Tag: Iowa Supreme Court

Next year’s campaign in Iowa Senate district 37 will be closely watched statewide and may draw some national attention. Republican State Representative Kent Sorenson has decided to challenge first-term Senator Staci Appel instead of seeking re-election to Iowa House district 74. The socially conservative Sorenson made a splash this summer with his open letter imploring Senator Chuck Grassley to provide “principled and bold leadership” to advance the Republican Party platform. Appel is assistant Senate majority leader and chairs the State Government Committee. Her husband is one of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices who unanimously struck down our Defense of Marriage Act in April.

Republican blogger Craig Robinson is upbeat about Sorenson’s chances.

My opinion on this matchup hasn’t changed since Robinson first discussed the prospect in May: Bring it on.

Here’s Robinson’s case for Sorenson as a strong challenger:

In 2008, Sorenson defeated State Representative Mark Davitt by 163 votes. Sorenson’s victory surprised many Republican insiders that year. Since his campaign wasn’t on their radar as a potential pick-up, Sorenson was left to himself to orchestrate a winning campaign. With the help of a dedicated volunteer base, Sorenson pulled off the upset of the night when he sent Rep. Davitt home after serving three terms in the Iowa House.

Sorenson will not be flying under the radar in his race against Staci Appel. This time around, he finds himself as one of the top recruits for Senate Republicans. Making things more intriguing is that the Sorenson-Appel match-up will be ground-zero for the gay marriage debate in Iowa. Sorenson is an unabashed supporter of traditional marriage. Appel is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and is also married to one of the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ran roughshod over Iowa’s marriage laws.

Despite raising huge amounts of money for her campaign in 2006, Appel only won her seat by 772 votes. Her opponent in 2006 was relatively unknown and underfunded. Sorenson brings a number of attributes to the race. First, Sorenson already represents half of the district. The part of the district that he already represents is the most difficult for a Republican candidate to win. Second, Sorenson has shown that he has the determination to do what’s necessary to win. While some candidates look for help from the day they are recruited, Sorenson and his crew of volunteers work tirelessly at the grassroots level.

Another factor to consider is that Sorenson and Steve Deace, the afternoon drive radio host on WHO Radio, are good friends and share a similar worldview. While many Republican candidates are hesitant to go on Deace in the Afternoon, Sorenson has embraced it. Deace will have to offer Sen. Appel air time as Election Day nears, but there is no chance she would walk into that studio and sit across the table from Deace. Sorenson’s access to WHO Radio’s listeners will help him counter the fundraising edge that many people expect Appel to have.

Appel faced a “relatively unknown and underfunded” opponent in 2006 because her strong fundraising and hard work on the ground scared Republican incumbent Doug Shull out of seeking re-election. She won by “only” 772 votes at a time when Iowa Democrats did not have the large voter registration advantage over Republicans that they now enjoy. Four years ago, Appel was a community volunteer seeking elective office for the first time. Now she chairs a Senate committee and has plenty of achievements under her belt.

I give credit to Sorenson for his narrow victory in House district 74 last November. It shocked and disappointed Iowa Democrats and prevented us from passing some important bills during this year’s legislative session. But as Robinson himself acknowledges, Sorenson is not going to be an under-the-radar challenger next year.

He now has a public record that he lacked as a first-time candidate in 2008. Sorenson was an early endorser of Bob Vander Plaats for governor. As the GOP primary unfolds, more and more Iowans will learn about Vander Plaats’ unworkable plan to halt gay marriage as well as his other wacky policy ideas. Sorenson appears to be ignorant about the separation of powers, as his clerk in the Iowa House erroneously told the Warren County recorder that she did not need to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage.

This summer, Sorenson criticized Chuck Grassley for not being staunchly conservative enough and not flatly ruling out a compromise over health care reform. That will put him out of step with many moderates. Grassley’s approval rating has fallen this year, and the Des Moines Register’s recent statewide poll showed that “52 percent of Iowans would rather see Grassley compromise with Democrats than walk away from the [health care reform] negotiations. Thirty-nine percent would rather see him drop out of the talks than support proposals he disagrees with.”

Sorenson is willing to take his message to voters’ doorsteps, but Appel’s a hard worker with years of experience canvassing this district.

I’m not convinced that Sorenson will benefit much from WHO drive-time host Steve Deace’s assistance. Deace tends to go on the warpath against insufficiently right-wing Republicans (like John McCain), and next fall the GOP nominee for governor may be on his hit list. Deace has a big audience, but I think his blessing will only emphasize how far Sorenson is outside the Iowa mainstream.

