Constitutional Convention – The People’s Option
- Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 4:36
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,540 views
- 61 comments
Last night WHO Radio host Steve Deace, IFPC communications Director Bryan English, and myself debated some of the options that conservatives are exploring in the wake of the Iowa Supreme Court’s April 3rd ruling that opened the door to gay marriages in Iowa.
The debate focused on two main areas. First, is voting for a constitutional convention a risky or prudent way to pass a marriage amendment? And second, is Bob Vander Plaats’ executive order proposal an unnecessary step in passing a marriage amendment and does it set the precedent for future governors to have too much power?
In the 1850’s the legislature was unresponsive to the will of the people in passing legislation that would allow banking in the state. Today, we find ourselves in a similar position, where our elected officials are unresponsive to the will of the people on the issue of marriage.
There is no doubt that the constitutional convention option is not the preferred way to amend the state’s constitution. Like those at the Iowa Family Policy Center, I too would prefer to pass a constitutional amendment through the legislative process. However, as in the 1850’s, we have legislative leaders who are thwarting the will of the people. We have legislators who refuse to put the will of the people above the desires and politics of their leaders. The legislative process has failed the people of Iowa. That leaves the people only one option to pass a constitutional amendment that would define marriage – a constitutional convention.
In short, if the legislature will not listen to the people of Iowa, we must go around them by using the only constitutional route provided to us.
In last night’s debate, there was some confusion regarding whether or not the constitutional convention would allow only for amendments or whether liberals could use this as an opportunity to throw the entire thing out and simply start over. Below is Article Ten, Section Three of the Iowa Constitution. I think it is important to note that Article Ten is entitled “Amending the Constitution,” not “Throwing it Out.”
At the general election to be held in the year one thousand nine hundred and seventy, and in each tenth year thereafter, and also at such times as the general assembly may, by law, provide, the question, “Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution, and propose amendment or amendments to same?” shall be decided by the electors[which means eligible voters] qualified to vote for members of the general assembly; and in case a majority of the electors so qualified, voting at such election, for and against such proposition, shall decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, the general assembly, at its next session, shall provide by law for the election of delegates to such convention, and for submitting the results of said convention to the people, in such manner and at such time as the general assembly shall provide; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments, by a majority of the electors qualified to vote for members of the general assembly, voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the constitution of this state. If two or more amendments shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be submitted in such a manner that electors may vote for or against each such amendment separately.
While there are no limits to the number of amendments that could be forwarded, the Iowa Constitution is very clear that the purpose of the constitutional convention is to revise or amend the document, not to toss it out. Additionally, the people of Iowa are required to approve each such change that is made to the constitution at the convention separately.
Bryan English and IFPC object to the constitutional convention option because they believe that Sen. Mike Gronstal and Speaker Pat Murphy will have a hand in determining how delegates to the convention are selected. While I understand their concerns, I don’t think the legislative option for amending the constitution is a better option at this point in time. There is no way that the legislature will vote for the constitutional amendment on marriage if Gronstal and Murphy are still in their leadership positions. That means marriage proponents will have to wait for Republican majorities before any action is taken on the marriage issue.
Unfortunately, time and patience is not on our side, and English and IFPC know this. So, while they want to pass an amendment through the legislature which will take at least four years, they also support Bob Vander Plaats’ executive order proposal which they contend would force a vote in the legislature.
Vander Plaats’ executive order purports to put a stay on gay marriages in the state while the legislature passes a law that would define marriage. On its face, it seems like a good idea. When Vander Plaats mentions his executive order, he is greeted by cheers from the conservative activists supporting his campaign. Yet, authorization for this option can’t be found anywhere in the state’s constitution.
During last night’s debate, Steve Deace pointed out that in Article IV of the constitution, which deals with the executive, reads, “The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a chief magistrate, who shall be styled the governor of the state of Iowa.” Deace contends that, since the governor is called the chief magistrate, it implies that he/she has some supreme judicial authority.
As I pointed out, Black’s Law Dictionary defines magistrate as, “The highest ranking official in a government, such as the king in a monarchy, the president in a republic, or the governor in a state. – also termed chief magistrate; first magistrate.” The point that I made is that the term “chief magistrate” is just another name for governor, just like the constitution refers to voters as electors. This provision simply gives the office of governor its name, nothing more.
