Tag: marriage equality

I’ve been assuming for the past few months that there’s no way Bob Vander Plaats can defeat Terry Branstad in this year’s Republican gubernatorial primary. Branstad’s statewide connections from his four terms as governor and his support from major donors should give him an insurmountable edge, especially in the eastern Iowa counties. While Vander Plaats would have a great shot at winning a caucus or a statewide convention, I didn’t see any way he could keep Branstad below 50 percent in the primary, especially with Branstad likely to raise far more money.

I’ve started to rethink my assumptions as conservative Republicans have spoken out against Branstad.

Everyone knew the Iowa Family Policy Center’s political action committee would endorse Vander Plaats at some point, but their statement yesterday went far beyond expressing a preference for Vander Plaats. The IFPC made clear that they will not support Branstad in the general election if he wins the GOP nomination.

Follow me after the jump for more on the IFPC’s endorsement and how Vander Plaats could win the primary.

You can read the IFPC’s press release here and watch videos from yesterday’s rally outside the capitol against same-sex marriage rights. The group judged the candidates on the following criteria:

The Iowa Family PAC’s evaluation of the candidates was designed to seek out and promote a statesman and public servant who would commit to uphold the Biblical principle of individual responsibility, who recognizes family as the foundational unit for a stable social structure, who will boldly defend the sanctity of human life and of marriage, commit to limiting the size and cost of civil government, promote high quality education under the authority of parents, encourage an ethical free enterprise system, defend the Constitutional separation of powers, and like our Founding Fathers be guided by the absolute moral truth that comes from a regular reading of the Bible. We believe that Bob Vander Plaats is the candidate who best meets those requirements. We are especially pleased with his pledge to stand up to the Iowa Supreme Court and stay their effort to unconstitutionally legislate same sex “marriage,” until the Iowa Legislature and the people of Iowa act on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.

They like Representative Rod Roberts but consider him “to have more of a legislator’s temperament than that of an executive.” The IFPC PAC also sounds concerned that Democrats could win Roberts’ Iowa House district in the Carroll area; they want Roberts to run for re-election there “for the greater good of the State.”

They like the way State Representative Chris Rants pushed for an Iowa House floor vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage last year, and they praised his “spirit and enthusiasm,” but they withheld their endorsement because of “his lengthy legislative record, his history in House leadership, and his past willingness to pursue questionable political pragmatism.”

The IFPC saved its harshest words for Branstad:

With a 16 year record as Iowa’s Governor, much is known about who he is and how he would govern. For instance, Iowa faced financial challenges similar to today’s when Branstad first became Governor. His answers to those problems included growing government, raising taxes, legalizing gambling, and keeping what State Auditor Dick Johnson referred to as “two sets of books.” He did demonstrate pro-family support at times, like helping to de-criminalize home schooling, fighting rampant “no-fault” divorce, and helping produce pro-marriage public service announcements. Still, significant portions of his record cause Christians serious concern, such as approving immoral “Human Growth & Development” sex education (which is used by Planned Parenthood and others to promote abortion and homosexuality), allowing homosexual advances in his Dept. of Human Services, appointing pro-homosexual Supreme Court Justices who unconstitutionally try to legislate from the bench, and opening Iowa to the ravages of gambling.

Branstad also brings with him a loyalty to long term political partners that seems to trump his loyalty to Biblical principles and the people of Iowa. He continues to refuse to publicly distance himself from his former Lt. Governor Joy Corning, even when she blatantly promotes and defends abortion on demand, state sanctioned sodomy, and the evil that has been loosed on the state as a result. When his former Chief of Staff, Doug Gross, chastised those of us who desire to see Biblical principles promoted in politics and public policy, Terry Branstad was silent. He needs to understand that Christians are tired of being poked in the eye by political elites and then being told to “go along and get along.” He appears to lack an understanding of the deeply important principles that current policies threaten, or at the very least seems to lack the fervor necessary to address them.

Traditionally, most issue driven special interest groups wait until after the primary to engage in an election. Pragmatists will argue that should Branstad win the primary, he will be better than the current Governor, and that we ought to position our organization to support anyone but Culver. As a Christian organization we will always be ready to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that God can change anyone. However, should Branstad become the Republican nominee, apart from clear evidence of a fundamental transformation, the Iowa Family PAC will not endorse either Terry Branstad or Chet Culver in the general election.

