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.

Our Caucus Heroes

January 04, 2008
Rachel Balick live from Iowa

The most moving moment of last night's caucuses - and maybe our whole trip - was when Elizabeth Barnhill of Des Moines (pictured left, wearing green shirt) courageously presented her personal resolutions on key GLBT issues, including marriage equality and a fully-inclusive employment non-discrimination policy, during her precinct's platform discussion.

She spoke of her family's story, illustrating perfectly the real reason that we must work tirelessly toward full equality.

Not to mention that it was all caught on C-Span while she and her partner Peg Whorton wore HRC t-shirts. It may have been controversial for Elizabeth to bring up these issues, but ultimately she and her neighbors voted for fundamental fairness. The vote made the resolutions official recommendations to the county Democratic platform committee, who will then decide whether to move it to the state committee for consideration to be part of the state Democratic Party's platform.

Peg and Elizabeth brought two of their daughters, Nisha and Alicia, to the caucus. I took Elizabeth, who is the executive director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, aside and asked her a few questions to learn more about her, her family, and her passion for equality.

Q: What was the conversation about your resolution like?

A: This particular caucus was very receptive to the resolutions. From here they'll be forwarded to the county level for consideration in the county platform and then maybe the state platform. Hopefully similar resolutions were introduced in other caucuses.

Q: What motivated you to present the resolutions?

A: My personal motivation is that my partner and I have eight kids and young adults between us, plus seven grandkids. My partner's had difficulty obtaining medical care for my kids because she's not their legal parent under current law. We've also both experienced discrimination on the job - not in our current jobs, but in the past.

Q: Were you surprised that your resolutions were approved?

A: I didn't know they it would be, so I'm very pleased. I hoped they would pass but I wasn't sure. A lot of people leave the caucus after the delegates have been chosen for the candidates, but I think now that even if the full caucus had voted, they also would have supported them.

Q: How did this caucus compare to previous caucuses, as far as support for GLBT issues?

A: I've been to every caucus since 1980. I think the resolutions would have faced more challenges in the past, but there's a lot more momentum now, so it's a good time to work on these issues.

Q: What do you think accounts for the momentum?

A: I think the efforts of the Human Rights Campaign and other organizations play a big part. It's the increased visibility of these issues, giving real-life families a chance to talk about their lives and showing people that we're regular - even boring - families.

GLBT involvement in Iowa caucuses signifies progress in movement for equality

January 04, 2008

Chris Johnson

One of the main reasons we decided to take such an assertive role in the Iowa caucuses this year is because we feel it’s important for the GLBT community to have a visible and sustained presence in this important and closely watched political event. Marty Rouse, our national field director, frames our involvement in the Iowa caucuses in context of HRC's larger work in Iowa (and New Hampshire) in this guest post:

**********

Marty Rouse - HRC National Field Director

Tonight, as all eyes are focused on Iowa to see the results of the presidential caucuses, the GLBT community has already won a tremendous victory. Unlike in prior years, the presidential candidates, their campaigns and the media are in states that recently enacted historic protections for their increasingly visible GLBT citizens.

More than 350,000 voters joined their neighbors across Iowa on Thursday to line up behind their choices for President. The campaigns have been active in Iowa for a year, and the candidates have criss-crossed the state talking to voters in a personal way that only happens in early battleground states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

I believe that the campaigns to elect our next leader – and the media that follow them – are directly impacted by the environment in which they operate. This year, that environment is markedly different than in past election years. Just two years ago, the legislatures in both Iowa and New Hampshire were debating placing anti-marriage constitutional amendments on their November 2008 ballots. Now, with new fair-minded majorities in both states’ legislatures, those efforts have been replaced with historic pro-equality legislation. In Iowa, a GLBT civil rights law went into effect last year. And as the clock struck midnight on New Year’s Eve, jubilant couples lined up for civil unions in New Hampshire to ring in not only a new year, but a new era.

As presidential campaigns, candidates and the media talk to voters up close and personal as can only be done in New Hampshire and Iowa, they see first-hand how our gains have made life better for all Americans. The other day, I was watching C-SPAN (as I often do) when a presidential candidate began a stump speech in Iowa by congratulating Governor Chet Culver for signing the GLBT anti-discrimination law. The crowd of hundreds broke out in cheers. This would not have happened a mere two years ago. Most of the presidential candidates have proudly posed for photos with HRC volunteers wearing Equality ’08 t-shirts. A few even autographed them. Several hundred GLBT activists and allies from across the Hawkeye State were energized by attending caucus trainings led by HRC and our state-based partner One Iowa. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents are more protected and much more visible than ever before.

Minor events on the campaign trail, like candidates seeing our Equality ’08 t-shirts or being asked a question by a hand-holding lesbian couple, have been often repeated in these small states this year. They may be minor moments, but they surely signify major accomplishments of our movement and are no doubt impacting the future leader of our country.

The GLBT community and our issues have never had a greater impact at the beginning of the presidential selection process. All of us have a responsibility to be visible and active all along the campaign trail right up through November 4th.

Presidential Candidate John McCain on Gay Marriage in Iowa

Legal landscape changes little

By Cheryl Wetzstein
The Washington Times

WASHINGTON -- The legal landscape for same-sex "marriage" changed very little in 2007, as both supporters and opponents were dealt setbacks.

The biggest loss for traditional-values supporters occurred in Massachusetts, the only state that legally allows same-sex couples to "marry."

Massachusetts residents successfully conducted a petition drive to put a constitutional amendment to end same-sex "marriage" before voters. The amendment won the first of two legislative votes, and this year, needed the support of only 50 lawmakers to be put on the 2008 ballot.

However, the June 14 vote fell short by five votes, thanks to several last-minute vote switches, and the amendment was defeated.

The next issue will be the 2008 political campaigns, in which lawmakers will "absolutely" be asked to explain their votes, said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. Massachusetts remains a key battleground for marriage, he added, but for now, people are taking time to regroup.

In Indiana, a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman failed to pass a House committee this year. Marriage amendments in Wyoming, Maryland and New Mexico were defeated by lawmakers.

In Florida, a citizens' petition drive seems likely to succeed in getting a marriage amendment on the 2008 ballot. Earlier this month, leaders of the Florida Coalition to Protect Marriage said they had collected more than the needed 611,009 certified signatures, and planned on collecting more until the Feb. 1 deadline.

In other legislative acts, Washington state lawmakers passed a domestic-partnership law, while New Hampshire lawmakers enacted a civil-union law.

In California, lawmakers again passed a "gender-neutral" marriage law, which would allow two persons to marry without regard to sex. However, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, saying he wanted to wait until the California Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of a voter-passed initiative that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

For homosexual rights activists, a victory occurred in August when an Iowa court ruled that there was a constitutional right to same-sex "marriage." That case, brought by six homosexual couples, has been appealed and is expected to go before the Iowa Supreme Court.
Still, homosexual rights activists lost two other pivotal cases in 2007.

In September, the Maryland Court of Appeals, as the state's highest court is known, ruled that the state constitution did not require same-sex "marriage," even though it has an equal rights amendment.

This month, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled, 3-2, that the state's Family Court cannot handle the divorce case of two lesbians who married in Massachusetts.

Rhode Island law unambiguously defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex," so Family Court doesn't have the power to grant a divorce to couples who aren't married under state law, the court said.