage may matter a lot to some, mainly marriage-minded gays and Christian conservatives, but few voters are willing to hang a national election on it. According to a May Gallup poll, just 16 percent of Americans think that a presidential candidate must share their view on gay marriage.

The California gay marriage debate illustrates important national trends for Democrats. Growing numbers of Americans favor gay rights, including some form of partnership recognition for same-sex couples, especially when framed as economic and legal rights. This is particularly true of young voters; in California 55 percent of voters under 30 support gay marriage, and nationwide 63 percent of voters under 40 support civil unions or domestic partnerships. But this trend also holds true for voters of all ages; a 2007 Field poll reported that Californians young and old were four times more likely to say they are becoming more accepting of gay relationships than less accepting. Moreover, when the symbolic weight of marriage is removed from the equation, support for gay rights becomes overwhelming. Nationwide, a whopping 89 percent of voters favor protecting gays and lesbians from employment discrimination.

Instead of fearing an anti-gay backlash, then, Democrats should take this moment to reconsider their longstanding assumption that cultural antagonisms can only hurt their national electoral prospects. Fearing the worst, for decades the Democrats caved to or triangulated around cultural conservatives, making ill-fated examples out of every Sister Souljah in the house and offering insulting sops to "family values," like video-game ratings. Indeed, the premise that Democrats are still on the losing side of the culture war defined the last weeks of Hillary Clinton's campaign, which, aided by the mainstream media, dredged up nearly every assumed liberal Achilles' heel of the past forty years--race, religion, guns, elitism, patriotism and '60s radicalism--in order to paint Barack Obama as a general election loser. But, like Christian conservative attempts to portray same-sex marriage as a "threat to civilization," the culture war against Obama--waged around flag pins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and bowling scores--was a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Thankfully, the majority of Democratic voters refused to be manipulated by these symbols sheared of substance, and now it is time to retire the paradigm altogether. An overdetermined catchphrase, "the culture war" was always an insult--most of all to the concept of culture itself, which the right wing reduced from a good or an aspiration to a series of cheap slurs aimed at liberals who drank too many lattes or hailed from the wrong places, like Massachusetts and San Francisco. But demography was always trending the other way, and now Starbucks lattes can be found in every small town, hip-hop is everywhere and homosexuals are here, queer and on the bridal registry--all of which elicits a collective yawn from the under-40 set.

Putting Policy into Practice - Featuring HRC President, Joe Solmonese

One Iowa, in partnership with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and the Greater Des Moines Partnership, is pleased to host a breakfast presentation on LGBT employees and consumers with Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign. Join us!

Putting Policy into Practice: Gay and Lesbian Employees and Customers
With Special Guest Joe Solmonese, President, Human Rights Campaign

Wednesday, May 28, 2008
7:30 - 9:00 AM
Greater Des Moines Partnership Building
700 Locust St. Downtown, Arthur Davis Conference Room (Street Level)
Click here to RSVP

Putting Policy into Practice: Gay and Lesbian Employees and Customers
Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees and their families are valued in the U.S. workplace now more than ever before. Non-discrimination policies, benefits and other practices that include LGBT employees, consumers and investors are essential for U.S. business as they compete for talent and customers. Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT organization, will discuss the recent corporate trend in market outreach to LGBT consumers and creating inclusive work environments for LGBT employees. He will be joined by Ralph Rosenberg, Executive Director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and Brad Clark, Education & Policy Director of One Iowa.

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

From the Los Angeles Times

In a 4-3 decision, the justices rule that people have a fundamental 'right to marry' the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution's equal protection guarantee

By Maura Dolan
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 16, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO -- — The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.

The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country.

But the scope of the court's decision could be thrown into question by an initiative already heading toward the November ballot. The initiative would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex unions.

The campaign over that measure began within minutes of the decision. The state's Catholic bishops and other opponents of same-sex marriage denounced the court's ruling. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who previously has vetoed two bills in favor of gay marriage, issued a statement saying he "respects" the decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn" it.

The ruling was greeted with loud cheering and whooping when it was released at the high court's headquarters here Thursday morning. About 100 people lined up outside to purchase copies of the decision for $10 apiece. Some people bought 10 to 15 copies, calling it a historic document. One man said he planned to give them out as Christmas presents.

Gay groups planned celebrations up and down the state.

"I can finally say I will be able to marry John, the man that I love," said Stuart Gaffney, one of the plaintiffs in the case, referring to his partner of 21 years, John Lewis. "Today is the happiest and most romantic day of our lives."

Conservative and religious-affiliated groups denounced the decision and pledged to bring enough voters to the polls in November to overturn it. Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, called the decision "outrageous" and "nonsense."

"No matter how you stretch California's Constitution, you cannot find anywhere in its text, its history or tradition that now, after so many years, it magically protects what most societies condemn," Staver said.

The decision came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

The court's ruling repeatedly invoked the words "respect and dignity" and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Many gay Californians said that even the state's broadly worded domestic partnership law provided only a second-class substitute for marriage. The court agreed.

Giving a different name, such as "domestic partnership," to the "official family relationship" of same-sex couples imposes "appreciable harm" both on the couples and their children, the court said.

The distinction might cast "doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples," George wrote, joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos R. Moreno. All but Moreno were appointed by Republican governors. George was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991.

The ruling cited a 60-year-old precedent that struck down a ban on interracial marriage in California.

The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should be permitted to marry.

In 2000, 61% of California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 22, that said "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

Since then, the Legislature has passed one of the strongest domestic partnership laws in the country, giving registered same-sex couples most of the rights of married people.