Furthermore, nowhere in Article IV, Section eight of the constitution, which deals with the duties of the governor, is there any indication that the governor is granted such far-reaching executive powers. In fact, the historical analysis that I’ve found argues that the lack of any description of gubernatorial duties in the Iowa Constitution shows that the drafters constructed the governorship to be a relatively weak office.
The fact that two principled conservatives would advocate for such expanded executive powers is troubling. While I agree with them that a definition of marriage needs to be inserted into the constitution, failing to use the proper constitutional procedures for making these necessary changes is a mistake.
I asked Deace if he believes that President Obama has the right to put a stay on the US Supreme Court Decision that overturned a portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law recently found to be unconstitutional by the nation’s highest court. He agreed that Obama has that ability. I then asked him if he would support President Obama’s right to put a stay on a Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, so that the legislature could act. He told me that elections have consequences, so, in essence, he was saying yes.
I understand that people are frustrated with the options that they have to chose from here in Iowa, but the last thing that conservatives should do is overreact and expand the powers of the executive branch. All that would do is create the all-powerful executive that our founders tried so desperately to avoid.
The state’s history of the constitution clearly shows that our founders wanted a weak executive.
The governor could veto legislation, but his veto was to be limited, not absolute. The 1846 document allowed an override upon the vote of two-thirds of those members of the legislature present and voting. The veto in the 1857 constitution required a two-thirds vote of the entire membership of the legislature and thus was harder to override than the veto in the 1846 constitution. The veto provision was also modified to give the governor additional time to consider his action on bills delivered to him in the three calendar days just prior to final adjournment.
From 1846 to 1857, the Executive Article was changed somewhat in form but not really in substance. The governor was declared to have the “supreme executive power”, but there is otherwise little in the document which sets out exactly the nature of his executive power.
While it would be nice to believe that we could elect a new governor who could fix the marriage problem in the state on their first day in office, the reality is that such an act is not supported by the constitution of the state of Iowa. Even if a governor is elected who would attempt an executive order, the constitutionality of that action will be decided the courts. Trading in seven tyrants on the court for an all powerful executive is something that all conservatives should soundly reject.
The only way to solve the crisis we are faced with today is to insert the definition of marriage into the state’s constitution. There are only two ways to amend our constitution – through the legislature or a vote by the people to hold a constitutional convention. Ironically, or maybe by the providence of our Creator, the constitutional convention question will be on the ballot in 2010. After this next general election, the only route that we will have to amend our constitution for the foreseeable future is through the legislature.
Passing amendments through legislature has not historically been easy. The women’s suffrage movement tried for 47 years to pass an amendment to the state’s constitution; they ultimately passed an amendment to the United States Constitution first. Even with Republican majorities, the marriage amendment failed to pass in both legislative chambers in one general assembly, let alone two.
If you really believe that the people of Iowa deserve the right to vote on the issue of marriage, you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the constitutional convention option.
It might be our only option.
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
61 Comments on “Constitutional Convention – The People’s Option”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Folks, this is one can of worms you don’t want opened!!! This is about the only time you’ll find me in agreement with Bryan English & IFPC. There is really only on good way to do this and that is through the amendment process. Yes it’s difficult & slow and damn well should be! The best way to start is by voting out the liberal dems that stonewalled us after the Varnum decision was issued. As long as you obsessed with idealism & “purity” and Executive Orders, this will continue to go nowhere!
Timmy~ I agree with you about the can of worms as well as the process being a long one. The advocates of issuing Sodomy Certificates were in our state for 7 years to get what they wanted. If it takes that long to fix it, we are in it for the long haul. I disagree with you on the executive order as it is a needed measure to hold the court in check, and restore the power to the proper authority, the legislature and ultimately the people. It does not matter who is in control party wise. This bill failed in the senate with Stu Iverson and his Senate republicans in the majority. It is not “elect republicans and we will get the marriage amendment to the people” you can sell that Obama type of “hope and change” somewhere else because Iowans are not going to buy it. I believe we need to elect many Comprehensive Conservatives as possible. That is the winning strategy for marriage. I do not accept Craig’’s idea of the constitutional convention because I believe it masks the responsibility of our elected officials very much like his support for Terry Branstad.