Last week State Representative Kent Sorenson endorsed Vander Plaats and vowed never to vote for Branstad, but he is relatively new in Iowa politics. Sorenson was first elected to the Iowa House in 2008, and as he likes to remind audiences, he got virtually no help from the Republican Party in that race. He has struck an outsider’s tone before, writing this open letter to Senator Chuck Grassley last summer.

In contrast, the Iowa Family Policy Center’s chairman, Danny Carroll, has long been a Republican insider. He was first elected to the Iowa House in 1994 (while Branstad was governor) and represented district 75 until he lost in the 2006 election. After failing to win back his seat in 2008, Carroll fell just two votes short of being elected chairman of the Iowa GOP in January 2009. At yesterday’s rally, Carroll said, “Now is the time to put principle, biblical principle, before political parties […] I’ve been a part of that Republican machine for too many years, and where [has it] gotten us?”

When someone of Carroll’s stature comes out so strongly against Branstad, it makes me wonder how many other Republicans harbor similar feelings. The IFPC has worked closely with the Republican establishment, most recently during last summer’s special election in Iowa House district 90.

More important, the IFPC can put a lot of boots on the ground for Vander Plaats in the Republican primary. In the early weeks following the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien, the IFPC circulated petitions around the state urging county recorders not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They didn’t persuade any county recorders to defy the court ruling, but one can only imagine what a list-building bonanza that petition drive was for the IFPC.

Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan called yesterday’s endorsement “huge” for Vander Plaats:

“Branstad’s fatal miscalculation is in underestimating the Vander Plaats campaign. Bob Vander Plaats is the former Huckabee for President campaign chair, and he knows how to organize in their communities, at churches, and even at Tea Parties, like the one he’s going to tonight.

“The social conservative movement in Iowa that vaulted Huckabee to the top in the 2008 Iowa caucuses is poised to do the same for Vander Plaats.  Regardless of what the campaign finance reports show next week, it is clear that the grassroots momentum that surprised the nation during the caucuses is on the side of the Vander Plaats campaign and can spur on a legitimate third party candidate.”

Speaking of the Huckabee campaign, Vander Plaats has hired the highly-regarded Eric Woolson as his campaign manager. Woolson was Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager in 2007 and 2008. He also ran Doug Gross’s gubernatorial campaign in 2002, when Gross narrowly defeated Vander Plaats and a state legislator in the GOP primary. Woolson helped Mariannette Miller-Meeks win a three-way GOP primary in Iowa’s second Congressional district in 2008.

Woolson is a very smart guy with lots of statewide connections. That will help Vander Plaats build on his network of support from his prior runs for office. Both Branstad and Vander Plaats have been endorsed by many Republican activists at the county level, as well as a few members of the State Central Committee.

In the coming months I expect to hear more from Vander Plaats campaign co-chair Richard Johnson. Johnson was the state auditor during most of Branstad’s tenure as governor. In the 1994 GOP gubernatorial primary, he endorsed Congressman Fred Grandy against Branstad because of the three-term incumbent’s record of fiscal mismanagement.

Going into this year’s primary, Branstad had two trump cards: he will raise far more money than any other Republican, and he could claim to be the party’s best chance to defeat Governor Chet Culver. Next week we’ll find out how far Branstad has outpaced Vander Plaats in terms of fundraising. I expect Vander Plaats to be way behind but to have raised enough to run a credible statewide primary campaign. He should get some out-of-state money thanks to supporters like David Barton, Chuck Norris and Focus on the Family.

Governor Culver’s recent slide in the polls has severely undermined Branstad’s electability argument. Rasmussen and the Des Moines Register have released public polls showing Vander Plaats with a lead on Culver (albeit a smaller lead than Branstad). Republicans are rumored to have an internal poll showing both Vander Plaats and Branstad way ahead of Culver.

The Des Moines Register is likely to release at least two more Iowa polls before the June primary. If Culver is still underwater, Vander Plaats may be able to persuade a critical mass of GOP primary voters that they shouldn’t settle for Branstad when a more conservative option is available.

