On the ground here in Iowa, it’s not too much fun watching the state devolve back into the 80s. We are the oldest state in the union for average age, and there can be fall out from this, although I think it would be a mistake to suggest that all our steps backward could be laid at the feet of the elderly. My in-laws, for example, are in their 80s, and would never vote for any kind of constitutional amendment.
Before I talk about the amendment, however, I’d like to suggest that our state will have trouble yet again with moving forward. We had money ear-marked for a light rail in the Eastern Iowa corridor between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, and we were talking about improving train service to Chicago. Gone. We were talking about developing and investing in our emerging wind power industry. Gone. Taking care of children with a reasonable education budget? Gone. Providing all Iowa children with pre-school education. Gone. Why? Short-sited budget cutting rather than long-term planning. No investment in the state’s future. A singular lack of vision. After the last election I wasn’t worried about the national scene. Try what they might, Republicans in the US House can’t get much past the Senate and, if for some reason, if it gets through that funnel, there’s Obama. In Iowa, the scenario is more troublesome. We have a Republican controlled House and a Republican governor. This means we can get down to some serious conservative trimming.
While my concerns about the rest of the state’s future are troublesome, I find myself less worried about the proposed constitutional amendment. Don’t get me wrong. Gay rights ARE an important issue, and people who argue against them should see marked similarities between themselves and Strom Thurmond. Gay rights are the future. The paradigm is shifting.
What’s up with all the sound and the fury? Well, there’s always someone who doesn’t want that paradigm to shift. A successful advertising campaign ousted 3 of the judges that interpreted that not allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional. One hopes any judge, liberal or conservative, would interpret the law similarly. People are stirred up, but mostly, as usual in such cases, there’s a vocal minority who want to raise the issue.
What would it take for Iowa to make an addition to its constitution?
I’ve lifted this from The Des Moines Register.
Amendments need to be approved by simple majorities in both the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies, then must be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election. Each general assembly lasts for two years.
This means that the amendment must be voted on now, and again in 2013 or 2014 (as we are in the first year of a new cycle.) We could see it on a general ballot by 2014 at the earliest.
Except…
While the House has voted 62-37 to pass House Joint Resolution 6, the Senate WILL NOT vote on this issue this year. Why? The Democrats still hold a slim majority in the Senate–1 seat. That means that Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal will not be holding a vote on this issue. That means the issue is dead in the water for this year. Iowa Press has more details. If Gronstal holds the line.
Gronstal will be under enormous pressure to allow this vote. He seems to be holding up pretty well right now. If this is an important issue to you, why don’t you drop him a note and say thanks, and give him encouragement. He is literally one man standing between Iowa’s married gays and discrimination for the time being.
Of course, the worthy video that has been getting all the attention? Zach Wahl doing his thing.
I think time is on our side regarding gay rights. If it should come to a repeat vote in 2014 (remember, there’s next year to try this general assembly again), more time will have passed and the paradigm will swing more naturally toward acceptance. This doesn’t mean that Iowans can be passive and assume nothing will happen. We need to get our asses in gear during the next elections, if we don’t want our politics to be decided by a loud minority who run sinister ads based on fear and who want to devolve our state to our previous levels of progress so they can fleece us. Gay rights are important. So are keeping student lunches affordable, and keeping Cobra for our smallest citizens who don’t have insurance.
Soapboxing, because someone has to,
Catherine
Someone needs to explain to me why people continue to have the “right” to vote on this issue. The United States Supreme Court needs to remind the people that we are all created equal. One of the main purposes of the United States Constitution is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities. These state constitutional amendments need to stop. I agree that gay rights, equal rights, are the future, but the people should have no say in that. It just is and needs to be recognized. Thank you for your article.