Did a little research and it appears that 5 of 7 Iowa Supreme Court justices are democratic appointees. No idea how liberal they are though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28…
Iowa high court takes on gay marriage
Judges will hear arguments in challenge to state’s ban on same-sex unionsDES MOINES, Iowa – The gay marriage debate moves to the Midwest this week as the Iowa Supreme Court hears arguments in a challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
If the high court rules in favor of the half dozen gay couples who filed the lawsuit, it would make Iowa the fourth state behind Massachusetts, California and Connecticut to uphold the right of same-sex couples to legally marry. In California, however, voters have negated the courts by amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
The Iowa case has been moving through the legal system for more than three years, and it could take a year or more for the state Supreme Court to issue a ruling after hearing oral arguments Tuesday morning.
The good news and bad news is that the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to be the final word on the subject for some time.
If the court upholds the law, I am fairly certain the Democratic leadership in the legislature will not stick their necks out to repeal it.
If the court overturns the law, it will be difficult for opponents to get a Prop 8-style constitutional amendment through. Iowa requires the legislature to approve a constitutional amendment two years in a row before it goes to the voters, so even if the court ruled quickly, a referendum couldn’t get on the general-election ballot until 2011. But I have heard that the Democratic leadership in the Iowa Senate is committed to blocking any Prop 8-style amendment if the court overturns the DOMA law.
By the way, the Iowa Supreme Court usually issues a ruling between two and six months after oral arguments (not a year or more).
A recent Iowa poll showed 28 percent support gay marriage rights and another 30 percent support civil unions. Could be better, could be worse.
I thought it was that an IA Const Amendment put to the voters required two successive General Assemblys to approve of the amendment, not two different years votes, as a GA serves a two year term. Which again makes it harder for politically charged Amendments to make it through the process.
Is that correct or?