CIO: You can be as idealistic as you want but it won’t cure a thing. It’s time to start looking at this realistically. For you to say it does not matter which party is in control shows a total lack of dealing with reality.
You don’t really believe you can accomplish what you want without a Republican majority, do you? It’s not going to happen. Creating a Republican majority is the ONLY way to go about solving this problem–even then, it’s no guarantee of success but it is the only hope. Run as many true conservatives as possible in primaries and go from there.
Where have you gotten the idea Robinson is supporting Branstad. I see him as totally impartial. He said yesterday he does not know who he will vote for in the primary and that describes me, as well.
I can’t speak for Robinson but my first desire is to send Culver to FL permanently. Any of our guys is better than Culver.
BVP’s executive order idea would never hold up as being constitutional in state or federal court.
I still find it troubling that the party that proclaims to be for small government is so dead set on inserting more government into who I can love and marry. The folks who wrote our state constitution would never have agreed to adding discrimination into our highest law. They wouldn’t allow slavery in this state and it really saddens me to see so many people so adamant about forcing second class citizenship on to a minority group simply because we are born a little different.
Craig, you have masterfully destroyed their entire argument. By forcing them to admit that Obama has this same far-reaching power, they are now advocating to shred the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions.
These people are not conservatives. They want to give the governor, and by extension, Barack Obama, unprecedented power. This is not separate but equal branches. Its tyranny. No true conservative could support this ridiculous executive order of Vanderplaats.
For the life of me, I still cannot understand why anyone wants the st ate to define marriage. As VastVariety pointed out before, Iowa didn’t define marriage on the basis of sex until DOMA.
Don’t you want the state to primarily leave you alone? Let the Church (or whatever your moral compass is) to decide what marriage is for you and yours. Leave legislators out of it.
Questions for clarification: The only way to get the constitutional amendment is to have both chambers of the legislature approve the measure in two successive session of the legislature (and the earliest possible ones would be 2011 and 2013), so you’d be looking at 2013 at the very earliest that “we the people” could vote on a marriage amendment. If we decided this year to vote for a constitutional convention (which indeed might open up Pandora’s Box on a variety of issues) then we could vote on this issue in 2011.
Constitutional scholars, is my timetable right on this? So an executive order might be the most expedient way to attempt this, but that could create a constitutional crisis because no one branch is supposed to trump the other branch; the amendment process would take until 2013 to reverse the court’s decision, and in the mean time you’d have 4+ years of same-sex marriage and how would you reverse that precedent; and a constitutional convention could risk the stability of the constitution as it is should a faction want to tear the whole thing up? In a nutshell, is this what we’re looking at? Are these our options?
Constitutional Amendment Time Line
If the House and Senate passes it this year, it could be on the ballot in 2012. That is not likely to happen.
If they pass it next year, then it would be 2014.
A constitutional convention could be called in 2010, and voted on in 2012.
I think that these elections could he held in the June primary of the years stated above.
The executive order would only prolong the legislature in passing the amendment. The executive order does not accomplish anything because it has no foundation in our constitution.
All this wanting to finaggle with our Constitution because you (”you” meaning collectively, I’m not thinking of any one particular “you” ) are obsessed over the ICK-FACTOR of two men engaging in butt-poking.
Gimminy, it wasn’t too long ago that you (again, collectively) directed all your energies into the abortion issue, a matter that does have some real importance. What happened to you guys that you give up on babies and went after queers?
We used to get regular updates on the current monthly number of “murders”, now it’s only about how the queers seem to be “winning”.
Thirty years ago it was about how the godless commies were domino-effecting (the “E” there is intentional) all around us as we sleep.
I think you repubs just need boogeymen in your lives to give you the security of banding together.
A couple of items:
1) Has anyone calculated the cost of a constitutional convention? What will the campaigns cost for those running for delegate? What will the actual convention cost when you pay each delegate a stipend and mileage? Presumably the convention would meet in the Capitol when the Legislature is not in session, so what would it cost to staff up that building for basically an additional session? Didn’t we already elect Representatives and Senators to do this work for us? The Constitutional Convention would be like us giving permission for lawmakers who are neglecting their duties to continue stealing their pay, AND then hiring more people to basically do the same thing.
If you think you have the time, people, and money to wage a successful campaign to elect enough God fearing conservative delegates to a constitutional convention, why don’t you go out and elect those people to serve in the Legislature? There is an election just around the corner.