"In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage," Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the first sentence of her dissent.

"But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not."

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, said the ruling "creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory."

"Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.

The decision takes effect in 30 days. Gay couples would then be permitted to marry in California, even if they do not live in the state, gay rights lawyers said. Under federal law, however, other states would not have to recognize those marriages as valid. And same-sex couples would remain ineligible for certain federal benefits, including Social Security benefits for spouses and joint filing for income taxes.

Lawyers on both sides of the debate said they were uncertain how a victory for the proposed November initiative -- which both sides predict will qualify for the ballot -- would affect gay couples who marry during the next several months.

University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has closely followed the state high court for decades, said he was "blown away" and "very surprised" by the ruling.

"The court is exerting some leadership here, and I think it needs to be said that it is a new role for the court," Uelmen said.

"This has not been a court that has been willing to stick its neck out and lead the way on cutting-edge issues like this that involve such strong political feelings."

Uelmen said the court's vote probably reflected the fact that a growing number of Californians favor marriage for gay couples. He noted the case attracted a record number of friend-of-the-court briefs, most of them in favor of same-sex marriage.

Although critics of the ruling, including the dissenters, argued the court should have waited for the voters to decide the question of same-sex marriage, "the majority is not always supposed to have its way" in constitutional democracies, said University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt, one of many legal scholars who weighed in on the case Thursday.

Roosevelt predicted more states would follow California's example and that the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually rule in favor of same-sex marriage.

"That decision will come at the end of a process that is now just beginning," Roosevelt said. He predicted it would follow the pattern of state courts that struck down laws banning interracial marriage decades ago.

The decision followed several recent rulings by the state high court recognizing the rights of same-sex parents, including those not biologically related to their children. The children in those families figured prominently in the court's reasoning in those cases.

The road to Thursday's ruling began with San Francisco's highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in an election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.

Several states later passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and same-sex marriage became an issue in the race for president.

After a month of jubilant gay weddings here, the California Supreme Court intervened and ordered the city to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

The state high court later invalidated the licenses, saying the city should have waited for a judicial ruling before acting.

The plan by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, City Atty. Dennis Herrera and gay rights lawyers to challenge state law by marrying same-sex couples was carefully drawn.

City officials chose the first couples to wed, hoping their long unions and sympathetic stories would put a face on same-sex marriage that courts would find difficult to reject. The city also decided to begin the weddings on a day when courts were closed to deprive opponents of quick legal intervention. One of the first couples to wed has since separated.

The long parade of weddings at City Hall -- across the street from the California Supreme Court -- provided a dramatic backdrop for the gay rights debate.

As the issue moved into the high court, Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute at UCLA's law school, which examines sexual orientation and the law, said the state's broad domestic partner law had undercut the traditional argument that children were better off being raised by opposite-sex parents.

"Taking those issues off the table, which the domestic partners act did, might have made this an easier case for everyone," Sears said. Once the state recognized the right of gays to rear children, the fight for same-sex marriage was shaped as "the right to have a family" and the ruling became "about family being protected."

The court concluded that giving gays a separate institution -- domestic partnership -- "marked gays and lesbians as second-class citizens," Sears said.

The Massachusetts high court ruling that permitted gays there to marry did not give sexual orientation the same kind of constitutional protection that Thursday's decision did, nor was the Massachusetts ruling as explicit in stating that marriage licenses must be given to same-sex couples in the immediate future, legal analysts said.

Sears said recent polls show that Californians are divided over same-sex marriage. Forty-three percent of Californians supported gay marriage in a Field Poll taken a year ago.

He added that the issue was likely to affect the political debate even outside California.

"It is going to give some new teeth to an issue that was losing its potency in terms of being a wedge issue," Sears said.

maura.dolan@latimes.com

Times staff writers Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento, Rong-Gong Lin II, Jean-Paul Renaud, Francisco Vara-Orta, Molly Hennessy-Fiske in Los Angeles and John M. Glionna and Lee Romney in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Volunteer for One Iowa this June!

It’s that time of the year again! Pride is just around the corner and we hope that we can – once again – count on your help!

This year's Pride Events will present a great opportunity for One Iowa to reach our base, expand our efforts, and really grow a grassroots infrastructure to lead Iowa toward being a welcoming and affirming state for all people and all families.

So, once again, One Iowa needs your help. In reaching out across the state of Iowa our volunteer needs will be greater than ever before, which means we are depending on you to make this June a huge success. The long term success of our campaign for fairness and equality will depend greatly on early investments of time, preparation, and civic engagement.

Volunteer opportunities will include, Event Canvassing, Staffing One Iowa Booths, Volunteer Coordination, and Membership Drives.

Can we count on you? Pledge to volunteer with One Iowa at a Pride near you!

-One Iowa Team

To sign up, visit:

Cedar Rapids Pridefest, June 7th

http://eqfed.org/oneiowa/events/crpridevolunteer

Capital City Pride Des Moines, Volunteer opportunities starting May 31st thru - June 15th

http://eqfed.org/oneiowa/events/dsmpridevolunteer

Iowa City Pride, June 20th - 21st

http://eqfed.org/oneiowa/events/icpridevolunteer

Omaha Pride, June 20th - 21st

http://eqfed.org/oneiowa/events/omahapridevolunteer

Quad Cities Pride Picnic, June 28th

http://eqfed.org/oneiowa/events/qcpridevolunteer

Polk County files response in same sex marriage case

Associated Press - Thursday, April 17, 2008

DES MOINES — The Polk County attorney's office has filed a response to legal documents opposing the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

The county attorney calls the ``friend of the court'' brief — filed by gay and lesbian groups as well as lawmakers from Massachusetts — ``less of a legal brief and more of postscript of inadmissible hearsay anecdotal remarks.''