I haven’t seen any polls of the Republican primary since Branstad joined the race. Branstad recently robocalled Democrats to ID supporters willing to cross over for the primary, which makes me wonder what their internals show about his matchup with Vander Plaats.

I still consider Branstad the prohibitive favorite in the GOP primary. He will outspend the competition and should be able to roll up big margins in the populous eastern Iowa counties. However, the Vander Plaats campaign has a lot of resources at their disposal. With groups like the Iowa Family Policy Center out there making the case against Branstad this spring, it will be hard for Republicans to present a united front if Branstad is the nominee.

Final note: despite the recent poll findings, I’m not the least bit concerned that Vander Plaats might defeat Culver in the general election. I believe he would get crushed in Polk County and almost everywhere east of I-35.

Any comments about the Iowa governor’s race are welcome in this thread.

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.

Marriage equality is here to stay in Iowa, if the latest statewide poll for the Des Moines Register is any guide:

Forty-one percent say they would vote for a [constitutional amendment to] ban [same-sex marriage], and 40 percent say they would vote to continue gay marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure. […]

The overwhelming majority of Iowans – 92 percent – say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives. […]

The poll shows that 26 percent of Iowans favor April’s unanimous court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, 43 percent oppose it and 31 percent don’t care much or are not sure.

Despite the 43 percent opposition to the ruling, 61 percent of Iowans say other issues will influence their decision on whether to vote to retain Iowa Supreme Court justices in the 2010 elections.

Selzer and Co. surveyed 803 Iowans between September 14 and 16, and the poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

I recommend clicking through to view the chart showing the breakdown by party affiliation on this issue. Among independents, only 44 percent either oppose or strongly oppose the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision that cleared the way for marriage equality, while 32 percent “don’t care much” and 22 percent either favor or strongly favor it.

Many Iowa Republicans are convinced that they can gain traction in next year’s legislative elections by bashing statehouse Democrats who oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. However, the Republican candidate fell just short in the recent special election in Iowa House district 90, even though the National Organization for Marriage poured nearly $90,000 into ads supporting the Republican because of the marriage issue. (The NOM plans to be involved in next year’s Iowa elections as well.)

A poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog in July indicated that two-thirds of Iowans wanted a public vote on same-sex marriage, but that poll framed the question as follows: “The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled gay marriages can legally be conducted in the state. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, do you think Iowa voters should have the chance to vote on a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution or is the issue best decided by the Supreme Court?” Todd Dorman was right to point out that it would have been more enlightening to ask respondents how they would vote on a marriage amendment.

The Register’s poll could strengthen the hand of moderate Iowa Republicans like Doug Gross, who have been saying all year that the GOP should downplay divisive social issues and focus on the economy in next year’s elections. On the other hand, 51 percent of Republicans surveyed by Selzer and Co strongly oppose the Supreme Court decision, while 11 percent just oppose the decision, 27 percent don’t care much and only 10 percent either favor or strongly favor it. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats promises to issue an executive order on day one halting same-sex marriages if elected, and he will find plenty of support among the Republican rank and file.

I’ve been telling my friends, “Don’t worry, be happy,” since the Iowa Supreme Court announced its Varnum v Brien decision in April. I figured that with each passing year, more Iowans would understand that no one is harmed and thousands are helped by granting gays and lesbians civil marriage rights. I also felt that Republicans would not be able to win many races on this issue in 2010, let alone in subsequent years. Still, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see a poll this year showing majority support for overturning the Supreme Court ruling. Learning that a constitutional amendment on marriage lacks majority support even now makes me that much more optimistic. The constitutional amendment process is lengthy in Iowa.

Now it’s imperative to defeat Proposition 1 in Maine this November. Please help if you can.

It’s been a while since I posted a diary here about the Iowa governor’s race, so I’m catching up today after the jump.

Governor Chet Culver said this summer that he’d be “cranking up” his campaign operations soon, and last week the governor hired Andrew Roos to run his re-election campaign and Jesse Harris as deputy campaign manager. Jason Hancock has background on Roos and Harris at Iowa Independent.