This is why the Iowa Family PAC is working with Legislative candidates all over the state. We need a new Legislature, not a Constitutional Convention.
2) Craig and I talked about the key confusion surrounding the vote in 2010 on the convention. Would the convention be limited to simply amending the current constitution, or could they decide to write a new one? If they were to just offer amendments, he may have a case (if you ignore the items outlined above.) If on the other hand, the delegates presume they have the powers granted to every other constitutional convention in this country’s history, they could decide to draft an entirely new constitution. I don’t think we would know exactly how this would all work out until it actually happens.
3) The real problem here is that we have a legislature that refuses to respond to their constituents. Talking about a constitutional convention empowers the political elites. It gives them an opportunity to blame the people instead of doing their job and actually representing us. Last week, Pat Murphy sent an e-mail to the homosexual activists asking for help because his caucus is coming under so much pressure form their constituents. The people of Iowa are engaged in the process of passing the Iowa Marriage Amendment. They will go to the polls and replace a big chunk of this legislature. There is a process in place that will allow the people to vote on marriage without opening the entire constitution up for revision or replacement, and in the end we’ll not only have a marriage amendment, but also a better Legislature.
We live in a micro-wave, instant gratification, society. The Constitution deserves the diligence required to make the surgical changes necessary. If that process requires changing big chunks of the Legislature – GREAT! Let’s not let political elites like Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy off the hook by rushing to an unpredictable and unnecessarily unwieldy process that offers no guarantee that we would ever see the amendment we are actually after.
Craig,
This is outstanding work… You’ve clearly illustrated that those that support the “magic wand” approach have neither anything in the Iowa or US Constitution that backs up their assertions.
This is why IFPC’s endorsement of BVP has the very REAL possibility of doing more damage to the marriage issue than good. If BVP loses the primary and loses handily, Democrats will point to the results and say “Even Republicans don’t care about the gay marriage issue” and continue to refuse to bring the issue to a vote.
What IFPC should be doing is what pro-traditional marriage groups did in California: build massive grassroots support for traditional marriage. That’s how they won the Prop 8 vote in the most liberal state in the country in the Obama wave of 2008.
If traditional marriage advocates can garner enough support to pass an Amendment in California..they should be able to do the same in Iowa.
HawkCR1 and Bryan are in agreement: The only practical way of fixing this is to elect REPUBLICAN majorities and a Republican governor and go for the constitutional amendment.
I think the constitutional convention may be the only way to go for gay marriage opponents. I hope Republicans are in control of the governors office, the Senate and the House after the 2010 elections, but I think the Democrats will retain control of the House. I just don’t see a constitutional amendment passing that body. Another factor is changing public attitudes. I really wonder if a constitutional amendment would gain popular approval in the future.
Vanderplaats, IFPC and anyone else advocating for this executive order are LIBERALS. They believe Chet Culver and Barack Obama have unlimited power over the courts. These people will shred the entire foundation of our government with this madness.
Craig has made them see the insanity of all this. They are now boxed in, with no way out.
They now realize they are wrong, but instead of admitting it, they will keep digging.
Nimitz…I’d flip that prediction around…its going to be more difficult to retake the Senate than it will be the House. The GOP only needs to win back 6 seats in the House to retake control…and the Democrats have many more vulnerable seats in the House than the GOP does.
Democrats control the Iowa Senate 32-18 right now…that’s a bigger hill to climb as only half of the seats in the Senate are up this year.
Excellent point Red.
Supporting the executive order is not a conservative idea. Consolidating power into one branch of government and essentially eliminating the power of another branch is not a conservative approach to governance.
With this in mind, let’s assume BVP wins the GOP nomination. One wonders whether Chet Culver or Bob Vander Plaats – the supporter of a stronger executive – will actually be the conservative choice for governor.
Hawk CR1 you are right. I had a brain freeze and typed House instead of Senate. Regardless I don’t think Republicans will win back both houses of the Legislature. I also wonder how much fire in the belly there is going to be for a very divisive legislative battle over gay marriage with so many problems related to the economy and budget.
Gay marriage is not that big a deal to me. I just think the people who really want to see it repealed should pursue a constitutional convention as their best recourse.
I am not sure whether either one of the options is the way we should move forward on the gay marriage issue. Personally I would rather see the government out of the marriage business altogether. Leave it to the churches to decide who they marry.
