Same-sex marriage in Iowa (SSM)
More opposition to the Supreme Court SSM ruling

Sponsored link.

This is a continuation of another
list of negative responses to the court ruling on same-sex marriage (SSM)


 | The Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION (IFPC Action) issued a message on 2009-APR-05
stating:
"For many Iowans, and people of faith all across the country, Friday?s Iowa
Supreme Court decision was an catastrophic tragedy. The Iowa Family Policy
Center staff immediately took action upon learning of the Court?s opinion
creating so-called gay marriage." 1
"IFPC Action Board Chairman Danny Carroll, Director of Public Relations Bryan
English, and I spent most of the day responding to interview requests from
across the country. God used the occasion of this horrendous event to allow us
an opportunity to speak the truth about homosexuality to the entire country."
2
The Associated Press quoted Bryan English, whom they described as a
"dejected" spokesman for the IFPC, saying: "I would say the mood is one of
mourning right now in a lot of ways." 3
One News Now reported on an interview with Bryan English. He seems to have
made the curious statement that
he wished the Justices of the Iowa Supreme Court had violated their
oath of office by keeping their SSM decision secret. We don't know how to
interpret that. He said:
"As I pondered the
court's ruling, it occurred to me that Psalm 14:1 says 'The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God' -- and
then I remembered that Abraham Lincoln said it's better to remain silent and
be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt," he recalls. "It
just seems to me that with those two truths in mind, this is probably a
decision the Supreme Court should have kept to itself."
4
He also believes that those opposed to SSM face prosecution for their
beliefs in criminal courts. It is unclear whether he believes that this is an
immediate threat or a hypothetical future threat. We suspect that it is the
latter, because we have seen no effort to date to lay criminal charges against
people because of their beliefs about SSM. There do not appear to be laws on
the books by which such a charge could be made. English said:
"It's only a matter of time now before those of us who are still willing
to speak the truth and say that homosexuality is wrong are the ones that
they are [sic] calling criminals. We have to rise up now. We have to protect
marriage. We must pass the Iowa marriage amendment. People need to get
active."
He concluded by predicting that the chances of lawmakers passing a
constitutional amendment to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry are
grim. This may be an accurate assessment, because few legislators relish
adding a discriminatory clause to a constitution. In addition, the
Legislature's has a long history of respect for civil rights on matters as
diverse as women's access to professions, women's right to own property,
school desegregation, and inter-racial marriage.
|
 |
The four Roman Catholic bishops in Iowa, Dubuque
Archbishop Jerome Hanus and Bishops R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Martin
Amos of Davenport and Richard Pates called for a constitutional amendment to
terminate marriage equality in Iowa and restore the definition of marriage to a
permanent union "of one man and one woman." They appear to wish to redefine
marriage in accordance with Catholic belief that marriage is permanent and
cannot be ended by divorce. It is unclear what percentage of Iowans would
agree with this definition, but the number is probably small.
In a joint statement, they wrote:
"This decision rejects the wisdom of thousands of years of human history. It
implements a novel understanding of marriage, which will grievously harm
families and children. ... This unwarranted social engineering attacks the good
that marriage offers to society, especially the good of children, and weakens
the critical relationship between marriage and parenting. ... We will
resolutely continue to protect and promote marriage as a union between a man
and a woman because of its unique and historical contribution to the common
good."
This statement appears to reflect the church's prohibition of artificial
insemination and other forms of fertility treatments that allow lesbian and
bisexual women in loving, committed same-sex relationships to conceive, bear,
and raise children. 5
|
 | Some mostly anonymous individuals posted
comments to a Sioux City Journal article: |
"MLG" wrote: "I sat and cried when I heard
the news about legalizing gay marriages! It makes me sick to my stomach that
Iowa would do this, go against the majority and OK this! Iowa a good place to
Live you have to be kidding, you just destroyed that!!!! It makes me
sick!!!!God help us!!!! "
"The Truth" wrote: "So a group of homosexuals in robes has more power
than Iowa Voters. The Democrats are destroying America."
"commenter" wrote: " You mean the Sioux City council's vote to ban gay
marriage didn't sway the Iowa Supreme Court to ban it??? Well that was a waste
of about a month or two worth of meetings huh? "
Janice Springer wrote: "For something so morally and ethically
incorrect to be approved, is just a plain disgrace. Programs like this have
been the forum for politicians launching and aiding careers, which has taken
away from the more serious issues we face. The government has spent billions
on this item, which has been a waste. It is not correct. It violates all
family virtues. It creates an avenue for for more sexual perversion to take
place. "
"Picture this, 2 men, married, are allowed to adopt a young boy and at a
certain age, they try to persuade him, to become one of 'them'. They show him
how a man can love a man better than love a woman. Sick people, just plain
sick."
"I'm embarrassed to live here. My house is now up for sale. I'm leaving this
state. And yes, I'm happy about it." 5