Finally, I doubt Sorenson will get much traction against Appel on the same-sex marriage issue. The Varnum v Brien decision was unanimous; it’s not as if Justice Brent Appel cast the deciding vote on the Supreme Court. A barrage of television ads highlighting gay marriage didn’t win the day for the Republican candidate in the Iowa House district 90 special election. The Register’s recent statewide poll indicates that Iowans are not eager to vote for a constitutional amendment to overturn marriage equality. If public opinion trends in Vermont and Massachusetts are any guide, Iowans are likely to be more tolerant of same-sex marriage a year from now than they are today.

Appel will have to work hard against Sorenson, but I am confident that she will be able to bring this race home, with the help of a strong coordinated campaign by the Iowa Democratic Party.

Sorenson’s decision to run against Appel improves Democratic prospects in the Iowa House next year. Republicans have just about zero chance of taking back the majority in the Iowa Senate (where they hold only 18 of the 50 seats), but the GOP has more realistic pickup opportunities in the House (where they hold 44 seats out of 100). Sorenson has just given Democrats an excellent chance of winning back House district 74, which would make the hill steeper to climb for Republicans. Mark Davitt will decide this fall whether to run for his old House seat again. According to Bleeding Heartland user MrScarletW, Democrat Scott Ourth is running in House district 74. Here’s a short bio on Ourth.

Incidentally, State Representative Jodi Tymeson of House district 73 (the more Republican-leaning half of Senate district 37) has announced that she will not seek re-election next year either. That’s another open seat for the GOP to defend and another sign that Republicans are not confident about their chances to win back the Iowa House.

Final note for political trivia buffs: I’ll wager that Iowa Senate district 37 will be the country’s only state legislative race next year in which both major-party candidates have six children.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

There’s nothing opponents of marriage equality can do to stop gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Iowa starting on April 24, but the political battle over marriage equality will go on for a long time after wedding bells start ringing.

After the jump I will bring you up to date on the political reaction to last Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling, prospects for amending Iowa’s constitution and the latest statewide opinion poll on same-sex marriage.

First, a quick note for anyone planning to come to Iowa to get married. Daily Kos user Wee Mama posted information about getting a marriage license in Iowa for those who live elsewhere. If you would like to have a religious ceremony, I recommend contacting The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa for help in finding a sympathetic officiant, most likely to be from a United Church of Christ, United Methodist or Unitarian Universalist congregation. Couples wanting a Jewish wedding should contact Rabbi David Kaufman of Temple B’nai Jeshurun in Des Moines, if at least one partner is Jewish and the couple is open to raising children as Jews. Rabbi Kaufman has officiated at a same-sex commitment ceremony and published this blog post on Friday demolishing the arguments against legalizing gay marriage in Iowa.

We now resume our previously scheduled diary…

At the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland I published longer posts on reaction to the Varnum v Brien decision from Iowa Democrats and Iowa Republicans, so I’ll just hit the highlights here.

I was very happy to read the joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy. I liked it so much, I am re-posting the whole thing:

“Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.

“The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

“When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.

“Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.

“Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.

“In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

“In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

“In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

“In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

“In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

“Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws.”

I’m not the biggest fan of our legislative leadership in Iowa, but Murphy and Gronstal hit it out of the park on this one. Their statement sends a very strong message to the public as well as to wavering Democratic legislators. Statehouse Democrats met behind closed doors Monday to discuss this issue, and at least a few Democrats support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but I doubt Murphy and Gronstal would have issued such a strong statement on Friday if they had any intention of letting a Proposition 8-style bill get to the floor of the Iowa House or Senate. Gronstal confirmed on April 6 that the Iowa Senate will not debate this issue this year (scroll to the bottom of this diary to read a very strong statement from him). I believe leadership will block any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment restricting marriage equality during the 2010 session.

Governor Chet Culver tends to avoid speaking out on controversial topics, and he dodged on Friday with a statement acknowledging strong feelings on both sides of this “complicated and emotional issue.” He said he would review the court decision with his legal counsel and with the attorney general of Iowa. I would have liked to see more supportive comments from Culver, but he is in an awkward spot. After saying in September 2007 that “it’s important we let the judicial process work itself out here,” the governor unwisely promised in January 2008 to “do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman” if the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Republican politicians and bloggers in Iowa are already demanding that the governor keep his promise.