Al..as much as that would be nice to see..there is a function for government in regards to marriage–insuring you don’t have bigamy or someone under aged getting married for example..in states that require blood tests–insuring no one has a STD.
In many states, there is even a waiting period between getting a wedding license and when you can get married…many would argue that’s a prudent requirement as well, Al….
I can understand where you are coming from Hawk, but why should the government be in the business of regulation any forms of marriage. If it is in ones religious beliefs that multi spousal marriages is accepted, why should we forbid that? As for the requiring of blood tests, if the spouse has any concerns about that they can undertake that endeavor themselves. Furthermore I don’t believe that the state should be issuing “licenses” to allow two people to marry. Instead I believe it should be up to the minister and congregation of the church in question.
Well Al, quite frankly lets be honest here..people lie. They may tell their future spouse, oh yeah..i’m divorced..or my first spouse died years ago, etc…when in fact the opposite is true. Is that a cynical view on life..sure it is.
If you don’t believe the state should be issuing license for two people to marry…then what else should the state not license? No drivers licenses? Should that be between you and your insurance company? How about no licenses to be a doctor or dentist? Should that be between you and your doctor?
I understand where you’re coming from Al, however, somethings sound better in theory than they do in practice.
“What IFPC should be doing is what pro-traditional marriage groups did in California: build massive grassroots support for traditional marriage. That’s how they won the Prop 8 vote in the most liberal state in the country in the Obama wave of 2008.” – HawkCR1
And then what happened Hawk? It was taken right back to courts. Now, that time they did federally, but whats to stop folks from taking it right back to the Iowa Supreme Court? And if the court rules that your amendment is unconstitutional, then what?
While I agree that getting government out of the marriage business all together I don’t see it as practical. You still need a legal way of recognizing and enforcing the civil contract that is marriage (the religious part of which is completely secondary and optional). There has to be a way of allowing for inheritance as one of many examples.
Just remember, any amendments brought up in the constitutional convention banning same sex marriage could be just as easily be challenged in Federal Court as anything else. If the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is successful in overturning the tyranny and government intrusion of Prop 8 then the only way to change that would ultimately be to change the US Constitution itself.
When arguing that a Governor’s Order has no standing in law and that he or she cannot defy a Supreme Courts Opinion, I submit the following, “…the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” – President Jackson in reference to Worcester v. Georgia. In this case the Governor of Gorgia defyed the courts ruling and nothing came of it.
I see that the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff is also dealing with an issue of how gays are treated:
“”No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
– Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted by the New York Times, on the need to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law
ConThinker…
When in history has a state constitutional amendment been ruled unconstitutional by a State Supreme Court? To my knowledge its never happened… If Iowa passes a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man, one woman…could it be challenged in federal court? Sure. However, its already being done with the Prop 8 case in California.
In regards to your reference to Worcester v Georgia: President Jackson had no grounds to get involved in the case until the Georgia courts formally defied the Supreme Court.. That did not happen because Georgia complied with the only substantive holding of the decision and pardoned and freed the plaintiff involved in the case. Nice try in trying to create a precedent for BVP to wave the magic wand though..
Well actually actually Hawk, if you read further you find that the Governor that was in office didn’t free the plaintiff in question. It was the next Governor that did so, and did so by the way, without issueing a pardon.
So in essence, the then Governor of Goergia DID defy the court. And was NEVER force to do anything else by any court.
This is astounding on its face: boiled-down we have good, honest, normally law-abiding citizens conspiring to find a way to circumvent the Rule of Law.
Shame on you all.
I remember the fear and anxiety I went through when I was nearly outed by my roommate when I was in the Air Force and that was the year that DADT was signed into law. If could have simply chosen to be straight in order to save myself from all of that I would have.
CT, that’s not really a good example since the reason the court didn’t initially enforce the decision was a pure political one and had nothing to do with actual law.
That case also shows the extent to which a group of people will go to impose their will on others. For some reason we never seem to learn to just let people live their lives in peace.
Good idea, VV. Just go have sex any way you want and leave the rest of us alone to live our lives in peace. Just be sure to get married in time to pay Obama’s huge marriage penalty for his health care bill. It’s about time homosexuals paid their fair share.
