A Judge in Polk County has ruled that Iowa’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and ordered the court recorder to issue licenses to 6 gay couples.
If it wasn’t a major issue yesterday, it is today. As Bill Kristol noted at Tuesday’s bloggers’ forum: “Everyone is focused on the three I’s: Iraq, Iran and Iowa.”
Governor Romney immediately released the following statement:
The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Add one more log to the fire in favor of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. If I’m not mistaken, Romney is the only top-tier candidate to support such a measure.
Gay marriage in the Boston Harbor is one thing… but in Dubuque, Des Moines, Davenport, Marshalltown, Mason City, Keokuk, Ames, Clear Lake? As the Music Man says… I guess my friends in San Francisco really ought to give Iowa a try.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
This guy must be a judicial troll for Romney!
August 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
The Iowa State Constitution has existed in some form for 161 years.
And yet today, with no act of the state legislature, with no signing of any bill by Iowa’s Governor, some judge decides that after nearly two-centuries of being interpreted otherwise, there is a constitutional right to gay marriage.
But there is no such thing as liberal activist judges, is there Tano?
August 30th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Great, Now IA can join the list of other states that have amended their Constitutions. I was surprised to hear that IA had not already done so.
This could help swing the state for the Republicans in 2008. Let the push this & push this hard.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
‘If I’m not mistaken, Romney is the only top-tier candidate to support such a measure.’
I think that Thompson will also come out in support for such an amendment. It makes no sense for him not to support it. I think that low-key support for the marriage amendment is probably the best strategy for any Republican: get the anti-gay vote without seeming to be obsessed with frivolous matters.
cwpete: ‘Great, Now IA can join the list of other states that have amended their Constitutions.’
I don’t think so. Democrats control both houses of the legislature. As long as they don’t fold, no constitutional amendment is going to be approved.
‘This could help swing the state for the Republicans in 2008. Let the push this & push this hard.’
Push this issue hard? That is about as smart as making a flag-burning amendment the main focus of your campaign, and that has more support than the marriage amendment.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
#4 Awakened:
“I don’t think so. Democrats control both houses of the legislature. As long as they don’t fold, no constitutional amendment is going to be approved.”
True, but these are more conservative / moderate IA democrats verses the crack-pot liberals of say MA or a CA. They could very well fold if they perceive that their seats are in jeopardy over this.
“Push this issue hard? That is about as smart as making a flag-burning amendment the main focus of your campaign, and that has more support than the marriage amendment.”
This will be a local issue to IA not so much a national one. I think even you will agree that this will energize the SoCon vote in IA and make the moderate Democrats nervous. Perhaps they’ll get nervous enough to fold. We shall see..
August 30th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
#4 regarding Thompson – wouldn’t it go against his stance on Federalism if he came out for a national Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?
August 30th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
#4 – on pushing. It worked in plenty of states in 2004. Local gay marriage amendments are a good GOTV in certain places in the country. Of course you don’t hang your entire national campaign on local initiatives (does Iowa allow amendment by initiative?), but you encourage it when it helps.
#6 – Depends on the phrasing on the Amendment. I don’t even think I’ve heard Romney commit to a version. Is it a total ban, or a constitutionalizing of DOMA? Latter would be comfortably in line with federalist principles.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
‘True, but these are more conservative / moderate IA democrats verses the crack-pot liberals of say MA or a CA. They could very well fold if they perceive that their seats are in jeopardy over this.’
Ah, yes, but will it ever come up for a vote? I don’t know the specifics of the IA-legislature, but I’m pretty sure that the Democratic leadership could prevent an amendment from being voted on. It will come down to the leaders. And since the national GOP leadership prevented popular legislation (like a minimum wage raise) from reaching the House floor for 12 years and hardly paid a price for it, I do not think that it would be difficult to do the same for the Democrats.
Of course, if the leadership does believe that this will hurt the Democratic party, it will immediately bring the amendment up for a vote, whether they are crackpot liberals or moderats. Politicians: all they care about is power.
‘This will be a local issue to IA not so much a national one.’
I didn’t get that.
‘I think even you will agree that this will energize the SoCon vote ‘
No doubt. But any candidate who makes gay marriage his main issue will seem out-of-touch. While most people oppose it, it ranks rather low in importance for most voters. It could help a candidate who spends 12 words out of a 5000-word speech on this issue, but it will hurt him if it is his only (or main) issue.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
‘wouldn’t it go against his stance on Federalism if he came out for a national Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?’
Maybe so, but since when have politicians bothered to be consistent? It hasn’t hurt ‘all the politicians in history’, why would it hurt Thompson?