I am not worried that Culver will actively fight the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, though. Not when a large segment of the Democratic base and Democratic legislative leaders support marriage equality. In addition, Culver promised on Friday to consult with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller before reacting to this ruling, and Miller (also a Democrat) issued a strong statement later the same day that began as follows:

The Court has issued a clear and well-reasoned opinion. I believe that the Supreme Court’s decision is right, based on Iowa Constitutional law principles regarding equal protection. It is noteworthy that the decision was unanimous.

I wrote on Friday that two separately elected Iowa legislatures would have to approve a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage before the measure would go to Iowa voters. If Gronstal and Murphy are able to block such an effort in 2010, Republicans would have to win back the legislature in 2010, pass the amendment in 2011 or 2012, hold the legislature in 2012, and pass the amendment in 2013 or 2014. By then I believe support for marriage equality will be widespread in Iowa.

However, I forgot about something MyDD user political22 pointed out. Every ten years, Iowans vote on whether to call a Constitutional Convention, and the next scheduled vote on this matter is in 2010. Secretary of State Mike Mauro discussed this scenario Monday with Radio Iowa:

Under the traditional method of amending the state’s constitution, 2012 is the earliest an amendment banning gay marriage could be placed on the ballot. But Secretary of State Michael Mauro says in 2010, Iowans can vote to convene a constitutional convention to consider amendments to the document.

“If it were to happen, it opens up many possibilities to make all kinds of amendments,” Mauro says. “It’s wide open.”

If a constitutional convention comes up with an amendment or amendments to place before Iowa voters, a special election could be scheduled in 2011 according to Mauro. Mauro, the state’s top election official, says a constitutional convention could not rewrite the entire state constitution and would be restricted to proposing amendments — but there’s no limit on the number of amendments which could be proposed.

I forgot about this option because Iowans have never come close to approving a Constitutional Convention any of the previous times they’ve voted on the measure (in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000). I contacted Mauro today for further information, and here is the process as he described it to me.

The question about calling a Constitutional Convention will automatically be on the general election ballot in November 2010. A simple majority vote in favor is all that’s needed to approve the measure. If it passes, the legislature would have to come up with a process for selecting delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and the statute provides very little guidance on how this would be done. The governor plays no role in these decisions; it would be up to the Iowa legislature to approve rules on selecting constitutional delegates.

The Constitutional Convention would meet sometime during 2011, after which the legislature would have to set an election date for the public to vote on any amendments that come out of the convention. Most likely, the special election would be held in late 2011 or early 2012. The amendments would not be voted on as a package. Each amendment would appear separately on the special election ballot. They could deal with almost any issue, from reducing the number of Iowa counties (the constitution currently stipulates that we have 99 counties) to consolidating school districts to giving counties zoning authority over large hog lots to various worker protections favored by labor unions.

Iowa Republicans would be taking a huge risk by going all-out to approve a Constitutional Convention in 2010. They may feel the public is with them on gay marriage; a poll that was in the field last week showed that just 26 percent of Iowans support gay marriage, with another 28 percent supporting civil unions. Perhaps a campaign on amending the constitution would be a helpful backdrop for Republican candidates for governor and state legislature. On the other hand, focusing on the ballot initiative would keep divisive social issues front and center, and Republican candidates running on social issues didn’t fare well in the 2006 or 2008 Iowa legislative races. Also, that recent poll showed a huge generation gap, with nearly 60 percent of Iowans under age 30 supporting gay marriage, and three-quarters of Iowans under 30 supporting either gay marriage or civil unions. Republicans need to weigh whether a short-term benefit in 2010 is worth the long-term damage to the GOP’s image among younger voters who have been trending Democratic.

A Constitutional Convention would bring other risks for Republicans too, because it could consider a lot more than gay marriage. It will be an uphill battle for Republicans to regain control of the legislature in 2010. Democrats currently have a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House and a 32-18 majority in the Iowa Senate.

If voters approve a Constitutional Convention while keeping Democrats in charge of the legislature, Democrats would be able to draft the rules for selecting delegates to that convention. Who becomes a delegate will inevitably influence the kind of amendments the assembly would consider.

Certain interest groups may not be pleased by a campaign to approve a Constitutional Convention. Kay Henderson did some scenario spinning at Radio Iowa today and suggested that road-builders might be afraid of losing the constitutional provision that earmarks all gas tax revenues for the Iowa’s Road Use Tax Fund. I wouldn’t be surprised if agribusiness fought the idea of a constitutional convention too, because there’s a lot of support in both parties for “local control” over large hog confinements.