Why is everyone afraid of democracy? While there is a good argument any convention would be limited to amendments, I have no fear of a new document starting from scratch, since it all has to be apporved by THE PEOPLE!!!!!! If Gronstal and his leftists buddies want to throw in some socialist amendments, go ahead and let them try. The prople will vote them down in a landslide. Why ANYONE who consdieres themself a conservative would shudder at the thought of a constitutional convention is beyond me.
HawkCR
“When in history has a state constitutional amendment been ruled unconstitutional by a State Supreme Court? To my knowledge its never happened…”
Iowa 1883 and Iowa 1900.
A constitutional convention while a right of the people is not one to be used lightly for a single issue such as this. Because a constitution convention opens the entire constitution to rewriting — thus a major can of worms that I cannot think is possible to contain in today’s hyper-media society.
Even the argument that saying each “amendment” must be voted upon does not fly — because amendments can also delete as well as add. Thus a single amendment could be “delete all existing consitutional text” and replace with “——-” (which could be a whole new constitution or a simple statement such as “all Republicans are now forbidden.” (or Catholics or penecostals or Hispanics or whatever you can think of)).
The constitution was properly designed to be amended, but with a slow methodical process to assure that it is not amended simply because of the political hot issue of the day, but because of a well thought out reason.
This is how it ends, this is how it ends…. not with a bang, but with a whimper.
R.D., the Founders despised a democracy which is why they gave us a Represenative REPUBLIC! If you don’t fear a “new document” you need your head examined. There is a proscribed way to properly amend the Iowa Constitution, but ironically those claiming to be “conservatives” don’t seem to have any problem circumventing it. niowaguy has got it exactly right!
Chris… You’re going to need to provide a little more information than that….cases, examples…evidence.
Watsamatter HawkCR1, cantcha Google? or have you lost your Bling?
Here’s one, though my source isn’t online, it’s the Iowa Journal of History and Politics October 1908.
In 1880 and 1882 the 18th and 19th General Assemblies passed an amendment to prohibit alcohol. This amendment was considered in an election held on June 27, 1882 and passed 155,436 to 125,677.
In a case heard in District court October 1862, Kohler and Lange (Brewers) of Davenport sued John Hill, a saloonkeeper, for non-payment for a large quantity of beer. John Hill’s contention was that he could not be forced to pay for an illegal product. The case reached the Supreme Court of Iowa and was heard in December 1882 with an opinion published in January 1883. The text of the version passed by the house in the 18th General Assembly varied from the text passed by the Senate in the 18th General Assembly and from the version passed by the 19th General Assembly by the omission of four words. The court ruled that the amendment had not been properly passed by the Legislature; therefore the amendment was not valid.
The other was also declared invalid on procedural grounds, I don’t have as much information, as the subject is only peripherally of interest to me. The legislature passed an amendment, referring to it in the Journals of the House and Senate by title. The supreme court said, not good enough, the text has to be there to show that the same amendment was passed each time. See Koeler and Lange v Hill, above. The legislature then did it right and the same amendment was adopted a few years later. Google Iowa constitutional amendments, and you’ll probably find as much as I have on this one.
As I have said over and over again DVFO I would be more than happy to fulfill any of the responsibilities that come with marriage as long as I get all of its benefits and protections, and frankly DVFO, my wanting the same rights as you has very little to actually do with sex.
Also, note that a constitutional convention could also be used to enshrine the rights and protections that gay people deserve into the constitution just as easily as it could be used to impose majority tyranny.
Late night food for thought. A review of BVP’s disclosure statements indicates that he is using a lot of what he raises for his own living expenses. As in reimbursements and meals with supporter(s). If he issues his executive order once he is elected governor, and he is impeached as he predicts, will he continue to draw a salary as an impeached governor?? Any know the answer?
Let’s suppose that Governor Vander Plaat issues an executive order saying whatever it is he thinks it should say to “suspend” the Court’s decision on SSM. Then some county recorder (or Registrar), issues a marriage license to a same sex couple. There are 99 Recorders, representing all political persuasions: at least one will. What can will Governor Vander Plaat do about it? The Governor has no authority over County officials. They are elected on their own and not answerable to the Governor. The Governor can’t take the county official to court, he needs an attorney to do that and the Attorney General is the attorney for the state, not for the Governor. Further the AG is not answerable to the Governor. If the Governor orders the Highway Patrol or the BCI to arrest the Recorder (The Governor has no authority over the County Sheriffs or the City Police Departments) what do they charge him with, and how long before the Court Orders his release? So someone else sues the County Recorder and it goes to court. How do you think the District Court is going to rule? In favor of the Governor exercising some made-up power or the Supreme Court’s ruling?