Republican candidate Christian Fong, a Cedar Rapids flood recovery leader, claims Culver hasn’t done enough on flood recovery (more on that here). Illogically, Fong also opposes the I-JOBS state bonding program, which has allocated $45 million to flood recovery projects in Linn County alone. (Click here and here for a more detailed look at the Obama-like campaign narrative Fong is building.)

The Republican front-runner (for now), Bob Vander Plaats, held a few events around Iowa on Labor Day to officially announce his candidacy. In keeping with his tendency to advocate unworkable policies, he pushed another off-beat idea. Instead of just criticizing Culver’s I-JOBS state bonding program, like every other Republican does, Vander Plaats says that if elected, he would try to pay back the bonds during his first term (you can read the Vander Plaats press release here). State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald, a Democrat, and State Representative Chris Rants, a rival Republican gubernatorial candidate, agree that the Vander Plaats idea is unworkable.

Meanwhile, Vander Plaats is promising not to balance his ticket with a less-conservative running mate:

“I’m not looking to balance the ticket with somebody who’s moderate or liberal or who doesn’t believe in those core values like I do,” he said. The core values, he noted, include believing in a right to life and that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

He didn’t mention former Gov. Terry Branstad, but the inference was clear – the former governor chose pro-choice Republican Joy Corning as his running mate.

Lest anyone get too impressed by Branstad’s ticket-balancing, Rekha Basu reminded me recently that Branstad endorsed the inept Jim Ross Lightfoot over the highly capable Corning in the 1998 GOP gubernatorial primary. Also, when one of Lieutenant Governor Corning’s annual diversity conferences included a workshop on workplace discrimination, Branstad sided with an anti-gay crusader who attacked the workshop.

Establishment Republicans have been trying to recruit Branstad since two Republican-commissioned polls taken in July showed him leading Culver in a hypothetical matchup. The Iowa Republican blog’s poll, in the field the first week of July, had Branstad ahead of Culver 53-37. Hill Research Consultants did a poll for the 527 group Iowa First Foundation later in July and found Branstad ahead of Culver 53-34.

Branstad has said he’ll announce in October whether he plans to run next year, but it looks increasingly likely that he’ll jump in. Since he’s not a candidate yet, he can’t raise or spend money on the race. Enter the “Draft Branstad” political action committee that former State Representative Sandy Greiner launched at the beginning of September. They’re collecting signatures on a petition at draftbranstad.com. They’ve been advertising on The Drudge Report, one of the highest-traffic conservative websites. Draft Branstad flyers were distributed at Saturday’s Iowa/Iowa State football game. They’re running a 60-second radio ad statewide. Among other things, the flyers and radio ad praise Branstad for his “fiscal discipline” and balancing the budget. That’s quite the revisionist history lesson.

I’m enjoying the @draftBranstad Twitter feed, which periodically reprises the great one’s profound words: “My passion for our state has grown with every day I have served it.” Branstad 1/13/98″; “This spirit of neighbor helping neighbor is as Iowan as the tall corn we grow.” -TEB 1/9/96

Des Moines Register Marc Hansen wrote last week that “coming back could be the biggest mistake of [Branstad’s] life.” Highlights:

The best Branstad could do in 1994 against fellow Republican Fred Grandy was talk about how Rep. Gopher wasn’t a real Iowan. […]

The further removed from office he gets, the more popular he becomes. In February 1997, not long before Branstad reaffirmed his decision not to run for a fifth term, the Iowa Poll said 55 percent of Iowa adults believed Branstad should not seek another term in 1998. Thirty-five percent said he should. The other 10 percent were unsure.

The minute he wasn’t running, his numbers started climbing.

I don’t even want to get into Richard Johnson, the state auditor who supported Grandy in ’94 because of the way he said Branstad was keeping the books.

Incidentally, Richard Johnson is co-chairing the Vander Plaats campaign. We’ll probably be hearing more from him if Branstad enters the gubernatorial race, as most political observers now expect. For a preview of other arguments rival Republicans are likely to make against Branstad, see here and here.

Branstad didn’t turn up at the Iowa Family Policy Center Action’s fundraiser on September 12, but four others in the Republican field attended. For some reason, State Senator Jerry Behn wasn’t there, despite recently forming an exploratory committee for a gubernatorial bid. Iowa Senate minority leader Paul McKinley didn’t attend the Iowa Family Policy Center’s event either, but that’s par for the course for him since he claimed to be “aggressively” exploring a campaign for governor.