I assume someone will soon poll Iowans on whether they would vote to call a Constitutional Convention to overturn gay marriage. I’m particularly interested to know whether Iowans who say they are for civil unions, but not gay marriage, feel strongly enough about that to support amending the Iowa Constitution.

Setting aside the constitutional discussion for a moment, many political observers are wondering how the Iowa Supreme Court ruling will affect the 2010 races. This will be a hammer for Republicans to use against Democrats in marginal state legislative districts, even if some of those Democrats themselves oppose gay marriage. I am not too worried, because no Democratic incumbents lost in 2008 after they voted to add sexual orientation to Iowa’s civil rights law. The overall economy and deteriorating budget projections are much bigger threats to Democratic incumbents in 2010, in my opinion.

As I mentioned above, Governor Culver doesn’t have a lot of good options now. He has no choice but to backtrack on his promise to “do what it takes” to “protect” heterosexual marriage from gay unions. Pushing for a constitutional amendment would produce a strongly negative response from much of the Democratic base. On the other hand, there are also Democrats and independents who oppose gay marriage and will want to see the governor do something. I hope he will use the unanimity of the court ruling and the legal advice he receives from the attorney general as excuses to revise his previous opinion on marriage equality. Republicans will try to hurt Culver on this issue in 2010, but the passionate opponents of gay marriage were never going to vote for Culver anyway.

Paradoxically, Culver could benefit from this controversy if it helps a social conservative win the Republican gubernatorial nomination next year. I believe the governor will win or lose based on economic issues, and he would have a tougher campaign against State Auditor David Vaudt or even Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey than against a hard-core “values Republican” such as Bob Vander Plaats.

The best scenario for Democrats would be for Congressman Steve “10 worst” King to run against Culver. I don’t know anyone from either party who thinks King could win a statewide election. King told the Omaha World-Herald on Friday that he is more likely to run for governor in 2010 if Culver does not “step up” to try to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

By the way, David Waldman (formerly known as Kagro X) used King’s reaction to the Varnum v Brien ruling to mock King’s lack of understanding of the whole “checks and balances” concept. We Iowans learned long ago never to expect logic or coherence from Steve King.

Ultimately, it’s far too early to guess the impact of gay marriage on the 2010 elections. There’s no consensus among Bleeding Heartland commenters about how much this hurts Democrats. While some Republicans are hoping the issue will save their party, others are angry about what they view as a weak response by Republican leaders on this issue. I am confident that public opinion will shift toward supporting marriage equality when people see the sky didn’t fall because some couples who were already living together made it official. Then again, Nate Silver thinks it will be 2013 before a majority of Iowans are ready to vote to support gay marriage.

For now, my advice to fellow Iowa Democrats is “Don’t worry, be happy” about the Varnum v Brien decision. Even if I’m wrong about the potency of gay marriage as an electoral weapon for Republicans, some things are worth losing elections over.

Final note: On April 6 I received this press release from the Iowa Senate Democrats. The bold part was bolded in the original.

Iowa Senate Majority Leader

Mike Gronstal rejects amendment to reverse marriage equality

DES MOINES:  Monday night, April 6, was the first time the Iowa Senate discussed the unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court to allow same sex couples to marry. During the discussion, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs made clear he would not agree to suspend the rules to allow a vote on an amendment to reverse the court decision.  

Without the support of Senate Majority Leader Gronstal, efforts to amend the Iowa Constitution can not move forward in the Senate.

Below is the text of Senator Gronstal’s response to Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley of Chariton .  It is also available on YouTube at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

“One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men.  And those guys were talking about gay marriage.  They were talking about discussions going on across the country.  

“Any my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: ‘You guys don’t understand.  You’ve already lost.  My generation doesn’t care.’

“I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that.  And I’ve talked with other people about it and that’s what I see, Senator McKinley.   I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.

“Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong.  As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife.  You know I’ve been married for 37 years.  I hugged my wife.  I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

“No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.”

This morning the Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Varnum v Brien, a case in which six couples are challenging Iowa’s law declaring that “Only a marriage between a male and female is valid.” Polk County has appealed a district judge’s ruling last year that the statute is unconstitutional. Last night jpmassar published a good overview of the legal issues underlying Judge Robert Hanson’s ruling as well as the county’s defense of the statute. (See also Osorio’s legal primer on the case.)