The brief was filed in support of New York-based Lambda Legal, which filed a 2005 lawsuit that resulted in a Polk County ruling that Iowa's gay marriage ban was unconstitutional. The group filed its suit on behalf of six gay and lesbian couples from Iowa who were denied marriage licenses, as well as three of the couples' children.

The lawsuit names former Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

In its filing this week, the county attorney's office argues that the ``friend of the court'' brief is based on news accounts after a decision in a Massachusetts gay marriage case.

``The brief is a collection of opinions without foundation and against which defendant cannot offer counter opinion in the time permitted ... not to mention available resources,'' the county attorney's office stated.

It said the Massachusetts decision has not been widely supported and that the dispute ``has been a political football.'' Polk County officials have maintained that the decision on gay marriage should be left to legislators, not the courts.

Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal's lead attorney on the Iowa case, defended the brief.

``The brief from leaders in Massachusetts is relevant because it shows that gay couples have been marrying there for four years and the sky hasn't fallen,'' she said in a written statement. ``This issue ceases to be controversial once gay couples can marry — just like no-fault divorce and interracial marriage are no longer controversial.''

In all, there were 15 ``friend of the court'' briefs filed in support of Lambda Legal.

Officials with the Polk County attorney's office said the arguments in those other briefs will be addressed later in their response to the plaintiff's arguments.

The Iowa lawsuit prompted a ruling last August by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson, who said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.

The next day, Hanson stayed the decision, and the case is now before the Iowa Supreme Court.

Oral arguments will be scheduled by the Supreme Court in coming months, but a decision this year is unlikely.

Gay couples face higher tax burdens

MOUNT LAUREL, New Jersey (AP) -- For gay couples, the April 15 tax filing deadline can be a reminder of the disparities they face, even in a nation that is becoming more accepting of same-sex couples.

Beth Asaro and Joanne Schailey at their civil union ceremony in 2007.

Gay couples often pay higher taxes because they don't get the federal tax benefits that go with marriage. And for couples in state-sanctioned domestic partnerships, civil unions or same-sex marriages, filing federal income taxes can involve doing three sets of paperwork instead of one.

"It's a significant financial disability," said Beth Asaro, who last year entered into one of New Jersey's first legally recognized civil unions.

While the debate over government recognition of gay marriage is a political hot-button with arguments about morality, civil rights and tradition, the tax issue is a mostly practical one for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples.

Most states ban gay marriage and don't recognize same-sex unions in any way. Only in Massachusetts can gay couples legally marry. Since 1997, nine other states and Washington D.C. started offering civil unions or domestic partnerships that give some or all the legal protections of marriage.

Those protections include allowing gay couples to file state taxes jointly -- and potentially save them money. But they can also make tax filing more complicated for the couples.

That's because the state protections do not help with federal taxes. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the government defines marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman.

"You're running one household," said John Traier, a partner in the Butler, New Jersey, accounting firm Hammond & Traier. "But the federal government and a lot of states treat them as two households."

The same is true for straight unmarried straight couples who are living together.

There are two main effects of the different treatment under federal law.

One is the tax rate. Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples.

For example, Dan Jessup is a project manager at JPMorgan Chase in Indiana. His partner, Bob Chenoweth, is self-employed, running two businesses out of the couple's Mooresville, Indiana, home. So Chenoweth gets health insurance through Chase.

But Jessup is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

State and federal taxes on those benefits cost about $1,800 per year, Jessup said.

"I certainly think about it every payday," when the extra withholding is taken from his paycheck, he said. "If you think about 10 years, $18,000 is a lot of money. That could buy me a pretty nice car."

The tax on benefits for domestic partners also applies to employers. Companies including Chase are endorsing the Human Rights Campaign's push for a bill that would end the tax on health plan benefits for people who are neither the spouse nor legal dependent of the employee. Versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress in the last three sessions, but have never moved out of committee.

A government analysis estimated the bill would cost about $10 billion in lost federal tax revenue over 10 years. Advocates for the bill say it would create savings elsewhere, including reducing the Medicaid rolls.

Ryan Ellis, the tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform, said his group supports the concept, but not the specific language of the bill, because it does not propose increasing how much domestic partners could put into health savings accounts.

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples.

"I don't want to say it's chaotic, but it's very difficult for a lot of reasons," said Traier, the accountant who is in a civil union partnership himself.

In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.

That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

But there are other issues where even up-to-date software might not solve.

These issues also affect unmarried straight couples.

For instance, couples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

"If you are not a different sex," from your partner, Schwartz said, "you are strangers, basically, under federal law."

California's Governor Vows to OPPOSE Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Amicus Info Sessions by One Iowa

One Iowa would like to remind you of the Amicus Event coming up tomorrow:

Cedar Rapids
Monday, April 14th at 5:30pm
Legion Arts, 1103 3rd St SE

RSVP: http://eqfed.org/oneiowa/events/cramicus/details.tcl or contact Matthew Skuya at 515.288.4019.

One Iowa staff will be available to answer your questions and will be presenting about the Written arguments submitted by Lambda Legal on March 28th.

In addition, One Iowa will be hosting a conference call with Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. All are welcome to join us for this call to hear an update on the case and how you can become more involved with One Iowa.

