Below is Steve Deace’s response to an article written by Constitution Daily on this site yesterday.
I was on Steve’s show yesterday, and if you listened during the 6 to 7 p.m. hour, you heard two people who disagreed on tactics but agreed on why the war needs to be waged. Steve made sure that I was aware of what he was planning for his show yesterday afternoon. I appreciated the heads up and knew that my hour on Steve’s show would probably be confrontational.
I’ll admit I was a bit nervous about the situation I was walking into. I was comforted by knowing that Steve is my friend, and we have had many conversations in which we disagreed in the past. The only difference was that, in the past, we didn’t have those conversations in front of tens of thousands of people.
I thought that the conversation between Deace and myself (which also included an appearance by Bill Salier to spice things up) was not only good radio, but a useful dialogue that Steve’s listeners could find helpful in sorting out their own opinions on these issues. There is nothing wrong when people like Steve Deace and Bill Salier disagree with Congressman King. In fact, it should be expected to happen from time to time.
What we need to watch out for is how we disagree with each other. We must realize that it doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong when it comes to needing a residency requirement. What matters is that we are successful in getting a constitutional amendment on marriage on the ballot. We need all hands on deck for that to occur, which means we shouldn’t be trying to score victories over our allies.
That said, I thought that Steve deserved the opportunity to respond to the Constitution Daily post in the same forum in which he was criticized. The following is what Deace wrote on his blog this morning.
Query: Does Iowa need to adopt a residency requirement for the issuance of marriage licenses to prevent the exportation of same-sex marriages to other states?
Any residency requirement would have to be neutrally applied to both heterosexual marriages and “same-sex marriages”. A residency requirement could have the unintended consequence of preventing heterosexual couples from returning to Iowa to be married.
When Iowa starts issuing “same-sex marriage” licenses, it will not be the only state that be open to out-of-state couples. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut offer “same-sex marriage” to out-of-state residents.
a. Massachusetts, which adopted “same-sex marriage” on May 12, 2004, repealed its 1913 residency requirement on July 29, 2008. Both in-state and out-of-state couples can obtain a marriage license in Massachusetts after a three-day waiting period.
b. Connecticut does not have a residency requirement or a waiting period.
c. During the brief period that California recognized “same-sex marriages” and estimated 18,000 “same-sex marriages” were entered into, many of which involved out-of-state residents.
While a residency requirement might make it more difficult for same-sex couples to get “married”, it will not prevent the attempts to export “marriages” to states that don’t recognize “same-sex marriages”.
Adopting a residency requirement in Iowa may give political cover to legislators in states that are considering a marriage amendment by allowing them to say the threat to their state is minimal since their residents can’t go to Iowa to get “married”. Without the residency requirement, the threat to these states is clear and it may help get marriage amendments passed in other states.
Passing a residency requirement may be perceived by Iowa legislators as a compromise on the part of the Democratic leadership and give them an excuse not to do more on the marriage issue, including the consideration of a marriage amendment. There may be more important issues that will come up that the conservative base may want to “save up” for.
blog comments powered by Disqus