Links to video of the oral arguments can be found the Iowa Supreme Court’s website. The Des Moines Register’s article summarizing the arguments (with embedded video) is here. You can download pdf files of the district court ruling and the briefs submitted to the Iowa Supreme Court on appeal here.

My focus in this diary is not the legal arguments, but the political case that will need to be made for marriage equality once the Supreme Court has ruled on Varnum v Brien several months from now.

I have no idea how the high court will rule. Marriage equality advocates I have spoken with believe there is a realistic chance that Iowa’s “defense of marriage act” will be overturned and Judge Hanson’s ruling upheld. At the same time, no one believes this outcome is a sure thing. While five of the seven justices on the Iowa Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors, the court has never considered a gay marriage case before, so it is hard to say how the individual judges would be inclined to view Hanson’s reasoning.

For better or worse, the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to be the last word legally on gay marriage in Iowa for at least a few years. Amending the Iowa constitution is relatively difficult. If the court overturns current state law, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would need to be approved by two consecutive legislative sessions (the 2009/2010 session and the 2010/2011 session) before going to the public in a general-election referendum. So, the earliest Iowa voters would be able to weigh in on this issue would be in November 2011.

My understanding is that Democratic leaders in the Iowa Senate (where Democrats have a 32-18 advantage) are committed to blocking any Proposition 8-style constitutional amendment. The 56-44 Democratic majority in the Iowa House may or may not be solid on this issue.

On the other hand, if the Iowa Supreme Court overrules Judge Hanson and finds the current statute constitutional, I do not expect Democratic leaders in the legislature or Governor Chet Culver to put their political weight behind repealing the “defense of marriage act.” So, full marriage rights for gays and lesbians in Iowa would probably be blocked for at least a few years in that scenario.

Even if the legal issue appears to be resolved, it’s clear that gay marriage will remain a salient political issue for some time after the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling.

If the court overturns the law, the Republican Party of Iowa is likely to make a Prop 8-style crusade against gay marriage a major focus of its strategy going into the 2010 elections–especially if the state House or Senate blocks a constitutional amendment. Those who support marriage equality will need to back up Democratic politicians who stand with us on this issue, because there will be immense pressure to cave from some Democrats who are either social conservatives or who represent marginal districts. We will need to help move public opinion toward accepting gay marriage as a legal reality that does not threaten the institution of marriage for others.

If the court upholds the law, advocates for marriage equality will need to work on getting the Iowa legislature to approve, and Governor Culver to sign, some kind of legal recognition for gay couples. But again, the Republican Party of Iowa is likely to be aggressive in advocating against civil unions or any official recognition for same-sex relationships. Public education will be needed to give our Democratic legislators the political will to pursue this course. (Few socially moderate Republicans remain in the Iowa legislature.)

The good news is that Iowans already seem broadly supportive of legal recognition for same-sex couples. A Big Ten poll taken in October indicated that 28 percent of Iowans support gay marriage rights, with another 30 percent backing civil unions:

The poll showed that with a Supreme Court ruling, support for marriage increases to 35 percent, with another 27 percent supporting civil unions but not marriage.

That’s before the full-court press the right-wing noise machine is sure to make on this issue, no matter what the Iowa Supreme Court decides.

Shortly before Thanksgiving, I put up a post at Bleeding Heartland making fun of the American Family Association’s DVD called “They’re Coming to Your Town.” You can view the unintentionally funny DVD trailer and read the transcript here. The tone of its dire warnings about the gay agenda reminded me of a satirical piece in The Onion: I’m Not One Of Those ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ Christians. To my surprise, my post prompted this reply from a conservative Republican who occasionally comments at Bleeding Heartland:

There’s a difference  (0.00 / 0) [delete comment]

…in my book anyway, between a “gay” as you call them and a “gay activist” as the AFA refers to them in their promo.

Gay activists aren’t the loving couple who lives down the street; they’re the mouthy, in-your-face types who want to force everyone to accept, without question, their lifestyle.

This line of attack strikes me as potentially effective, and not only with religious conservatives who will never tolerate gays for theological reasons.

In order to combat Republican efforts to reverse marriage equality or block civil unions (depending on the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling), we need to connect with those Iowans who may not mind that “loving couple” living quietly down the street, but resent the “in-your-face types” who want official recognition of their status.