Conference Call Update
April 16th, 12:00pm
Dial in number: 1.888.346.3950
Call Code: 669002

Be sure to join One Iowa staff and hear more about the Amicus briefs and how you can get involved to support Civil Marriage Equality in the state of Iowa!

- One Iowa

Support Equality - Become a Member!

Membership with One Iowa

Support One Iowa's work through membership with One Iowa.
>> Click Here to join today!

$10 - Junior Supporter
$20 - Junior Member
$35 - One Iowa Member
$100 - One Iowa Member Plus
$500 - Capitol Steps Club

Capitol Steps Club

You can also choose to become a repeating supporter to the One Iowa Education Fund, giving a convenient monthly donation that, for a limited time, is matched 100% by the Gill Foundation!
>> Click Here to learn more!

Join our Action Center

Sign up for breaking news, updates, and action alerts. Keep informed and learn how to help!
>> Click Here to join today!

Your finances, your future - it's all in how you plan

Financial advisor and Advocate contributor Joe Kapp and his colleague Nick Burkholder, both registered representatives and investment advisor representatives with Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp., have penned an article in the March 2008 edition of the Journal of Financial Planning that focuses on the issues concerning financial and estate planning for gay men, lesbians, and same-sex couples. We posted a link to the article yesterday, but this topic is so important that we wanted to draw attention to the main points of the Executive Summary:

• Gay men, lesbians, and same-sex couples present significantly different financial and estate planning issues from traditional married couples. This article addresses those differences and shows planners how to work with this underserved niche market.
• Under federal law, same-sex couples may not marry. Yet there are 1,138 federal statutes in which marital status affects the ability to receive federal benefits. Furthermore, states have their own complex and often contradictory sets of laws in this area.
• Before the first client meeting, planners should review, among other things, their documents in order to avoid such terms as “Mr.” and “Mrs.” They also should review their software programs, which typically make calculations for couples on the basis that they are legally married.
• Estate taxes are a concern to same-sex couples because they cannot benefit from the unlimited marital deduction. Hence, the use of life insurance is often critical—yet it, too, presents planning challenges, such as the issue of insurable interest and being sure the insurance is out of a client’s estate.
• Assets must be titled carefully when setting up jointly owned banking and investment accounts, or buying property, and clients may need to make creative use of the annual gift exclusion and the lifetime gift exemption. Same-sex couples may make especially good use of the grantor retained income trust.
• The advisor needs to inquire about the client’s family situation, as family members may not know or approve of the client’s sexual orientation, which can result in financial and legal complications upon death.
• Adoption of children is a common option, but complicated and typically expensive for many same-sex couples.
• More companies are offering benefits for same-sex domestic partners, but it’s not always advisable for the partner to accept the offer because of potential income-tax liability.

This article is a must-read for everyone in our community. You can download a printer-friendly copy of the full article here (.pdf)

Raising Children Isn't Cheap - Especially for Same-Sex Couples

Learn more about the Amicus Briefs submitted in the Iowa Civil Marriage case!

Dear friends,

On Friday March 28, sixteen “friend-of-the-court” briefs or Amicus briefs were filed with the Iowa Supreme Court on behalf of the six same-sex couples and their families seeking marriage in Iowa. Along with Lambda Legal and other national signatories, over 250 of the individual brief signatories are Iowans, likely representing thousands of other Iowans through each signatory organization's membership. One Iowa and many of our partner organizations in Iowa are proud to be represented in this historic journey toward equality.

In celebration of this historic case, One Iowa is hosting four Amicus Brief events across the state to give an update on the case, focus on the “friend-of-the-court” briefs, and discuss how you can become more involved in this campaign toward equality. Upcoming events will be:

Des Moines
Tuesday, April 8th at 5:30pm
Ritual Cafe - 13th street (between Grand and Locust)

Cedar Falls/Waterloo
Wednesday, April 9th at 5pm
Cottonwood Canyon, 218 East 4th St.

Council Bluffs
Thursday, April 10th at 6:00pm
Location TBD (will be announced in the reminder email on Wednesday April 9th)

Cedar Rapids
Monday, April 14th at 5:30pm
Legion Arts, 1103 3rd St SE

In addition, One Iowa will be hosting a conference call with Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. All are welcome to join us for this call to hear an update on the case and how you can become more involved with One Iowa.

Conference Call Update
April 16th, 12:00pm
Dial in number: 1.888.346.3950
Call Code: 669002

Be sure to join One Iowa staff and hear more about the Amicus briefs and how you can get involved to support Civil Marriage Equality in the state of Iowa!

- One Iowa

Groundswell of Support for Marriage from Iowa Leaders

A wide array of organizations and individuals have filed over a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs

at the Iowa Supreme Court on behalf of the six same-sex couples and their families in Lambda Legal's historic marriage case.

Former Lieutenant Governors Joy Corning and Sally Pederson were among the signers. They wrote: "We have a deep respect for the role of the Iowa Supreme Court and the judicial process. We signed our names to a brief submitted to the Court because we believe that the Court is the proper place to decide this matter."

We filed our case with the Polk County Court in December 2005, arguing that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa State Constitution.

In August 2007 the trial court ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The final decision in this case will be made by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Other Signatory Highlights:

• Rev. Paul Shultz, Director of the Wesley Foundation at the University of Iowa: "Couples who seek to care for one another and their families within the bonds of marriage should be embraced and celebrated." Read more from the brief.
  
• Marti Anderson, President of the National Association of Social Workers, Iowa Chapter: "We support the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage and receive all accompanying rights, protections, and privileges…and the rights of the children of same-sex couples to a secure and stable home established through civil marriage. The Iowa district court decision supports the rights of children of same-sex couples." Read more from the brief.
  
