Senate bill could reverse marriage law
Mike Kuhlenbeck
Issue date: 1/22/10 Section: News
Republican State Senators introduced a bill to amend the state constitution banning same-sex marriage at the 2010 General Assembly on Jan. 14, reigniting a public debate on the issue that will have an impact on political candidates in months to come.
Senate Joint Resolution 2001, sponsored by 18 Senators, calls for an amendment in the state constitution that would reverse the Iowa Supreme Court's decision that recognized same-sex marriage as a legal union in the state.
The state legislature must pass the resolution in two separate General Assemblies before the measure can go to a public vote to establish the amendment.
On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that found Iowa's 1998 law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman to be unconstitutional because it only pertained to civil marriages.
Due to the controversy of the issue in the public eye, the issue could affect Gov. Chet Culver's reelection bid on Nov. 2 due to his support of the court's decision. Political pressure is building on both sides of the spectrum for the candidates and where they stand on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Former Gov. Terry Branstad, businessman Bob Vander Plaats, minority leader Christopher Rant and other Republicans are seeking their party's nomination for the June 8 primary to challenge Culver in the upcoming election. Each of them has said that if elected they will overturn the court's decision on the matter.
Since the court's announcement last April, many activists have been politicizing the issue in order to either defend or oppose the ruling.
The Iowa Family Policy Center, for example, is one of the most vocal organizations opposed to same-sex marriage in the state.
Their goal is to abolish what some of their members view as "activist judges" ruling on the issue, and want to pass legislation to define marriage under what they call "traditional terms:" one man and one woman.
Senate Joint Resolution 2001, sponsored by 18 Senators, calls for an amendment in the state constitution that would reverse the Iowa Supreme Court's decision that recognized same-sex marriage as a legal union in the state.
The state legislature must pass the resolution in two separate General Assemblies before the measure can go to a public vote to establish the amendment.
On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that found Iowa's 1998 law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman to be unconstitutional because it only pertained to civil marriages.
Due to the controversy of the issue in the public eye, the issue could affect Gov. Chet Culver's reelection bid on Nov. 2 due to his support of the court's decision. Political pressure is building on both sides of the spectrum for the candidates and where they stand on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Former Gov. Terry Branstad, businessman Bob Vander Plaats, minority leader Christopher Rant and other Republicans are seeking their party's nomination for the June 8 primary to challenge Culver in the upcoming election. Each of them has said that if elected they will overturn the court's decision on the matter.
Since the court's announcement last April, many activists have been politicizing the issue in order to either defend or oppose the ruling.
The Iowa Family Policy Center, for example, is one of the most vocal organizations opposed to same-sex marriage in the state.
Their goal is to abolish what some of their members view as "activist judges" ruling on the issue, and want to pass legislation to define marriage under what they call "traditional terms:" one man and one woman.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Iowan
posted 1/22/10 @ 10:09 PM CST
Courts don't make law. Gay "marriage" is not "legal" in Iowa.
Sam
posted 2/01/10 @ 11:05 PM CST
@Iowan:
Well then apparently you got your civics lessons at Grand View, because there is a such thing as separation of powers. No, courts don't make law, but the Supreme Court's duty is to interpret the Constitution, and it is bound by law to strike down laws which go against the intent of the Constitution. (Continued…)
Post a Comment