Vander Plaats was on friendly turf at the Iowa Family Policy Center event, easily winning the straw poll with 63 percent of the votes. (Fong and Rants finished a distant second and third.) The Vander Plaats plan to stop gay marriage on day one as governor is a hit with that crowd. Vander Plaats also also promised not to expand gambling and to put representatives for parochial schools and home-schoolers on the State Board of Education.

Rants usually talks about the budget and taxes in his stump speeches, but he adapted his pitch for the Iowa Family Policy Center event, referring to moments of personal prayer as well as his efforts to bring a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the Iowa House floor. Rants also

acknowledged that there’s not a lot of space separating Republican candidates on the issues.

But honesty will be important, he said. That might be difficult in the primary, he said, noting that some of the things he’s said in the past few weeks have made some people uncomfortable. He did not give more explanation, but in the past few weeks, he’s called into question Bob Vander Plaats’ portrayal of himself as a CEO who’s been a turnaround artist. Rants released tax returns that appear to show deteriorating finances at a nonprofit organization that Vander Plaats led.

“If we’re going to ask Iowans to trust us,” candidates have to lead by example, he said.

I can’t see any way Rants gets the nomination. I don’t even know of another state legislator who’s endorsing him, which is remarkable given that he used to be Iowa House speaker until the GOP lost the majority in the 2006 elections. That said, Rants is smart enough to know that there probably will be room for only one other candidate if Branstad enters the race. So, he’s been going after Vander Plaats for bad policy ideas as well as his record as CEO and board president of the non-profit Opportunities Unlimited. (I recommend reading the whole comment thread under this story.)

Fong tried to inspire the Iowa Family Policy Center crowd:

Too much debt and too-high taxes are problems; so are abortion and other major issues, he said. But “the critical issue for our cause” is spiritual, he said.

Christ-like leadership is needed, with integrity and compassion, he said. It’s service above self. Voters are hungry for something greater than government and politics, he said.

“A hurting Iowa” needs that leadership, he said.

He called for leadership based on the “political philosophy of Jesus Christ himself.”

State Representative Rod Roberts claimed to have the right leadership qualities for a governor:

He’s been asked, “Rod, Aren’t you too nice to run for governor?” He replies: His two favorite Republican presidents are Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. They were friendly, civil and respectful, but they also knew what they believed, stood their ground and knew where they were going, he said.

“That’s what leadership is about,” he said.

“A leader is someone who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way,” he said.

Before the gubernatorial candidates spoke, Iowa Family Policy Center head Chuck Hurley previewed his group’s efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“If they don’t see the light, maybe they’ll feel the heat,” said Hurley, who urged supporters of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman to seek more information at luviowa.com on how to get involved. […]

The goal of the group’s effort is to get all 150 state legislators on the record where they stand on the marriage issue and then “to pressure middle-of-the-road legislators who said they believe in one-man, one-woman marriage to vote that way in January and February,” Hurley said.

He also made a special point to let the audience know that three of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices who overturned the state’s 1998 defense of marriage act will be up for retention votes on the 2010 ballot. Hurley said it was the justices’ “rogue decision” to allow “counterfeit marriage” that now requires a vote of the people to “rein-in” the judicial malpractice and to “rebuild the moral and legal culture that respects and strengthens marriage rather than tears it down.”

It looks like Hurley’s group is not focusing on the quickest way to amend the constitution: urging voters to approve the ballot initiative calling for a Constitutional Convention. That’s going to be on the November 2010 ballot anyway and, if approved, could lead to amendments being drafted in 2011. Social conservatives may be afraid that Democrats would end up controlling a Constitutional Convention, but if stopping same-sex marriage is such an urgent need for them, they should be pursuing all legal avenues to do so.

I didn’t see whether anyone at the Iowa Family Policy Center’s event mentioned the September 1 House district 90 special election. The Republican Party and conservative interest groups went all-in for that race but came up 107 votes short. Craig Robinson thinks the GOP erred in letting staff from Iowans for Tax Relief run the campaign of Republican Stephen Burgmeier. The Iowa Family Policy Center also delegated a staffer to work on Burgmeier’s campaign.