• Randall Wilson, Legal Director at the ACLU of Iowa Foundation: "Iowa's legal tradition includes many instances of insightful and courageous court decisions supporting the right of equality. In our brief, we argue that this must not change."
  
• Dr. Kevin Mumford, History Professor at the University of Iowa: "Providing loving couples with access to marriage will be another proud moment in Iowa history." Read more from the brief.

The Iowa Family Policy Center is at it again...

Iowa Leaders and Lambda Legal File Briefs in Case Seeking Marriage Equality

Over 200 Iowa faith leaders and two former Lieutenant Governors sign on to briefs filed today.

(Des Moines, March 28, 2008) — At least 17 briefs will be filed by a wide array of both Iowa-based and national organizations and individuals at the Iowa Supreme Court this week on behalf of the six same-sex couples and their families seeking marriage in Iowa.

One of the briefs, signed by former Lieutenant Governors Joy Corning and Sally Pederson states that the Iowa Supreme Court is the proper body to address this issue.

In a joint statement Corning and Pederson said, "We are proud of Iowa's long history in ensuring fairness and equality for all Iowans. As former elected officials, we have a deep respect for the role of the Iowa Supreme Court and the judicial process. We signed our names to a brief submitted to the Court because we believe that the Court is the proper place to decide this matter. We have a keen understanding of the different roles the courts and legislature play in leading our state and treating all Iowans with fairness."

Rev. Paul Schultz, Director of the Wesley Foundation at the University of Iowa, signatory on the faith leader amicus brief: "As a minister I value marriage and family and believe that loving couples should have an equal chance to experience the joy, comfort and responsibility that marriage provides. Couples who seek to care for one another and their families within the bonds of marriage should be embraced and celebrated."

Marti Anderson, MSW, LISW, President of the National Association of Social Workers, Iowa Chapter said, "The National Association of Social Workers, Iowa Chapter, believes this case is critical to the well-being of Iowa's children and families. We support the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage and receive all accompanying rights, protections, and privileges. We support the rights of the children of same-sex couples to a secure and stable home established through civil marriage. The Iowa district court decision supports the rights of children of same-sex couples."

"We feel very honored to have the support of so many influential Iowa leaders," said Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office in Chicago. "Faith leaders, pediatricians, scientists, elected officials, child welfare advocates and civil rights groups are just a few among the signatories."

"We have always been ahead of our neighbors in fighting for civil rights, and now is the time for our state to take the next step in ending inequality," said Dennis Johnson, former Iowa Solicitor General now of Dorsey and Whitney.

In December 2005, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit with the Polk County Court on behalf of six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Iowa, arguing that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the equal protection and due process guarantees in the Iowa State Constitution. In August of 2007 the trial court ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. The final decision in this case will be made by the Iowa Supreme Court.

Statements from some of the friend-of-the-court brief signatories:

Randall Wilson, Legal Director at the ACLU of Iowa Foundation: "For all of the groups we represent in our brief, the important question remains, when it is their day in court, will constitutional review be meaningful, or will Iowa courts simply provide lip service to principle and accept even the weakest of excuses for discrimination that our governments might concoct. Iowa's legal tradition includes many instances of insightful and courageous court decisions supporting the right of equality. In our brief, we argue that this must not change."

Dr. Dianne McBrien, Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine in Iowa City: "Many pediatricians and other child advocates feel that children born to or adopted by same-sex couples deserve the same legal, financial, and emotional security that the children of married heterosexual couples have. A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that the children raised by gay parents are as emotionally healthy as those raised by heterosexual couples. A ban on gay marriage would disenfranchise the growing number of Iowa children being raised by same-sex couples."

Dr. Kevin Mumford, History Professor at the University of Iowa, signatory on the Iowa history brief:

"At a time when Iowa and the nation have rejected the old-fashioned racism that stigmatized 'miscegenation' and endangered black/white marriages and families, the citizens of our state must again stand for equal protection under the law. Back in 1976 Iowa lawmakers pioneered the repeal of anti-gay sex statutes, and later the University of Iowa pioneered same-sex partner accommodations. Providing loving couples with access to marriage will be another proud moment in Iowa history."

Angela Onwuachi-Willig , Professor of Law at the University of Iowa, signatory on the Iowa history brief:

"We look back with pride that Iowa eliminated its ban on interracial marriage 116 years before the landmark US. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia which struck down such laws around the country and declared that marriage is a fundamental right. Iowa has long been a leader in protecting rights and extending equality--116 years from now I hope Iowans will be able to look back proudly at its place in history allowing same-sex couples to marry."

Camilla Taylor, Senior Staff Attorney and Kenneth Upton, Senior Staff Attorney are handling the case for Lambda Legal. They are joined by former Iowa Solicitor General Dennis Johnson of Dorsey and Whitney in Des Moines.

The case is Varnum v. Brien.

Rants says gay marriage fight isn't over

McCarthy says GOP likely to make gay marriage election issue

Rants fails in his push to debate gay marraige

JASON CLAYWORTH • REGISTER STAFF WRITER • March 4, 2008

A lawmaker’s attempt to push legislation aimed at amending the Iowa Constitution to ban gay marriage failed this morning.

House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, a Sioux City Republican, sought a procedural vote to allow the proposal to skip past the typical legislative process.

If he had been successful, House Joint Resolution 8 would have become eligible for debate by the full House. It also would have survived past a committee deadline this week. Most legislation must pass a House or Senate committee by the end of this week in order to remain eligible for further debate this year.

