Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 3, 2009
Homo 2012
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:17 AM
More good news out of Iowa: amending Iowa's state constitution is a long, complicated process, similar to the amendment process in Massachusetts. It would require affirmative votes in both houses of the Iowa state legislature during two consecutive legislative sessions before being put to the voters. The soonest an amendment banning same-sex marriage could find its way on to a ballot in Iowa: 2012.
Efforts to put an amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot in Massachusetts failed because by the time the legislature in that state got around to voting on the ban in that second legislative session, same-sex marriage had been legal in that state long enough for voters and politicians to see that it posed no threat to "traditional" marriage. The amendment failed to win approval in that second legislative session. Democracy wasn't thwarted in Massachusetts; the democratic process—representative democracy—thwarted the ban.
There's no way of knowing if the same scenario will unfold in Iowa. But like Massachusetts, and unlike California, voters in Iowa are going to have some time to get used to gay marriage before they're asked to vote on it.
5
Sorry, Dan
Iowa's constitution requires that voters have the option to approve a convention to rewrite the constitution every 10 years. It just so happens that a "con-con" question will be on the ballot in 2010, which provides a dangerous opportunity for marriage detractors to circumvent the legislature.
There would still have to be elections to select delegates for the convention and the convention must approve a proposed amendment before it could go on the ballot, which means that we would still have a bit of breathing room before any marriage-specific question would appear on the ballot (again, it would probably be in 2012). However, regardless of the legislature's movement on the issue, the fight over marriage rights in Iowa will undoubtedly start with the 2010 constitutional convention question.
Iowa's constitution requires that voters have the option to approve a convention to rewrite the constitution every 10 years. It just so happens that a "con-con" question will be on the ballot in 2010, which provides a dangerous opportunity for marriage detractors to circumvent the legislature.
There would still have to be elections to select delegates for the convention and the convention must approve a proposed amendment before it could go on the ballot, which means that we would still have a bit of breathing room before any marriage-specific question would appear on the ballot (again, it would probably be in 2012). However, regardless of the legislature's movement on the issue, the fight over marriage rights in Iowa will undoubtedly start with the 2010 constitutional convention question.
7
If gay activist truly believe in democracy they will have no problem with:
1 making their case to the people of Iowa
2 letting the people of Iowa side with them or choose not to.
That is if they truly want this to be seen as a legitimate law.
1 making their case to the people of Iowa
2 letting the people of Iowa side with them or choose not to.
That is if they truly want this to be seen as a legitimate law.
8
Looking at the bigger picture, and not just same-sex marriage, constitutions SHOULD be difficult to amend, because constitutions should reflect bedrock values of democracy, not flavor-of-the-month issues.
13
@7 Trollschild: Once again, you've got your facts all wrong -- this ruling struck down an ILLEGITIMATE law. No law was passed.
15
Let's celebrate today--and prepare for the inevitable fallout from the Christaliban tomorrow. This is red meat for their fundraising letters and sermons and mobilizations. We have to be prepared to defend this.
And everyone complaining about "why don't we have it here in Washington already" needs to talk to Ed Murray and Jamie Petersen about what we can do to MAKE it happen. Don't sit back and expect your rights--get out and work for them.
And everyone complaining about "why don't we have it here in Washington already" needs to talk to Ed Murray and Jamie Petersen about what we can do to MAKE it happen. Don't sit back and expect your rights--get out and work for them.
16
I thought this part from the court's ruling was particularly compelling (sorry it's so long, I would just embed it in a link but I don't know how to do it on slog):
Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.
In other words, you can't just say "But that's how it's always been so we have to preserve that tradition!" There has to be some actual REASON for preserving it.
Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.
In other words, you can't just say "But that's how it's always been so we have to preserve that tradition!" There has to be some actual REASON for preserving it.
17
How come Iowa allowed gay marriage before Washington? I can understand CA and MA being the first states, but Iowa? Aren't we a bunch of latte-sipping, GTO rioting, spotted owl saving, critical massing, liberal elitists?
Seriously, wtf WA? Are we all jeans and no package?
Seriously, wtf WA? Are we all jeans and no package?
18
Wow, there's so much good gay news right now, I'm really beaming. We needed this one after prop 8. So goes Iowa, so goes the country. Thank you Iowa.