Share any thoughts or predictions about the gubernatorial campaign in this thread. If you follow Delaware or Virginia politics, feel free to share your thoughts about Andrew Roos.

I am looking forward to the next Selzer poll for the Des Moines Register, which will probably come out during the next month.

For those who aren’t tired of celebrating Curt Hanson’s win in the Iowa House district 90 special election, this article by Jason Clayworth in Thursday’s Des Moines Register should be good for a few laughs.

Link:

A group opposed to same-sex marriages failed to secure victory for Republicans in Iowa this week, but the massive injection of out-of-state money on the issue foreshadows what’s to come in next year’s elections, political scholars said Wednesday.

Despite the loss, the National Organization for Marriage succeeded in making gay marriage an issue, the head of the group said Wednesday. He vowed that its “Reclaim Iowa Project” will remain active in the 2010 state elections.

I’m sure “making gay marriage an issue” was just the kind of success the NOM’s generous donors (whoever they are) were looking for. Why, Iowans in House district 90 might never have realized same-sex couples could marry if not for the NOM’s major ad campaign.

Back to that Register article:

Jeff Boeyink, executive director of the Iowa Republican Party, said many no-party voters Tuesday supported [Stephen] Burgmeier. That was a victory itself, he said.

Voters want the opportunity to vote on the gay marriage issue, he said.

“We moved the needle a lot,” Boeyink said. “We didn’t get the victory, but we take away some real positives out of this.”

Sure, Mr. Boeyink, you “moved the needle a lot.” Your candidate, elected three times as a Jefferson County supervisor, lost his own county by more than 600 votes.

The marriage group did not lose the race for Burgmeier, said Chuck Hurley, a former Republican legislator and now president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a group against gay marriage. He said the issue will be a major topic in the 2010 elections.

“Marriage won the day,” Hurley said of the election. “I think it was a huge issue in the campaign.”

Yes, Republicans tried to make marriage a huge issue in the campaign while Curt Hanson talked about jobs, economic development and renewable energy. The National Organization for Marriage’s television ad used the same kind of rhetoric as the Iowa Family Policy Center’s “Let Us Vote” campaign: instead of advocating discrimination against same-sex couples, the ads supported Burgmeier as someone who would “let voters have a say.” Well, voters in House district 90 had their say.

I don’t want to get too cocky. Tuesday’s election could have gone the other way if not for the outstanding GOTV effort by organizers supporting Hanson. But the fact is, a special election a few months after the Iowa Supreme Court ruling went into effect is exactly the kind of race likely to be disproportionately influenced by same-sex marriage. In Vermont and Massachusetts, the electoral backlash against supporters of marriage equality was short-lived. If the Iowa Family Policy Center (which designated a staffer to work on Burgmeier’s campaign) and nearly $90,000 worth of NOM tv ads couldn’t leverage this issue into a victory on Tuesday, I don’t think Republicans will get far running against gay marriage 14 months from now.

For a more honest Republican assessment of Tuesday’s special election results, read this post by Craig Robinson at The Iowa Republican.

Once upon a time in a land known as America circa 2004, a growing consensus was emerging.  The evangelical right had just flexed their political muscle, not only overwhelmingly voting to re-elect President Bush by a 70% margin (many would argue pushing him over the edge in Ohio) but also approving gay marriage bans in 11 different states, boosting their turnout in crucial battlegounds and making life hell for Team Blue.  The political calculus was that the gay marriage argument was an effective cudgel to use against Democrats, as it guaranteed high Christian Right turnout and inevitably lead to defeat for Democrats who were associated with anything other than a full government-sponsored ban.

Flash forward a few years, and a different trend is emerging.  Despite reprising the gay marriage argument again in 2006, Democrats managed to completely bypass the issue and still succeeded (the Virginia Senate election being a good example).  The proposed Federal Marriage Amemdment went down in flames.  More states began to adopt marriage equality, and public opinion shifted more towards gay rights than ever before.