Senator Bartz calls for petition:
Senator Merlin Bartz (R, Grafton)
violated his oath of office which calls on all legislators to enforce the
Iowa Constitution. The constitution includes a equal protection
clause that requires access to marriage to all
loving committed couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex.
He spoke in the
Iowa Senate on 2009-APR-22, calling for Iowa citizens to circulate a petition demanding
that their country recorders ignore the state Supreme Court's ruling.
The petition calls on
the recorders to follow the marriage law that was declared unconstitutional
by that court, and deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This would require the recorders to violate their oath of office. His biography on the Iowa Senate Republican Caucus website
contains a link to the petition that he is promoting.
The Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION is handling the administrative
tasks associated with the petition. They are asking that the petitions be
given to the county recorders on the morning of APR-27, the date that the
recorders are supposed to start issuing marriage certificates to same-sex
couples.
A PDF file attached to the IFPC news release contains the petition. It says
in part:
"WHEREAS, the Iowa Legislature passed and the Governor signed in 1998 the
Defense of Marriage Act, stating that marriage in Iowa
is only between one man and one woman, and
WHEREAS, on April 3rd, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion that
is in conflict with that law and the Constitution,
thereby rejecting their oath of office and the legitimate moral sentiments
of the people expressed in Iowa Code, and
WHEREAS, the current Legislature and Governor have failed to exercise their
Constitutional duty to address the inconsistencies that
exist between Iowa law and the Supreme Court opinion, and
WHEREAS, we believe the Court Opinion to be misguided, and the inaction of
the Governor and the Legislature to be unacceptable,
and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has set April 27th, 2009 as the date that County
Recorders should start issuing marriage licenses to
same sex couples, and
WHEREAS, we are in support of the Iowa law defining marriage as the union of
one man and one woman, and urge our County
Recorder to take all necessary steps to resist issuing licenses to same sex
couples;
NOW THEREFORE, we hereby appeal directly to you, our county recorder, to
refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex
couples on April 27th, 2009, and every day after, until such conflict
between the Supreme Court?s opinion and the law is
addressed by a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OF IOWA."
6
The petition appears to be based on three assumptions:
 | That a law passed by the legislature, and declared unconstitutional by
the Iowa Supreme Court, is somehow still valid.
|
 | That the law overrides the equal protection clause of the Iowa
Constitution which it violates.
|
 | That a simple majority vote by the people of Iowa in a referendum can
overrule clauses in the state constitution and deprive a portion of the
population of the right to marry the person that they love and have
committed to support for the rest of their life. |
That reasoning seems very strange. If the third assumption is true, then
every minority group in Iowa is in danger of losing any of their fundamental
human rights.
Ed Fallon, a former Democratic state legislator, and a leader of the
group "I'm for Iowa" filed an ethics complaint against
Senator Bartz. Fallon said:
"I think it is very inappropriate for a state senator to use his office to
basically ask Iowans to ignore the constitution, and to encourage county
recorders to violate the law. I mean the Supreme Court decision is very
clear...it has said that gay and lesbian couples in Iowa will be able to
marry. And for an elected official, a state senator, to go out and tell people
to pressure the county recorder not to issue license, that to me seems like a
violation of one's oath of office." 7
Senator Bartz issued a statement:
"I have read the formal complaint
filed by Ed Fallon and find it without merit. According to procedures set
forth by Senate Rules I will submit a formal response to the Senate Ethics
Committee within the next ten days."
"I fully expect the Committee to
dismiss this complaint, thus continuing the tradition of free speech on the
floor of the Iowa Senate. It is important that the voices of Iowans are not
silenced and a vote is held to determine what constitutes marriage."
8

References used:
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
- In the press releases of the Family Research Council and Iowa
Family Policy Center ACTION, the authors enclosed the word marriage in
"quotation marks." This is common among religious and social conservatives who
refuse to recognize SSM as a valid form of marriage. We deleted the quotation
marks because we felt they are disrespectful to loving, committed, married same-sex
couples and their families. The quotation marks may be a useful indicator for
future reference. If the quotes are dropped, the battle over SSM may well
have been decided.
- "Reflecting on Friday's Court Opinion," Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION
press release, 2009-APR-05.
- Amy Lorentzen, "Iowa Court Ruling Legalizes Gay Marriage," Associated
Press, 2009-APR-05, at:
http://news.aol.com/
- Charlie Butts, "Conservative Iowans fight to preserve traditional
marriage," One News Now, 2009-APR-06, at:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/
- Rod Boshart, "Court allows gay marriage in Iowa," Sioux City Journal,
2009-APR-04, at:
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/
- "Help Resolve the Constitutional Crisis!, Iowa Family Policy Center
ACTION news release, 2009-APR-23.
- Darwin Danielson, "Former state legislator files ethics charge over
gay marriage issue," Radio Iowa, 2009-APR-23, at:
http://www.radioiowa.com/
- Darwin Danielson, "Senator responds to ethics complaint in gay
marriage issue," Radio Iowa, 2009-APR-24, at:
http://www.radioiowa.com/


Copyright © 2008 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2008-APR-03
Latest update: 2009-MAY-07
Author: B.A. Robinson

Sponsored link

|