19
It saddens me when individuals who deeply understand discrimination side with discriminating against others. I agree with Lenoard Pitts, Jr. of The Miami Herald it is a shame.
20
The reason we don't have it here is; our supreme court made the "marriage is for the kids" argument and refused to overturn the ban.
Ed and Jamie are doing a great job getting us equal treatment. If you are going to complain, go to the supremes.
Ed and Jamie are doing a great job getting us equal treatment. If you are going to complain, go to the supremes.
21
14, It appears that you are right, but reading up on this story, I found this:
Opponents can try and persuade Iowa lawmakers to address the issue, but state Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said it's "exceedingly unlikely" gay marriage legislation will be brought up this session, expected to end within weeks. He also said he's "not inclined to call up a constitutional amendment," during next year's session.
22
Don't be too happy. Vermont house passed gay marriage last night and the gov. is going to veto. They don't have the votes to override. If you want to do something, send $$ to defeat Jim Douglas so they can try again in 2 yrs.
23
Remember everyone, the wingers have been telling us for a few weeks that the legislature of Vermont should be focused on the economy, not marriage equality right now. So, I don't see why the Iowa legislature needs to take this up since ther are so many bigger issues facing us right now.
24
2012 is nice timing.
The same majority that is energized and turns out to ban gay marriage (remember Prop 8 and how surprised you were by the outcome, Dan?) will vote for a true Conservative GOP presidential candidate in the caucus.
The master plan is falling into place perfectly....
The same majority that is energized and turns out to ban gay marriage (remember Prop 8 and how surprised you were by the outcome, Dan?) will vote for a true Conservative GOP presidential candidate in the caucus.
The master plan is falling into place perfectly....
27
When Iowa starts seeing the people and money flowing in from gay couples getting married, they'll be all about keeping gay marriage legal.
28
The most amazing thing about the Mass. legislature blocking it was that they only needed 25% to vote in the affirmative to put it on the ballot. Not even a simple majority. That was quite the smackdown.
29
@7, you fucking idiot. The rights of the minority should never be put to public vote. If that were the case we'd still have plantations and slaves in Mississippi.
Meanwhile, I'm so happy. I'm gonna get married.
Meanwhile, I'm so happy. I'm gonna get married.
31
@17- The Puget Sound region is only half the population of Washington. The other 50% is truck driven, gun ownin', gay rights not-supportin' republicans.
33
@32
Nope. It's the year an ancient South American calendar ran out of space to pencil in new dates. They figured "Well, we hit an appropriate multiple of years, we can cut it off here and fill it in later" and decided they were good. It's like saying that the world should have ended in 2000 because that happened to be the ending of a millennium.
Nope. It's the year an ancient South American calendar ran out of space to pencil in new dates. They figured "Well, we hit an appropriate multiple of years, we can cut it off here and fill it in later" and decided they were good. It's like saying that the world should have ended in 2000 because that happened to be the ending of a millennium.
35
Iowa wins the race! People should not be surprised. Iowa is full of hard-working people with a strong sense of justice, equality, and a live-and-let-live attitude. If and when there is an attempt to amend the state constitution, I and many others will be at the polls voting to preserve marriage equality.
36
34
Thank you for your comment, guy.
If you have someone read the post to you again, slowly, and explain it you'll see that it describes an energized conservative electorate voting in both separate contests, you ignorant ASSHOLE.
Thank you for your comment, guy.
If you have someone read the post to you again, slowly, and explain it you'll see that it describes an energized conservative electorate voting in both separate contests, you ignorant ASSHOLE.
37
@9. If some of the people of Iowa are so against equal protection and due process, they will have to publicly state so and declare that they want to remove these constitutional rights for one group of people based on nothing but animus. Bringing a referendum is really acknowledging that the Constitution *already* speaks for the people and that it upholds equal protection and due process.
If a hate filled person like you wants to try to change that, go right ahead. But be honest about your animus, your hate, your derision...and the fact that you are an enemy of constitutional principles.
If a hate filled person like you wants to try to change that, go right ahead. But be honest about your animus, your hate, your derision...and the fact that you are an enemy of constitutional principles.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (37) RSS