“I’m disappointed by the outcome,” Rants said shortly after the 46 to 49 vote split along party lines.

Democratic majority leaders have resisted debate on the resolution. The issue is currently before the Iowa Supreme Court and debating the issue before the court rules would subvert the judicial process, they have said.

The issue came about after a ruling last year by Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson that said Iowa's 1998 marriage law was unconstitutional in defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

“It was primarily done to generate press, which I think it certainly served that purpose,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Des Moines Democrat.

One Republican and four Democrats were absent or not voting on the issue. The Republican was Ralph Watts of Adel. The Democrats were: Marcella Frevert of Emmetsburg, Geri Huser of Altoona, Janet Petersen of Des Moines, and Nathan Reichert of Muscatine.

Watts and Huser have previously indicated that they would vote this year in support of the resolution if it were brought up for debate while the other Representatives who did not vote on the issue today have indicated they would not support the legislation.

Today’s vote, however, was not on the resolution itself but on its path through the Legislature. Lawmakers were voting on whether the proposal could skip typical procedure and become eligible for debate.

Respect the Court

Contact your legislators and ask them to respect the role of the Iowa Supreme Court!

Email your legislators NOW and then join us for Civics Day at the Capitol on March 12. Your help is critical to stop the divisive tactics of extremists to write discrimination into our constitution.

Iowans have a deep respect for our constitution and our Supreme Court. Unfortunately, a number of individuals and organizations in Iowa are attempting to circumvent and undermine the judicial process. They have even resorted to hate-filled rhetoric, comparing gay and lesbian couples to Hitler, the Gulags, and rapists!

Help us stop their extremist tactics!

• Email your legislators NOW! Ask them to respect the role of the Iowa Supreme Court - and not write discrimination in our constitution.
• Join us for Civics Day at the Capitol! Join your friends and allies to voice your respect.

Civics Day at the Capitol
March 12, 2008 - 9:30 AM
Registration/Training: Iowa State Historical Building
Hosted by: ACLU of Iowa, Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund, Iowa Planned Parenthood Affiliate League, LGBT Community Center of Central Iowa, and One Iowa

Click here to Register!

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s):
Your Representative (if you live in Iowa)
Your State Senator (if you live in Iowa)

Below is the sample letter:

Subject: Respect the Court!

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

Despite the divisive tactics of extremists to write discrimination into our constitution and circumvent the judicial process, I strongly encourage you to respect the role of the court and OPPOSE HJR 8 and SJR 2001!

Like many other Iowa voters, I have a deep respect for the Iowa Constitution, our Supreme Court, and the judicial process. The independence of the judiciary is a critical piece of our great democracy.

This is a matter before the court and I believe the judicial process should be respected throughout. In the meantime, the people of Iowa elected the legislature to take care of the many important issues currently facing Iowa families such as health care, jobs, and education.

Sincerely,

[Enter Name Here]

Join us for Civics Day at the Capitol!

Do you respect the role of the Iowa Supreme Court and the judicial process? Do you disagree with any attempt to undermine or influence the judiciary? Do you believe in the independence of the judiciary as a critical piece of our democracy?

Join us for Civics Day at the Capitol!

Civics Day at the Capitol

March 12, 2008

9:30 AM

Registration/Training: Iowa State Historical Building Hosted by: ACLU of Iowa, Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund, Iowa Planned Parenthood Affiliate League, LGBT Community Center of Central Iowa, and One Iowa

Click here to Register!

Lobby Day begins at 9:30 AM at the Iowa State Historical Building with an update and training session with an experienced legislative advocate. The session will be followed by a trip to the Capitol to meet with your legislators during the late morning and early afternoon (lunch is on your own). The day will end with a late afternoon celebratory reception at 4:00 PM (location TBD).

Ramp parking is available at the corner of Grand and Pennsylvania across from the Historical Building or click here for additional parking.

If you can not make the whole day - no problem! Register for Civics Day and join us when you can! If you have any questions, please contact Brad Clark at 515-783-5950 or brad@one-iowa.org.

Lawmakers take sides on gay marriage

By JASON CLAYWORTH and JENNIFER JACOBS • REGISTER STAFF WRITERS
February 10, 2008

A majority of Iowa's lawmakers - 123 of 150 - say they believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

But it's not clear whether those same lawmakers have enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

It's also not clear whether lawmakers will ever get a chance to vote on the issue.

A Des Moines Sunday Register survey of legislators shows the 100 members of Iowa's House of Representatives are split 50-50 on how they would vote on an amendment to prohibit gay marriage. Of the 50 who would support a constitutional amendment, 45 are co-sponsors of the legislation.

Among Iowa senators, 21 say they would vote yes on an amendment to prohibit gay marriage, 16 said they would vote no, seven say they're undecided and six declined to answer yes or no.

A resolution that would prohibit gay marriage was introduced nearly a year ago but became a hot topic after Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson ruled in August that an Iowa law was unconstitutional because it allowed marriage only between a man and a woman. Two Ames men were married before Hanson's decision was put on hold and appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

But the proposed resolution may never be voted on because Democratic leaders are "awfully afraid of it," according to Sen. David Johnson, a Republican from Ocheyedan.

The Democrats who control both chambers of the Legislature can block a proposed bill simply by ignoring it. Nearly a month into the 2008 session, Democratic leaders haven't assigned House Joint Resolution 8 to a subcommittee, which is one of the first steps needed for a proposal to become law.