I would appreciate input from anyone involved in voter persuasion during the recent campaign in California. It seems to me that the two most important groups to focus on are:

1. People who are happy to take a live-and-let-live approach to gays, but don’t see why the state should recognize their relationships.

Obviously, married couples enjoy many benefits not extended to unmarried couples. If you volunteered for the No on Prop 8 cause, what did you find to be effective points to bring up with voters?

Were people more likely to be supportive if reminded of the tax and other economic benefits granted to married couples? Or was it more useful to remind people of the potential harm suffered by couples lacking legal recognition, such as the chance that unsupportive relatives would bar a life partner from being with a sick or dying person in the hospital?

2. People who would support civil unions but are for whatever reason uncomfortable about the idea of gay marriage. If the Big Ten poll cited above is accurate, as many as 30 percent of Iowans fall into this category.

California blogger atdleft recently wrote,

I occasionally ran into this problem when I was out campaigning against Prop 8 in California. There would always be a few who’d ask me why we couldn’t be happy that domestic partnerships “are just like marriage”. I’d respond that domestic partnerships are not “just like marriage” because they’re not marriage and they only provide 1/3 the same rights as marriage, as the other 2/3 are federal rights that are blocked under DOMA.

I just don’t get it. On one hand, straight Americans seem more accepting of LGBT people than ever before. They support hate crimes laws, open military service, adoption rights, and essentially all the rights of marriage for gay & lesbian couples. But for some reason, people still stop and freak out over that one actual word: marriage.

Making gay marriage legal will not “force” any individual or church to “accept, without question, their lifestyle.” It’s vital for people to understand that clergy will not be forced to officiate at gay weddings. My own temple’s rabbi, who has officiated at same-sex ceremonies in our congregation, declined to marry Iowa’s only same-sex couple to be legally wed following Judge Hanson’s ruling last year. He released a statement explaining his position:

I wouldn’t have done this particular ceremony because NEITHER was Jewish in the first place. Instead I would have referred them to Rev. Mark Stringer of the Unitarian Church, who I know is a strong proponent of civil marriage and same sex ceremonies and who eventually did the marriage anyway. I commend him for so doing. […] For those interested, I both support Civil Marriage and I would do a same sex commitment ceremony, but my requirements for so doing would be EXACTLY the same as for a non-homosexual couple. Someone has to be Jewish and the couple must either be prepared to raise their children as Jews or have discussed it and not decided. I do not act as “Justice of the Peace” in a secular capacity. When I do weddings of any kind, I represent the Reform Jewish tradition in general and my beliefs as a Reform Jewish Rabbi in particular. I am there as a Rabbi, not as Justice of the Peace. Meanwhile, let me offer a hearty Mazal Tov to Sean and Tim.”

By the same token, religious institutions will not be forced to recognize gay marriages, just like legalizing divorce did not force churches to recognize divorces or remarriages.

Letting couples tell their own stories about why they want to be married is going to be a central part of any public campaign to increase support for gay marriage.

But I’ve also been wondering if we need to reassure people who are uncomfortable that they will still be able to disapprove of gay couples, even those who are legally married. Telling people that they’re wrong to be intolerant could backfire, especially if we’re dealing with an emotional issue. It might be more effective to make people understand that we hear and acknowledge their views.

Most of us can think of marriages we don’t approve of. Depending on your values, that could be 17-year-olds who dropped out of high school, a couple who are several decades apart in age, a professor marrying a former student, an impulsive remarriage after someone was widowed, an “open marriage” between non-monogamous heterosexuals, or a person who appears to have married a rich person for money. I know people who disapprove of my own marriage, because my husband is not Jewish. But no one would dispute that all of these marriages are valid under state law.

In an ideal world, I would want everyone to accept all loving couples and not be judgmental, but I think we need people to understand that they can still disapprove of gay marriage, even if it is legal. Widespread tolerance of gay relationships would be great, but it is not essential.

I doubt this script would be in any LGBT group’s talking points, but I wonder if it would help to convey this kind of message to reluctant voters:

I hear what you’re saying. For some people, gay marriage just goes against their values. I feel the same way when I look at some couples who probably got married for the wrong reasons. But I figure, just because someone gets a marriage license doesn’t mean I have to agree with their personal choices.

This could be a way of finding common ground with people who don’t object to what gays and lesbians do in their private lives, but are resistant to the state putting the “marriage” label on those relationships.

Again, I would welcome input from anyone who has done public education or voter persuasion on marriage equality. No matter where you live, you are welcome to post your advice to Iowa advocates at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland.