Lost in the welter of the Larry Craig coverage is a little love story out of Iowa.
It seems Polk County Judge Robert Hanson ruled late last Thursday afternoon that Iowa’s Defense of Marriage act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, violates the state’s constitution, and ordered the county recorder to begin allowing same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. By 11:30 AM on Friday, the judge agreed to stay his order until an appeal is heard, but at least one couple was able to obtain the license, get a waiver of the three-day waiting period, find someone to marry them, and file the license with the county before the stay was issued.
So now, in the midst of the chaos that is the presidential primary calendar, the issue of same-sex marriage will be higher on the Iowa political radar of the presidential campaigns. GOP candidates looking to court the conservatives will try to out-do each other in bashing the ruling, and have already started doing so. Romney was quick to start whining about “activist judges,” McCain calls it “a loss for the traditional family,” etc., etc., etc. Shorter GOP party line: “Bring out your fears! Bring out your fears!”
On the democratic side, the campaigns are likely to pick up from where the Human Rights Campaign/Logo tv network debate left off. (Here’s a liveblog account from Pam’s House Blend.) They want to reach out to the GLBT community, and those who support it, without giving the GOP ammunition to attack them.
Des Moines Register political columnist David Yepson captures the conventional wisdom, so beloved of “centrists” and campaign consultants, saying, “The last thing a Democratic politician seeking re-election wants is to have an issue like this whipping up Republican social conservatives to turn out and vote.” But Yepson doesn’t leave his observations with that. Instead, he goes on to question that conventional wisdom a bit:
. . . But two things may temper this debate:
- Many Iowa voters no longer get as bothered about homosexuality as they once did. Lawmakers just approved a bill protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment and housing.
- At a time when the country is at war, questions surrounding national security trump all other questions. And now it looks as if the economy is growing shaky, thanks to the mortgage crisis. In hard times, economic issues trump social ones.
When you are worried about losing your job or your kid getting killed in Iraq, you just don’t care as much about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
Bottom line: Republicans looking to flick “the gays are coming” switch may find it no longer lights up the electorate the way it once did.
But will the Dems notice, or will they keep acting and talking as if the switch still works?
Let the the GOP have their Grand Old Phobias. I’ll take a little “liberty and justice, for all,” myself.
No, make that a LOT. I’ve gotten really hungry for it over the last seven years. Thanks, Judge Hanson, for a little taste of it.
(Photo of a broken switch via aphasiafilms.)
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
zed
Zed
Jeez, look what happens when I pause to capitalize, unlike some I could mention…
Excellent Post, Peterr!
GordonM @ 3
Heh, sour grapes, ehhh??? :P
CTuttle @ 4
We aim to please.
This came a little too soon after LHP’s post; its a good topic, but LHP’s was, too! I’m going back downstairs.
Bob in HI
The way to frame the issue is to claim the Republicans are wasting the taxpayer dollars. Everyone knows by now the only way you could prevent gay marriage is through a constitutional federal amendment.
I’m not for a federal amendment, but I acknowledge the fact it would be the only way. The democrats should throw it back in their face that they are wasting taxpayer dollars with every one of these laws they 100% know will fail.
Lets frame this in a way that makes Republicans look like incompetent dolts.
I used to live in Des Moines, and left precisely because the environment was soooo homophobic (left in 1991).
So, color me SHOCKED at this decision. Iowa might actually be entering the 21st century. But it does have an ugly history of gay-baiting so I’m not holding my breath for too long on this.
What? Humanity is happening in the heartland? If only for a moment.
P.S. Thanks for the zedding so others don’t have to, hard work that, but someone has to carry the zed.
Peterr, I love this post. Here in GA the marriage between man and woman law was introduced by an gentleman who was divorced and charged with adultery. You know those gays are going to hurt family values. The GOP shouldn’t stand for the Grand Old Phobia but instead the Grand Old Phonies.
Rudy McGhoulicredoson immediately claimed that that one same-sex marriage was the cause of Craig’s problems, and if not immediately declared null and void, all Iowan males would find themselves hanging out in public bathrooms with unimaginable consequences for the corn crop and therefor the price of gasoline would shoot up to $15 / gal.
It’s perhaps worth noting that IRS has said it will rot respect same-sex marriages in applying provisions of federal tax law applicable to married individuals.
This position especially affects well-to-do same-sex couples in their estate planning.
AS they say, Gordon M:
In america today, ‘timing is everything.’
Then it’s ‘location, location’ ‘capitalization’ comes next. Just ask the Private Contractors. Sorry couldn’t resist, Gordon.
Jonathan @ 13
Curious. States have to respect each other’s definitions of marriage. Not the feds?
To the mod
I want to make a post that may need cleaning up. Do I just post it and see if it needs cleaning or is there another way? Thanks
Jonathan @ 13
It’s not just a little IRS regulation — it’s the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Nothing Judge Hanson or the Iowa Supreme Court can do about that, except point out that it amounts to legalized discrimination at the federal level.
And it affects a lot more than just well-to-do same-sex couples doing their estate planning.
sunshine @ 16
Click “Preview” and it will give you just that. Make your changes first, then submit.
Preview is your friend!
Can’t wait for Giuliani to list how many times gay marriage has undermined his family values.
Or maybe Mitt will tell us that when he thinks about that couple that just got hitched, it makes him want to take another wife.
Tancredo — now looking for an illegal spouse.
Thompson — was it right to find a trophy wife half his age?
It’s the end of civilization as they knew it.
GordonM @ 15
The U.S. Constitution requires each state to give “Full Faith and Credit” to each other state’s laws.
Details omitted, conflicts of law arise often, and there are complex rules for settling such conflicts.
That’s how things play out among the states.
But as between the states on the one hand and the federal government on the other, state law is always subordinate to federal law (via the Supremacy Clause).
Stanley Kurtz over at The Corner still thinks that switch works:
Those pesky judges. I blame Marbury v. Madison.
Jonathan @ 20
And the federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act gives the states permission to refuse to accept same sex marriages created elsewhere, and refuses to recognize them in any federal situations (like the payment of federal taxes).
Peterr @ 21
Heh, the root of all that judicial activism…!!!
Peterr
You are, of course, absolutely correct when you say the evil effects go far beyond estate planning.
I just see those particular effects in my work.
FWIW, the IRS took its position before the Defense of Marriage Act was enacted.
I called Yepson early on about the Patriot Act provision of appointing USA’s and he returned my call. He listens and is quite astute.
I believe volunteerism is great, but I don’t want to see it become another political tool for cronyism. Here is some from the Time article on “The Case For National Service” by Richard Stengel
Time magazine Sept 10, 2007
As the Constitutional Convention of 1787 came to a close, after three and a half months of deliberation, a lady asked Dr. Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic,” replied the Doctor, “if you can keep it.”
— ANECDOTE FROM THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
http://www.time.com/time/speci…..17,00.html
Mr. Stengal tells us
“…Today the two central acts of democratic citizenship are voting and paying taxes. That’s basically it. The last time we demanded anything else from people was when the draft ended in 1973…”
“But there is something else we are seeing in the land. Polls show that while confidence in our democracy and our government is near an all-time low, volunteerism and civic participation since the ’70s are near all-time highs. Political scientists are perplexed about this. If confidence is so low, why would people bother volunteering? The explanation is pretty simple. People, especially young people, think the government and the public sphere are broken, but they feel they can personally make a difference through community service. After 9/11, Americans were hungry to be asked to do something, to make some kind of sacrifice, and what they mostly remember is being asked to go shopping. The reason private volunteerism is so high is precisely that confidence in our public institutions is so low. People see volunteering not as a form of public service but as an antidote for it.
That is not a recipe for keeping a republic.”
and Mr. Stengel goes on to say
“But at this moment in our history, 220 years after the Constitutional Convention, the way to get citizens involved in civic life, the way to create a common culture that will make a virtue of our diversity, the way to give us that more capacious sense of “we” — finally, the way to keep the Republic — is universal national service. No, not mandatory or compulsory service but service that is in our enlightened self-interest as a nation.”
Mr Stengel tells us “27% of Americans engage in civic life by volunteering” so why does Mr. Stengel want to put volunteering under the umbrella of the Presidency and make it political?
I was checking on a couple of books on amazon and read this in the comments of the book “Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into being and why No One Saw it Coming” by Paul Hawken (I haven’t read the book) the first comment was from “Publishers Weekly” had this to say:
“…Though it’s argued that globalization; extinction of species, languages and cultures; and economic policies advantageous to the rich have degraded quality of life worldwide and engendered large scale feelings of fear, resentment and powerlessness, Hawken remains surprisingly hopeful. Strength, he contends, lies in the many thousands (if not millions) of nonprofits and community organizations dedicated to environmental protection and social justice that collectively form a worldwide movement geared toward humanity’s betterment.”
And the second comment:
… “The profusion of good causes and the nonprofit groups that advance them can seem laughably overwhelming, but without altruistic grass-roots efforts, the world would be a far less merciful place. Environmentalist Hawken believes that we are in the midst of a world-changing rise of activist groups, all “working toward ecological sustainability and social justice.” Rather than an ideological or centralized movement, this coalescence is a spontaneous and organic response to the recognition that environmental problems are social-justice problems….”
http://www.amazon.com/Blessed-…..amp;sr=8-1
Peterr @ 6
And you succeed!
Jonathan @ 20
I saw very recently some state’s law prohibiting recognizing a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere was struck down. Now IANAL (and never wanted to be one, except when I’m really angry and want to make someone suffer, but then I have a couple beers instead), so I don’t read that closely, but I thought it was a federal court that did the striking down.
….loss of a traditional marriage. Like Rep. Bob Allen’s, Sen. David Vitter & Sen. Larry Craig’s. Just good ole conservative marriages.
Peterr @ 22
when I read your last paragraph, the words “establishment clause” popped into my head. Why would I think that?
GordonM @ 28
I’m going to defer to Peterr on this one. I’m just a tax guy.
GordonM @ 15
Currenlty states define marriage within their own states and other states are supposed to respect the marriage made in the other states. Likewaise divorces whcih is why in the 1950’s if you wanted a qck and eay divorce you went ot Reno nevada and set up residency for 6 weeks and then you could apply for divorce there. Even if you got married and lived your whole marriage in another state.
That is why the defense of marriage act is so anti-states rights
sunshine @ 16
Ancient FDL proverb: preview is your friend..)
I think Iowa now has the test case for “full faith and credit” . I am proud to be an Iowan.
I agree that when people are worried about their children coming home in a bag, that they worry less about the issue at hand. But, that’s just a distraction.
I think that as time goes by and more gay and lesbian folks have the courage to live their lives honestly, it affords those who fall short in their humanity to see the truth.
My mother was raised in Moline, Illinois, across the river from Des Moines, Iowa. She has lived most of her life in a bubble, but, when she worked with an openly gay man as her supervisor, she gained an insight. She saw him as a person. An old dog learned a new trick.
So, kudos to all who fight the dogma. To all of the family members who truly support the ones they love. Thank God.
Slowly, people have the opportunity to Judge Not, and only Love.
Again, with so much else, we have progress, slow, and many steps backwards sometimes, but progress nevertheless.
Thank you PeterR for this thread.
My son is studying economics and needs to find out how many new jobs have been created in 2007. Anyone know where he can find the info?
ccmask @ 36
This might help.
Scarecrow @ 37
Thanks scarecrow. He said he already checked there but surprisingly he couldn’t find it.
Jim Clausen @ 34
Before it gets to that, the Iowa Supreme Court has to uphold Judge Hanson’s ruling. I have no idea about how they would rule, but if any Iowans want to hazard some guesses, I’d love to hear it.
Meanwhile, out in California, their supreme court heard arguments last June (IIRC) on striking down that state’s ban. Just a couple of weeks ago, the parties submitted followup briefs. Lots of folks holding their breath on that case, as you might imagine.
The wingnuts in particular are already crying foul, as Attorney General Jerry Brown is the one who is supposed to argue on behalf of the state law.
Elliott at 30
I don’t know whether an Establishment Clause objection can be raised against the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Establishment Clause, part of the First Amendment, generally prohibits government-established religion (that’s a very incomplete boiling down of the Establishment Clause).
ccmask @ 36
Here’s a good place to start.
Jonathan @ 40
why thank you for explaining that to me, ‘preciate it. obviously IANAL
ccmask @ 38
Look under the tabs, “Economic News Releases” or “Detailed Statistics” Either one gets you there.
Scarecrow @ 43
Thanks a lot.
Scarecrow: He said he looked all day yesterday and him and a classmate are still on the phone talking about it. He just came out and said “cool!” and thanks.
sunshine at 26: I’m a big admirer of Paul Hawken (who came out of Whole Earth Catalog). Natural Capitalism is a great book, though shockingly optimistic these days (written in the 90s).
I live in Maine, and things are a bit different here. My kid’s HS and the local library (a very, very nice library), are both “public” but private. That is, anyone who lives here can use them, but they’re not gov’t institutions at all (actually anyone can use the library).
We have town meetings. At those town meetings, the residents can tell the town to donate X amount to the library or academy (and many other causes). So none of this goes through a politician at the county, state or federal level.
All this is perfectly natural to anyone who’s lived here for any period of time. But I’ve come to realize that in the outside, we’re some kind of bizarre marriage of libertarian and soci*l*st.
In answer to my question about whether the democratic party leadership is going to act like that GOP “the gays are coming” switch still works, I vacillate between “maybe not” and “they probably will.”
Pelosi, being the poster girl for SF Values, is an obvious lightning rod for the GOP on this. I’d love to hear her stand up and say “Good for Judge Hanson, and good for Iowa,” but I’m guessing she’s trying to stay out of the issue for the sake of pushing other things (like Iraq).
Sometimes the impression is that the Republicans like to deal with controversial issues. The Democrats on the other hand do not. It was not always so. Perhaps it would be better for the country if the Demos and the GOP swapped approaches.
“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue that our family’s very familiar with,” Cheney said. “My general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone – people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”–Dick Cheney
ccmask @ 45
Welcome. Also, Try Teh Google: job growth 2007
I was EPU`d on this but I think (obviously) that it is worth having folks read and think about following through on the ideas I summarize.
Time to take charge and move out !
“The water won’t clear up ’til we get the hogs out of the creek.” – Jim Hightower
daCascadian @ 51
Hear, hear!
ccmask @ 49
Yes, they ought to, but they are not. Gays are about at the same point where blacks were when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 48
Wedge issues. Rove used ‘em like mad to drive chunks of independents into the GOP column. Trouble is, he used them so hard, he started fracturing the coalition he’d cobbled together.
Yeah, Dems could grab ahold of the good end of the stick on a number of issues: economy, environment, civil rights, infrastructure…
ccmask @ 49
I don’t think shrub, rove, et al are, in the privacy of their own hearts, anti-gay/lesbian.
IMO, they’re just manipulators of the right-wing base.
Jonathan @ 55
Exactly Jonathan. According to them, marriage is for one thing–pro-creation.
The belief is that Rove will do anything in the election run-up to distract from Iraq, the crumbling economy, health care issues, GOP corruption, Republican hypocrisy, sexual foibles and debauchery.
daCascadian @ 51
Yes, there is an organizing and doing function that the web CAN provide.
This is an ideal community of interest in which to develop it.
I had thrown out the idea of a Wiki-style meme bank for the Democrats—a site where the issues get framed the right way on any number of topics that the Dems seem to fumble away–
For example, in response to Reps claiming Dems want “defeat”, I might create a meme response like: “The US defeated itself in 2003 by losing the Iraq populace with Abu Ghreb and by destroying Iraq’s infrastructure through de-Baathification.”
Then someone could come along and change it to make it punchier, more emotionally appealing, etc.
Over time, the collective wisdom at FDL could be a great tool for Dems.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 57
That’s what Iran is for.
Jonathan @ 55
As far as primary motives go, perhaps you’re right, but none of these thugs are above a little gratuitous bigotry. Shrub-the-child-bully is probably not above making the occasional anti-gay toilet joke.
Jonathan @ 55
Actually, they have a lot of gay friends. Jeff Gannon, Matt Drudge, Rove’s dad, and many closeted ones too.
ccmask >
Which at the root is about economics; borrowing authority & bonded indebtedness for government entities over long periods of time (a generation or three).
“Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” – John Maynard Keynes
I don’t think shrub, rove, et al are, in the privacy of their own hearts, anti-gay/lesbian.
Nor are they anti-prostitution. ;)
hackworth @ 61
I’ve anyone is visiting Rove’s deceased father, it would be Cheney…one foot in Hades under the noonday sun.
Cloven foot, at that.
hackworth @ 63
Just ask Jim “Jeff Gannon” Guckert.
daCascadian @ 62
Dang, daCascadian, you’re a veritable Bartlett’s, eh? ;-)
GordonM @ 59
Nothing is off the table for the GOP.
Blub at 60
To amend my comment:
In the privacy of his heart, shrub is a moronic, borderline psychopath.
No joke intended.
If my lady and I were the only str8’s in Oklahoma, life would go on. One thing I am fairly certain of; we wouldn’t have so many damn Republicans and fundies to contend with. And that would be nice. Real nice.
if your definition of traditional family is older man and much younger trophy
thirdsecond wife.ccmask @ 49
There he goes, ringing that freedom bell again. What an open minded guy!
Jonathan @ 68
Oh, he definitely satisifes criteria for antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy).
Whether he satifies criteria for borderline personality disorder – well, there I ‘m on the fence
(’cause to answer it I’d have to think about his intimate/close relationships and then I’d get all squicky and nauseated and not be able to go get lemon juice and finish my canning.
and that would be bad.)
Loo Hoo. @ 71
I thought Lynne was supposed to be wringing her hands.
Kirk,
By all means, get on with the canning.
I’ll await your thoughts down the road.
I have an awfully difficult time taking anything Mr. McCain says seriously. The man is just this side of irrelevant. He’s a real political sad sack.
Irrespective of her sexual preference, the Cheney’s gay daughter is no prize. I rate this person a top notch hypocrite.
Speaking of political sadsacks, why is Ana Marie Cox on Keith Olbermann, PBS (with Pat BUchanan, etc.) ?!? She’s supposed to be representing, I think the “new left” but she’s kind of embarassing in terms of having nothing to say.
Don’t know anything about Cheney’s gay daughter.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 76
Does your wife know how many FMF’s are in awe of you?
ccmask @ 36
Try here–Buraeu of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/
Question: Is Anna Marie Cox attractive on TV?
LHP – answers downstairs
Jonathan @ 79
She has vigorously campaigned for the Bush/Cheney ticket over the years.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 84
Also worked for Coors as their official outreach/liason person to the LGBT community.
Theory
Good ideas don’t count today.
Christy, Jane and Marcy have sort of proved that.
You want to advance some idea?
Be an 18-year-old-empty-head-beauty-queen from South Carolina, or wherever.
Ana Marie Cox on Countdown. & still scratching my head.
JPL @ 80
I don’t think we have heard from Ms. (better half) Kiddo in a while.
Siun’s up!
mui @ 88
Lahoma is sitting about three feet away from me as I write. She says hello. ;0)
Peterr,
I should write because I am in support of your stance that maybe, just maybe, that damn switch is broken.
A little old red state lady thinks about her brother who disappeared years ago…
A twenty five year graduate of some eastern or western university realizes that this issue is the same as racism.
The golden midwestern boy who is the quarterback of the high school team knows his cousin is gay… What’s the big deal?
Please let the damn switch be broken and stay broken…
A young mother reconsiders her mother’s steady, faithful friend.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 90
Hi Lahoma!
If anyone’s still down here with a new thread upstairs, could you answer a “what does it signify” question?
I am relatively new to FDL, mostly lurk but occasionally comment. I think I’ve figured out most of the lingo and acronyms, but one has me scratching my head. The first couple of times I saw “teh” for “the” I figured it was a typo, but I’ve seen it often enough now to figure out that it has a special significance. Can someone enlighten this newbie? TIA.
mui @ 88
I saw her dip her toe in the Lake last week, but haven’t seen her since. Was hoping we’d see her more from now on.
I love these guys so much I can scarcely breathe.
With all the horror we’ve been though lately we suddenly get “We’re married. I love you.”
And life is worth living again.
msmolly @ 93
It started as a typo, but got adopted for ironic use.
msmolly @ 93
This might help with some of the inet slang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L….._phrases#E
Frops are bigoted.
Fox Republican officials and politicians are bigoted. They cream Craig and give Vitter and Stevens a get out of jail free pass. The only difference is that Craig’s misconduct involved being gay. Sad. Just sad.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30028
<1 Sep 2007 // Washington, DC – Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said today:
“In light of the public uproar that forced Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) to resign today over a guilty plea to disorderly conduct in connection with an attempted sexual encounter with an undercover officer in a Minneapolis airport restroom, the Senate should immediately begin an examination of two other Senators whose past conduct is both illegal and in violation of Senate ethics rules.”
“First, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) continues to maintain his position on the Appropriations Committee, and has avoided a Senate investigation, despite being the subject of a major criminal investigation, including an FBI raid on his Alaska home. Second, Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who has not been charged, has admitted to the crime of soliciting for prostitution. Senator Vitter remains not only unscathed by his actions, but was greeted with a standing ovation at a Republican conference luncheon shortly after his scandal hit the airwaves.”
“Both Senators Stevens and Vitter have committed crimes that reflect poorly upon the Senate and should be subject to the same scrutiny as Sen. Craig.”
“The only possible interpretation of the Republicans’ differing reaction to the two other Senators is that Sen. Craig’s case involves gay sex.”>
Peterr @ 17
Seems Roberts, Alito et al should be all in favor of nullifying DMA then, right? Aaah, I suppose not. Oh well.
Got Democracy?
Peterr @ 39
He would probably recuse himself and let someone else in the AG office handle it.
hackworth @ 63
Nor are they anti-murder (see Iraq).