But a different trend emerged as well.  Namely, the gay marriage argument had less hold in elections.  Say what you want about Obama’s policies on the issue since taking office, but he campaigned as the most pro-gay Presidential candidate in US history – while against full marriage equality, he supported about every other major position from repealing DOMA and DADT to full protection in the workplace and in hate crimes.  It barely came up as a blip in the overall election.  In Iowa, despite the GOP’s attempts to turn gay marriage into a major issue, the general response has been a collective shrug, as no Republican has been able to make significant ground on Gov. Culver on the issue, and it didn’t have an impact in last Tuesday’s HD90 special as Democrat Curt Hanson still prevailed.

In California, the AD51 special played out in a similar way.  The district, which is heavily African-American and voted in large numbers for Prop 8, elected Steve Bradford, a candidate that received a 100% rating from California Equality.  His opponent Gloria Gray targeted the church community to attack him over his pro-gay views, ran ads questioning his Christian values, and even push-polled on the gay marriage issue. Bradford got 52% of the vote while Gray couldn’t even crack 20%, with the consensus being that voters were turned off over her narrow focus on gay marriage.

My question is – are we seeing a larger trend emerging?  Is gay marriage no longer going to be the hot-ticket item for the Republican party?  Why has it fallen off?  And why are voters more willing to split their votes – that is, vote against marrriage but still support Democrats – than they were only a few years ago?

This is a diary intended to spark dialogue about the political ramifications of this issue, not over whether you think marriage equality ought to happen.  I’m curious about this because it wasn’t too long ago it was viewed as the linchpin to future Republican success, not only for high evangelical turnout but to also peel away socially conservative African-American and latino voters from the Democrats.  Several prognosticators including Michael Barone and Ruy Texeira predicted it would be a huge wedge issue in the Democratic Party, leading to further dischord and electoral losses.  None of this has occured.  So what’s your take on it?  Is it because of economic woes, and the issue will surface again once people aren’t worried about their paycheck?  Or are we moving into a new era in the gay rights debate?  

Voters will elect a new state representative for Iowa House district 90 in a special election on September 1. The southeastern Iowa district leans slightly Democratic in terms of voter registration, but political scientists have found that special elections and by-elections often favor opposition parties, whose supporters are more motivated to turn out. (Democrats control both chambers of the Iowa legislature as well as the governor’s chair.)

Neither Republican Stephen Burgmeier nor Democrat Curt Hanson has highlighted same-sex marriage rights during the brief campaign in district 90, but a major advertising campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage is likely to put the issue front and center during the final stretch.  

Burgmeier is one of three Republican supervisors in Jefferson County, most of which lies in Iowa House district 90. He made a show of posturing against same-sex marriage on April 27, the day the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect. He mentioned his support for giving Iowans “a right to vote on the definition of marriage” in the press release announcing his candidacy for the special election.

However, the Republican-aligned interest groups that are staffing his campaign have decided to focus on taxes and the state budget (for instance, in this television ad). The issues page on Burgmeier’s campaign site does not mention gay marriage or abortion. That has angered a right-winger who calls Burgmeier a “sellout” and is running in district 90 with an emphasis on social issues.

Chase Martyn of Iowa Independent posted yesterday that the National Organization for Marriage “has purchased $86,060 worth of television and radio ads” to help Burgmeier. That is a major ad buy for an Iowa legislative district. Martyn uploaded an independent expenditure report (pdf file) that the group filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, but that document didn’t include information about the content or placement of the ads.

I don’t know yet how the NOM is framing the marriage equality issue for this campaign. I also haven’t heard whether the ads mainly support the Republican or also attack the Democratic candidate. I have asked Iowans in the viewing area for this district to post comments in this thread at Bleeding Heartland.

I hope the NOM’s Iowa ads turn out to be as laughable as the group’s “Gathering Storm” commercial from April, which spawned many parodies on YouTube and a brilliant response from Stephen Colbert.

The Democratic candidate for the special election is Curt Hanson, a retired driver’s education teacher who has won various teaching awards. Hanson is campaigning on bread-and-butter issues: jobs, health care, education, and balancing the budget. He doesn’t mention marriage equality or the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on his site’s issues page.

Democrats hold a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House. House Speaker Pat Murphy strongly supported the Varnum v Brien ruling and has made clear he will block efforts to bring a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the House floor. A victory in this special election would be a shot in the arm for the Republican Party of Iowa, which has suffered net losses of seats in the Iowa legislature for four straight elections. In fact, Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn has called the district 90 special election a “must win.”