August 30th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Awakened – I agree with you that politicians are inconsistant, why should FDT be any different. I’m just wondering how he could square going against federalism in a case like gay marriage but use it as a basis for his supposed more lenient abortion positions. I don’t ask that to restart the whole “is he pro or anti abortion” debate, just wonder how he’d explain the inconsistency (assuming there is one – we don’t know his position on a marriage amendment yet).
August 30th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Awakened:
To clarify: ‘This will be a local issue to IA not so much a national one.’ …means that this issue will be far greater to the state of IA verses nationally.
I just can’t see for the life of me IA allowing this to stand. There is really only two solutions here. Allow it to stand or fix it by way of amendment. If the Dem leadership refuses to act as you suggest they could, then that will be essentially blessing and condoning this new recent interpretation of their law thereby allowing this to stand. If that were to happen, there would be backlash big-time. IA is not MA. It won’t fly.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
‘Awakened – I agree with you that politicians are inconsistant, why should FDT be any different. I’m just wondering how he could square going against federalism in a case like gay marriage but use it as a basis for his supposed more lenient abortion positions. I don’t ask that to restart the whole “is he pro or anti abortion†debate, just wonder how he’d explain the inconsistency (assuming there is one – we don’t know his position on a marriage amendment yet).’
Well, how was Mitt Romney explaining the inconsistency of favoring a national solution for marriage, while arguing for state’s rights when it came to abortion. Answer: he wasn’t, no one was holding him (or any other politician) accountable. (Of course, that was before he endorsed the Human Life Amendment.)
Look at Giuliani. Before he decided to run for president, he favored unlimited abortion rights. Now, he’s saying that he won’t be any different than Bush on that issue (example: Mexico City policy, the gag rule) – with the exception, of course, that he would do it while claiming to be pro-choice. What a weasel. And yet I haven’t heard any interviewer ask him about these blatant flip-flops.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Thompson has already stated that he is not in favor of a federal amendment banning gay marriage. See http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/federalism_watch_thompson_oppo.php
I think he would support a federal amendment giving States the right to determine marriage laws though. I would prefer the marriage ban, though I can understand those liking Thompson’s fix. I have to say though, I’m not at all encouraged that Thompson would have the passion to push for such an amendment. He would most likely just let things go until it was too late. Romney will push for a fix, and if he can’t get the federal ban he will at least get the amendment Thompson says he supports.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
‘I just can’t see for the life of me IA allowing this to stand.’
I can’t either. But in politics, everything is possible.
‘There is really only two solutions here. Allow it to stand or fix it by way of amendment. If the Dem leadership refuses to act as you suggest they could, then that will be essentially blessing and condoning this new recent interpretation of their law thereby allowing this to stand. If that were to happen, there would be backlash big-time. IA is not MA. It won’t fly.’
Maybe, maybe not. They aren’t going to prevent a vote on the amendment if they believe that it would cause a huge backlash. As I said, in the past, voters haven’t retaliated against individual members for the actions by the leadership. The individual members (those from conservative/moderate districts) could say they oppose gay marriage, and that they would vote for it, with the knowledge that it won’t come up for a vote.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
‘Thompson has already stated that he is not in favor of a federal amendment banning gay marriage. ‘
That was a statement put out by his campaign. I’ll believe it when Thompson himself says it. It would be monumentally stupid not to endorse the amendment, and I believe that Thompson s an intelligent man.
‘I think he would support a federal amendment giving States the right to determine marriage laws though. I would prefer the marriage ban, though I can understand those liking Thompson’s fix.’
The Thompson-option actually has a chance of passing. Social conservatives could have passed an amendment returning the issue of abortion to the states, in the 70s. They decided to push for a national ban, which could not get enough votes, with the result that I’m still laughing at their misfortune.
‘I’m not at all encouraged that Thompson would have the passion to push for such an amendment. He would most likely just let things go until it was too late.’
Why do all the people who want to desecrate the constitution think that if the Supreme Court says that gay marriage is a right, that is the point of no return? Do you seriously believe that all the voters who opposed gay marriage will suddenly support it? No, actually, I think that the marriage amendment only has a chance if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage prematurely – before support is high enough to withstand the assault that will inevitably follow.
‘Romney will push for a fix, and if he can’t get the federal ban he will at least get the amendment Thompson says he supports.’
I don’t think so. The Democrats might give him one shot (if he’s lucky), they will vote down the federal ban, say that Romney’s proposal is defeated and refuse to consider the Thompson-amendment.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
“I don’t think so. The Democrats might give him one shot (if he’s lucky), they will vote down the federal ban, say that Romney’s proposal is defeated and refuse to consider the Thompson-amendment.”
Wrong! Romney is a far better bet than Thompson on actually getting Thomspon’s solution. He’s negotiated with Dems before, many times. He’ll know when to play his hand. If he can’t get the federal amendment, he will go straight for the State amendment.