Suppose in some other county the Recorder refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, and they sue. Of course the District Court rules in their favor based on precedence and orders issuance of the license.
So all you Plaatians, just exactly what is Governor Vander Plaat’s vaunted Executive Order going to say, what is it going to order who to do, and what specifically is it going to accomplish? And further what is Governor Vander Plaat going to do when it is ignored (besides pout)?
Chris…
The amendments themselves weren’t found to be unconstitutional…as you stated, the two amendments were found to not have been passed properly by the Legislature.
The Court didn’t rule on the amendment being constitutional…they ruled on HOW the amendment was passed at the time.
HUGE difference between that and ruling a duly passed state amendment to the Iowa Constitution as “unconstitutional”.
That’s why there is a clearly defined process about amending our State Constitution. Again, nice try.
All the focus on this really makes me wonder if it is the issue that Iowa Republicans want to run on. The budget is hemmoraging red -ink and the current occupant of Terrace Hill has proven he is clueless. The people of Iowa are clamoring for somebody that can take charge and get the state’s fiscal house in order.
So I ask you, is “Gay Marriage” the hill we want to die on? What exactly are we stopping by passing a marriage amendment? Adopting children? Tha train left the station a long time ago. Most of the legal concerns(property rights, primary care, etc.) possibly could be addresed by the courts without this. We can make the moral arguements all day long and while I have firm beliefs about this, other than protecting the rights of churches, etc. I don’t see what is to be gained. It doesn’t make any of you a better “christian” than I because I don’t share in your ill advised quest to turn the Iowa Constitution on it’s ear because we may find this issue morally repugnant. If you really want to “protect” marriage then repeal no-fault divorce which has done way more to cheapen marriage than this will. Like it or not, the culture has changed and you are not going to change it back by legal edict!
VV: The current laws apply equally to everyone. If you want to get married, go find yourself a woman and get married.
Frankly, I am confused why it is that homosexuals want to get married and heterosexuals only want to live together without getting married.
You can’t really want to get married so you can pay the huge marriage penalty that Obama and the Dims are wanting to put on married couples.
If you want to enter into a contract with someone else now regarding inheritance, etc., there’s nothing to stop you. This can only be about gays and lesbians wanting to force their way onto others.
Like you said, can’t we all just live in peace?
Timmy…
For Vander Plaats..yes..that’s the issue he wants to center his run on.. In fact..BVP publicly stated to the Iowa City Press Citizen in July of 2009 that he was “betting my whole campaign” around his issuing of an executive order on the marriage issue..
That’s what IFPC thinks should be the main issue for the campaign this year….
The other GOP governor candidates are certainly willing to put the issue as a priority…but they’re not willing to make it the centerpiece of their campaign…and it also sounds like the Iowa GOP has the same attitude as the other candidates…..so you be the judge…
DFVO, The idea that if I want to get married that I should go find some woman is completely absurd. Why on Earth would I want to marry someone that I am completely incapable of having a loving intimate relationship with. Marriage laws that prohibit same sex couples from marrying DO NOT in any way treat everyone equally as is guaranteed by both the State and US Constitutions.
Just like everyone else I want to marry the person that I love so that I can have all the benefits and responsibilities that marriage provides, and yes, even if that forces me to pay some big health care tax that is supposedly in the health care reform bill, and which I don’t for a moment believe actually exists in any form of reality.
The so called simple contract that you say I can get does not guarantee me that my family won’t challenge it when I’m dead and prevent my partner from receiving the inheritance he deserves and assets we purchase jointly. It doesn’t guarantee that if I’m in a coma that my partner can make medical decisions that family members have to make that could save my life. It doesn’t entitle him to my social security benefits, It doesn’t allow us to file a joint tax return and tax advantage of tax breaks for married couples. It doesn’t guarantee that my partner can be on my employer provided health insurance coverage, and that’s just to name a few of the 1100 or so laws that are directly affected by a persons marital status that a so called simple contract could never replicate any way.