That bill, or the similar Senate Joint Resolution 2001, would launch the process to amend the Constitution so that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized in the state of Iowa.

"I've been assured by leadership that it won't come up," said state Sen. Wally Horn, a Democrat from Cedar Rapids.

Horn is one of the lawmakers who say they are undecided about how they would vote.

On the survey question about whether marriage should be only between a man and a woman, he answered: "If you took a poll of my district, they'd say no, but personally, I'd say yes. My district is more for gay marriage than against it."

Horn said his constituents sent him to Des Moines to make the decisions. "But if there's pressure there to let it go to a ballot, I'm not against that, either," he said.

The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll showed in January 2006 that 54 percent of those surveyed were opposed to making a ban on gay marriage part of the state Constitution, while 39 percent were in favor and 7 percent were unsure.

Johnson believes a constitutional amendment would pass the Senate.

Amendments to the state Constitution must be approved by simple majorities, or 51 votes in the House and 26 votes in the Senate, in two consecutive general assemblies and then be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election. If a resolution were approved this year and in the 2009 or 2010 session, it could be on the general election ballot in November 2010.

"The bill's D.O.A.," said Republican Sen. Larry McKibben, the lead sponsor of the Senate version.

Republican senators hope to force a vote by slipping the proposal into an amendment they can tie to another bill.

"The culture and tradition of our state has always been that marriage is between a man and a woman," McKibben said. "If there has been a change in that, I think the citizens ought to vote the change."

A similar proposal in 2004 was narrowly defeated in the Senate.This time, Democratic leaders say they want to respect the judicial process - and wait for a ruling by the supreme court before deciding whether to take action.

The Register's survey of legislators shows the issue is not strictly divided among party lines. But, generally, Republicans support a constitutional amendment while Democrats oppose it.

"I'm 65 years old, and I just can't get it through my head at this age that it could be any different," said Republican Sen. Hubert Houser of Carson.

Seventy-six-year-old Rep. Dick Taylor, a Cedar Rapids Democrat, compared gay marriage to previous civil rights issues. He remembers when it was illegal for black and white people to marry. Taylor, who is white, also remembers using a "colored" bathroom in South Carolina in the 1950s. He was threatened and nearly beaten by several angry whites who argued that Taylor had jeopardized the sanctity of segregation.

"I don't have any problems with homosexuals marrying," Taylor said. "I have more problems with these people living together that ain't married that have kids they leave to the state to care for."

Seven Democrats, however, are ready to amend the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. One is Sen. Dennis Black of Grinnell, who said, "A basic tenet of my faith is one man, one woman, one time."

Another is Rep. Geri Huser of Altoona.

"People are against judicial activism, yet we as a Legislature have put nothing in the code for judges to address the situation," Huser said. "We're setting the judicial system up for failure because of our inaction."

But Huser said she supports granting contract rights to same-sex couples to address issues such as child custody and child support.

Two Republicans said they don't want to amend the Constitution.

"You don't need to put discrimination into the Constitution ever, no matter what the reason," said Sen. Mary Lundby, a Republican from Marion.

Rep. Chuck Gipp, a Republican from Decorah and the former House majority leader, said: "How I look at this is, I've been married for 36 years. I have my feelings about what marriage is and what it isn't. Is my marriage threatened by what somebody else thinks what marriage is? No, it's not. If it is, then that's my problem," Gipp said.

Another Republican, Sen. John Putney, said he is hesitant to "tamper with the Constitution in that manner," but reluctantly said he'd vote yes.

"I've never been into what other people do with their lives," said Putney, of Gladbrook. "I just hope (the resolution) never comes up."

Reporter Jason Clayworth can be reached at (515) 284-8002 or jclaywor@dmreg.com

Stephen Colbert interviews HRC President, Joe Solmonese

Iowa Politicos Sue to Overturn Gay Marriage Ruling

The Advocate
January 31, 2008

Five Republican lawmakers in Iowa have filed court documents urging the state supreme court to overturn a Polk County judge's decision that struck down a law banning same-sex marriage.

Conservative law group the Alliance Defense Fund is representing state representatives Dwayne Alons, Carmine Boal, and Betty DeBoef and senators Nancy Boettger and James Hahn, according to the Associated Press.

Court documents claim that Judge Robert Hanson abdicated his duty to be fair or neutral by considering a legal challenge to a 1998 state law filed by gay couples. Last week conservative lawmaker Bill Sailer received a petition with more than 6,000 signatures calling for impeachment of the judge, which can be done through the legislature. Sailer said Hanson overstepped his authority last August when he ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, according to the article. The ruling is on appeal.

Al Gore Endores Same-Sex Marriage

Legislative Requests from Davenport

By Quad-City Times Staff - Saturday, January 26, 2008

Please don’t...

The legislative to-do list in Des Moines is long. Here are two things each party should keep off of it.

Republicans

Iowa faces a host of struggles: tax inequity; workforce development; road and bridge repair. None of this gets fixed with a protracted battle for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

In fact, a gay marriage ban fixes nothing. Inflicting it into this session most certainly would grind progress on real problems to a halt.

Let those who want to strengthen marriage begin with their own by modeling examples other Iowans can follow.

Democrats

The words “fair” and “share” are creeping up again in the Iowa state capitol. We hadn’t heard them much since they were dismissed in the last legislative session. We hoped we wouldn’t hear them again this session.

“Fair share” is the unfair plan that would require union dues from employees who choose not to join their workplace bargaining unit.

Let Iowa’s strong unions do what they do best — organize — without a state law coercing dues from those who who exercise their freedom not to join.

