Iowans voice concern over ‘gay marriage’ ruling

Iowans voice concern over ‘gay marriage’ ruling

Iowa’s Supreme Court may have legalized “gay marriage,” but that doesn’t mean the state’s citizens have accepted it — and they’re letting their legislators know.

Unlike California — where citizens gathered petitions to place an amendment banning “gay marriage” on the ballot — Iowa’s law requires a constitutional amendment overturning the court’s decision first to go through the Legislature controlled by Democrats whose leaders promise to block it.

Supporters of the amendment, though, are urging Iowans to repeatedly call their legislators and urge them to pass the amendment (H.J.R. 6 in the state House). It appears many Iowans already have done that.

“Iowans are rising up and contacting their legislators in numbers and in waves that I have not heard of before,” said Bryan English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, which supports the amendment. “Over the weekend, people were actually getting in their cars and driving to the homes of some of these legislators to make their case for the opportunity to vote on a marriage amendment.”

The Iowa Family Policy Center e-mailed its constituents April 8 urging supporters of the marriage amendment to come to the Capitol on April 9, where a procedural vote on the amendment in the House was set to take place. Supporters were urged to wear red. At press time, the result was  not known.

“This is a day that you will tell your children and grandchildren about — make every effort to be a part of this effort,” read the e-mail, which was also posted on LetUsVoteIowa.org.

Eric Schumacher, senior pastor of Northbrook Baptist Church, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, said he contacted his legislators and urged his congregation to do the same.

“[A]s citizens in a ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people,’ we have both the privilege and the responsibility to act so that our civil government functions as God intended — to approve what is good and to punish what is bad,” he said. “To neglect participation in such a government is to squander a privilege that few Christians have enjoyed in Church history.”

But the situation is certain to test the resolve of conservatives. Although a majority of legislators might support the amendment if it were to come to a floor vote, Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal and House Speaker Patrick J. Murphy, both Democrats, released a statement praising the court’s ruling.

“It will not come up,” Gronstal was quoted as saying during a press conference. “I have no intention of taking it up.”

Compounding the problem for amendment supporters is that legislators are in the final days of the session. An amendment must pass by a simple majority in two consecutive sessions in order to be placed on the ballot.

“If it were to come to the floor, it would pass in both chambers,” said English, who is urging Iowans to contact not only their legislators but also Murphy and Gronstal. “That’s why the majority party won’t let it come to the floor, because they know where the people of Iowa stand, and they know that even the people in their own party would vote for it. It’s a very small minority of folks that support what’s going on with the Supreme Court.”

It likely would pass on the ballot, too. A University of Iowa poll of 978 adults conducted in March found that only 26.2 percent of adults support “gay marriage.” Also 36.7 percent of Iowans oppose recognition of “gay marriage” and civil unions, and only 30.4 percent said they’d accept a court decision legalizing “gay marriage.”

Iowa’s Democratic governor also has changed his tune. In January 2008 — after a lower judge sided with “gay marriage” supporters — Gov. Chet Culver told reporters, “We’ll do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman.” On April 7, though, he released a statement, saying, “[A]fter careful consideration and a thorough reading of the court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.” Although Culver technically plays no role in placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot, his position on the issue is viewed as important in swaying legislators. (BP)