Thompson will be the federalist until gay marriage is everywhere and there’s nothing we can do about it.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
‘Wrong! Romney is a far better bet than Thompson on actually getting Thomspon’s solution. He’s negotiated with Dems before, many times. He’ll know when to play his hand. If he can’t get the federal amendment, he will go straight for the State amendment.’
Do you really think that the Democrats are stupid? That Romney will play them like a bunch of schoolchildren? What makes you think that either Romney or Thompson can push the Democrats to even bring these amendments up for a vote? And even if they do (fat chance), they won’t bring up something that might actually pass – that would infuriate their liberal and gay base.
‘Thompson will be the federalist until gay marriage is everywhere and there’s nothing we can do about it.’
Imagine that the Supreme Court does say that gay marriage is a constitutional right. What celestial force would prevent you from doing anything about it?
August 30th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Awakened,
Thompson does not and will not support a federal marriage amendment.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
‘Thompson does not and will not support a federal marriage amendment.’
That makes so little sense that I’ll believe it when I hear Thompson say it.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
You’re acting as though the Dems will always control the House and the Senate. Things change man. Agreed, were in hard times, but if there is an opportunity on these issues, Romney is a surer bet than Thompson. That’s all I’m saying. of course Romney would have to be able to bring an amendment up for vote, that is a given. And if it becomes a possibility, I think a State amendment will be easier, so Romney won’t unduly compromise for a federal ban. He’d go for what he thought was doable. Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought Romney could wave a wand and immediately get the job done.
“Imagine that the Supreme Court does say that gay marriage is a constitutional right. What celestial force would prevent you from doing anything about it?”
It’s called the American people. If the court rules for gay marriage, an amendment can change it.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
‘of course Romney would have to be able to bring an amendment up for vote, that is a given.’
It’s dead-on-arrival in the Democratic-controlled House. Of course, the Republicans might win the House, but with a Republican president, that’s unlikely.
‘Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought Romney could wave a wand and immediately get the job done.’
You didn’t.
‘It’s called the American people. If the court rules for gay marriage, an amendment can change it.’
That was what I was arguing. Yet you said that: “Thompson will be the federalist until gay marriage is everywhere and there’s ***nothing we can do about it***.”
Please explain.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
That was what I was arguing. Yet you said that: “Thompson will be the federalist until gay marriage is everywhere and there’s ***nothing we can do about it***.â€
I’m not sure how likely any amendment would be if the President wasn’t at least marginally interested in it. His support isn’t sufficient, but it’s almost necessary. Thompson shows no urgency on this issue whatsoever. He only brought it up because he was forced to, Romney has made it a part of his candidacy. Do you honestly think such an amendment would get through, without the help of the President? On this issue, Thompson is not the man to help get it done. It’s just not an issue he cares about.
On “Thompson will be the federalist until gay marriage is everywhere and there’s nothing we can do about it,†I apologize for a little hyperbole.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
‘Do you honestly think such an amendment would get through, without the help of the President?’
It will either get through or not get through. The support of the President matters little when it comes to an issue like this. Besides, he has said that he would support some sort of amendment if the DOMA is ruled unconstitutional.
‘On this issue, Thompson is not the man to help get it done. It’s just not an issue he cares about.’
How do you know Fred Thompson’s thoughts and feelings? I don’t think Mitt Romney cares about this issue, either, except when he can use it for posturing purposes.
‘On “Thompson will be the federalist until gay marriage is everywhere and there’s nothing we can do about it,†I apologize for a little hyperbole.’
No problem. I took issue with it because many people seem to think that a constitutional amendment can’t overrule the Supreme Court.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:12 am
[...] to an Iowa judge’s declaration that a ban on gay marriage is [...]
August 31st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Awakened, I believe Thompson declared as recent as a couple of weeks, or maybe it was his answer to a question in an interview (in any case, it is the same as a declaration) that he is not in favor of federal marriage amendment unless it is absolutely necessary. He does not feel that we are at that point. So far, only Romney has gone on the limb for this amendment. I believe I read about it at the Brody File.
August 31st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Here is the link concerning Thompson’s position on marriage amendment: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/216124.aspx&more=1
September 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“I think that low-key support for the marriage amendment is probably the best strategy for any Republican: get the anti-gay vote ”
There is nothing anti-gay about protecting traditional marriage via an amendment. Supporters of traditional marriage are pro-family. There is however something anti-family about redefining the basic and proper legal structures surrounding the family and disregarding the consequences to the next generation of those changes.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
‘There is nothing anti-gay about protecting traditional marriage via an amendment.’
I didn’t say that they are necessarily anti-gay, though some undoubtedly are anti-gay.
‘There is however something anti-family about redefining the basic and proper legal structures surrounding the family and disregarding the consequences to the next generation of those changes.’
You’re funny.