“I now realize how important marriage is. I’ve [known I am] gay since I was a teenager. Gay marriage was always something that’s going to happen in the future, but I couldn’t go get one, so it wasn’t on the table. All of a sudden it was on the table. And I got one. I was like, ‘Whoa, I really wanted this the whole time,’ and I was ready for it, and I just told myself I wasn’t because it wasn’t feasible.”

Sean Fitz, who married his boyfriend Tim McQuillan last year in Iowa, when gay marriage was legal in Polk County (Des Moines Register, Jan. 20)

Bid To Impeach Gay Marriage Judge

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 24, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) Petitions with over 6,000 signatures were delivered to the Iowa legislature Thursday demanding lawmaker impeach a judge who last year struck down a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Social conservative Bill Salier and his organization, Everyday America, say that Polk County Judge Robert Hanson violated the state constitution in his ruling.

Hanson ruled that a state law allowing marriage only between a man and woman violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. (story)

Less than two hours after the the ruling two Des Moines men applied for a marriage license, found a judge to waive the waiting period and were married.

Hanson then stayed his ruling until the state could appeal it to the Iowa Supreme Court. The marriage of Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan remains the only legal same-sex marriage in the state.

The appeal of Hanson's same-sex marriage ruling is likely to be heard later this year by the state Supreme Court.

Salier's petition drive is not likely to get far. Only the legislature can impeach a judge and Democrats who control both houses say they have no intention of doing that.

Nor are Democratic lawmakers anxious to take up a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would block gay marriage no matter how the high court rules.

Republicans, Salier's group, conservative churches and other groups are pressing for the amendment.

Last week several hundred people marched outside the Capitol demanding lawmakers move forward on the measure. (story)

House Speaker Pat Murphy (D) said he is in no rush to deal with it.

To amend the Iowa Constitution simple majorities are needed in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies and then it must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the following general election.

If a resolution were approved this year and in the 2009 or 2010 session, it could be placed before voters in November 2010.

Iowa Republicans Press For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 15, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) Republicans are demanding that Democrats who control the legislature take up a proposed amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Wednesday hundreds of conservative Christians bussed in from across the state added leverage to the call.

The protestors held a prayer session at the legislature in support of traditional marriage.

Iowa already has a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples but supporters of the amendment say it could be overturned by "renegade" judges.

At least 48 representatives have signed onto a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage.

"If we can spend an hour debating propane tank regulation, I think we have one hour that we can debate out of a hundred days to debate the value of traditional marriage," said House Minority Leader Christopher Rants (R) marking the opening session of the legislature.

The issue already is before the state Supreme Court but Democrats say it is premature to take up the proposed amendment.

"We don't see the courts in here trying to subvert the Legislature," said House Speaker Pat Murphy (D). "We shouldn't be trying to subvert the judicial process, either."

To amend the Iowa Constitution simple majorities are needed in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies and then it must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the following general election.

If a resolution were approved this year and in the 2009 or 2010 session, it could be placed before voters in November 2010.

Last August Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act ruling that it violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of six gay couples who had sued.

Later that day he stayed his ruling to allow for an appeal to the Supreme Court, but not before several dozen couples applied for marriage licenses.

The marriage license approval process normally takes three business days, but one couple took advantage of a loophole that allows couples to skip the waiting period if they pay a $5 fee and get a judge to sign a waiver.

Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan became the only same-sex couple to be married in Iowa. (story)

GOP pushes for Legislature to address gay marriage

1/14/2008

By Chris Dorsey
IowaPolitics.com

DES MOINES -- With the 2008 legislative session less than an hour old, Republican leadership called upon the Democratic majority to push to protect "traditional marriage."

Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson declared the state's gay marriage law unconstitutional in August and the case is now waiting to be heard by the Iowa Supreme Court.

House Minority Leader Christopher Rants and Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, both of Sioux City, asked the majority party in their chambers to take the initiative and not to let the court dictate state policy.

"During this session you will not see any attempt by the Senate Democrats to stand up and defend the institution of marriage against an extremist attack by a renegade activist judge in Polk County who single handedly overrode the will of the people and this elected body of senators," Wieck said. "Traditional marriage is the bedrock of Iowa’s family unit and our law."

Rants pushed for House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, to resolve the issue with a vote and not wait for the court's decision.

"You can let this stand, and by inaction the majority party will affirm what this one judge has done," Rants said. "Or you can bring up for a vote a bill or resolution that would overturn this ruling. In fact, HJR 8, with 48 bipartisan co-sponsors is sitting in Judiciary Committee ready for action. I know that the quick and casual answer is to say we don’t have time, we’ll let the courts sort it out. But Mr. Speaker, we do have the time. If this chamber can spend an hour debating the merits of registering propane tanks, then surely there is one hour, out of 100 days that we can debate the merits of marriage. That’s all I’m asking for, one hour to debate and vote."

Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, did not address the issue in their opening statements, but have stated the Legislature must be prudent and await the outcome of the Supreme Court.

"I can't help but notice Christopher [Rants] wants to be a legislator, judge and jury," Murphy said Monday morning. "We need to need let the judicial process take its process. This is before the Supreme Court, there is no reason to overreact. The bottom line is we need to let that process go forward. We don't see the courts trying to subvert the Legislature, and we shouldn't be trying to subvert the judicial process."

Supreme Court Chief Justice Marsha Turnis will give her Condition of the Judiciary address Wednesday at the Iowa Statehouse, and prior to her statements supports of traditional marriage are expected to be near or at the Capitol to voice their concerns about Judge Hanson's decision.