If Burgmeier is successful on September 1, expect his campaign strategy to be copied in competitive legislative districts next year. Republican candidates can focus on economic issues while outside groups pay for ads attacking gay marriage.

Angry social conservatives are speculating that Senator Chuck Grassley could face a primary challenge in 2010. The religious right has been dissatisfied with Grassley for a long time (see here and here).

After the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, Grassley issued a statement saying he supported “traditional marriage” and had backed federal legislation and a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But when hundreds of marriage equality opponents rallied at the state capitol last Thursday, and Republicans tried to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Iowa House floor, Grassley refused to say whether he supported their efforts to change Iowa’s constitution:

“You better ask me in a month, after I’ve had a chance to think,” Grassley, the state’s senior Republican official, said after a health care forum in Mason City.

Wingnut Bill Salier, who almost won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2002, says conservatives are becoming “more and more incensed [the] more they start to pay attention to how far [Grassley] has drifted.”

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn denies that party activists are unhappy with Grassley. I hope Salier is right and Grassley gets a primary challenge, for reasons I’ll explain after the jump.  

Before anyone gets too excited, I want to make clear that I don’t consider Grassley vulnerable. His approval rating is around 71 percent (if you believe Survey USA) or 66 percent (if you believe Selzer and Associates). Either way, he is outside the danger zone for an incumbent.

That doesn’t mean Democrats should leave Grassley unchallenged. Having a credible candidate at the top of the ballot in 2010 will increase the number of straight-ticket Democratic voters. So far Bob Krause is planning to jump in this race. More power to him or any other Democrat who is willing to make the case against Grassley. We should be realistic, though, and understand that unless something extraordinary happens, we are not going to defeat this five-term incumbent.

So why am I hoping a right-winger will take on Grassley in the Republican primary? Here’s what I think would happen.

1. A conservative taking potshots at Grassley would intensify the struggle between GOP moderates and “goofballs” just when Iowa Republicans are trying to present a united front against Democratic governance. GOP chairman Strawn claimed this weekend that Democratic tax reform proposals had unified his party, but if Grassley faces a challenger, expect social issues to dominate next spring’s media coverage of Republicans.

2. Although some delusional folks seem to think Grassley could lose a low-turnout primary, Grassley would crush any challenger from the right. That has the potential to demoralize religious GOP activists and their cheerleaders, such as the popular talk radio personality Steve Deace. (Deace already has plenty of grievances against Grassley.)

3. Every prominent Iowa Republican will have to take a position on the Senate primary, if there is one. I assume almost everyone will back Grassley, which would offend part of the GOP base. But if, say, Strawn or Congressman Steve King surprised me by staying neutral in the primary, that would demonstrate how much power extremists have within the Republican Party. Most people intuitively understand that you don’t try to replace a U.S. senator from your own party who has a lot of seniority.

A Senate primary could become a distracting sideshow for Republican gubernatorial candidates. It’s not clear yet how many Republicans will run against Governor Chet Culver, but almost all of the likely candidates would endorse Grassley over a right-winger. I would expect even Bob Vander Plaats to support Grassley, although he could surprise me. Vander Plaats believes Iowa Republican have been losing elections because they’ve become too moderate.

Watching the Republican establishment line up behind Grassley will remind social conservative activists that the party likes to use their support but doesn’t take their concerns seriously. These people will hold their noses and vote Republican next November, but they may not donate their time and money when Strawn and the gubernatorial nominee need their help to improve the GOP’s early voting operation.

My hunch is that no challenger to Grassley will emerge, because even the angriest conservatives must understand that they have little to gain from this course. Then again, we’re talking about people who believe the little-known, inexperienced Salier would have done better against Tom Harkin in 2002 than four-term Congressman Greg Ganske. Maybe some Republican is just crazy enough to run against Grassley next year.

Haha.  Despite Governor Douglas’s grandstanding the bill still passed.  Vermont becomes the first state where the legislature successfully passes full marriage equality without intervention of the courts.

Now the time has come to run that clown of a Governor out of office come 2010.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/w…

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage – and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

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.”