Peace comes from equality. I don’t want to push my ways onto anyone. I simply want the same recognition of my relationship by civil government as everyone else gets and takes for granted. Your the one that is trying to impose your belief that I am somehow living an immoral life and want to regulate my life and impose government restrictions on my life.
You know what, Vast, at this point in my life, I could use a younger, more wealthy spouse but I’ve also grown accustomed to the one I have so I’d simply like to add another one. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to do that? I wouldn’t be hurting your relationship in any way.
DVFO, Being a homosexual and being a Polygamist are entirely different things and while I think Polygamy is wrong, it’s not really my place to dictate to you that you can’t do it and I don’t believe government should either. As long as everyone in the relationship is a willing adult, go for it.
The idea that allowing same sex marriage will lead to the legalization of Polygamy, Bestiality, or any number of other phillia’s is completely false and has no basis in statistical fact.
Vast,
You are not an impartial observer; you merely consider your personal gratification, and there’s no place in a representative Republic for that mindset.
The government dictates morality to us all the time and you, my friend, should not be exempt simply because you count yourself among the protected class that is homosexuals.
You’re also being disingenuous when you scoff at the slippery slope leading to polygamy; there are already leaders in the LGBT movement calling for the state to recognize the legitimacy of multiple conjugal partners as a “family,” Obama apointee Chai Feldblum included.
Wake up.
Peggy, I am just as moral as you are.
Judging by your comments here, no, you’re not.
Peggy–you never cease to amaze me. So let me make sure I understand you. Those that merely consider their personal gratification have no place in our Republic. Are those that gratify themselves have no right to vote? I have a real hankerin’ for a banana split so that I can gratify my sweet tooth. Do I report that to the State so someone can determine if I have a place in our representative Republic. Sheesh. Give me a break.
Vast…how can you say that it WON’T lead to say polygamy being made legal? Isn’t the basic argument of gay marriage advocates is that its unconstitutional to say who can and who can’t be married? So, lets say gay marriage is left legal…what’s to stop another group from claiming their “rights” are being violated.
What if two men and a woman say they want to be married to each other? If there is no standard as to what defines a “marriage”, doesn’t it open a Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences?
If I remember correctly, and Peggy please forgive me if I remember incorrectly, Peggy once made some reference to beer which left me the perception that she does occasionally indeed enjoy a beer.
In the sanctuaries of most fundamentalist protestant churches today, beer drinking _of even the least amount_ is considered immoral and sinful.
In the Baptist churches of my youth the Catholics were, sorry MIE, considered practitioners of Babalonian idol worship and I’d bet we could still find those sentiments in print on the shelves in christian book stores today.
Peggy, yud better be careful about what you wish for in politics.
HawkCR1
The difference is that I was born gay, I can’t change that fact no mater how hard I try.
What does that matter, Vast? If its unconstitutional for the state to put any parameters on marriage…then again, what is to stop polygamy from becoming legal? They could argue that they were “born” that way as well….
Gay advocates say they want to be able to “love one another” like those in traditional marriages do. Ok..why then stop 3 people from “loving each other” in a marriage?
That is where the slippery slope turns into a sheer cliff., VV. Why would one group of people be extended a “right” and others not? That’s were the argument for those advocating legalizing gay marriage fall apart.
Hawk, I can’t think of a good constitutional reason to not permit adults to marry in groups more than just two people. I find it morally repugnant but if they want to do it I’m fine with letting them. The problem is that your trying to compare an immutable trait that a person has with something that a person chooses to engage in for economic, social, or religious reasons.
Of course if you ask Mr. BLANKENHORN, who testified in Defense of Prop 8, a Polygamist still fits within the idea of a traditional marriage because the man marries one wife at time.
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Perry-Vol-12-1-27-10.pdf
It starts around page 55, but this is from pages 57-58.
“Even in instances of a man engaging in polygamous marriage, each marriage is separate. He — one man marries one woman. That’s the way it works. The scholars then have pointed out that in certain societies, many societies, men of wealth and power then go on to marry additional women. They do not marry as a group. It is not a group marriage. It permits certain men that have access to power to marry more than one woman. Each marriage is a separate marriage of one man and one woman.”
Maybe we should all tune to HBO and start watching “Big Love”. They are just one big happy family, so who are we to deny their happiness???