Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
There is distinct frustration in the voices of Iowa social conservatives as they talk about the possibility of the Iowa Supreme Court striking down the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act and allowing same-sex couples to wed.
On Tuesday morning, the court heard oral arguments in the case of Varnum v. Brien. The case, filed initially by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by Timothy J. Brien, the Polk County Recorder, was given summary judgment in Iowa District Court in August 2007. Although the lower court’s decision was placed on hold pending the appeal to the high state court, one same-sex couple was able to quickly maneuver through the marriage process. The fate and validity of that marriage now hinges on the ruling from this appeal.
The Iowa Christian Alliance, formerly the Christian Coalition of Iowa, opposes same-sex marriage.
“The evidence submitted to the [lower court] judge showed that the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional, is legal and was voted on by a vast majority of the Legislature with the support of the population of the state of Iowa,” said Norm Pawlewski, a spokesman and lobbyist for the Iowa Christian Alliance. “The lower court ruling was an erroneous decision and the Supreme Court should overrule it. If they don’t, then they are engaging in judicial activism.”
Pawlewski though, is not optimistic that the conservative groups will receive a favorable ruling.
“I think this is going to come down to judicial activism. That’s my opinion,” he said.
Bryan English, a spokesman for Iowa Family Policy Center, also believes that the court will take on a legislative role if it decides to allow same-sex marriage.
“One of the main questions is whether or not the court would be usurping the rights of the Legislature by siding with or supporting the lower court’s decision,” English said. “The justices even said today that one of the outcomes could be a redefinition of marriage. That’s different then deciding if something is constitutional or unconstitutional. A redefinition of something as foundational as marriage is a significant change in the law and ought to be handled by the Legislature.”
Tamara Scott, state director for Concerned Women of America, takes the thought one step further, saying that the current state of the fight for same-sex marriage in the U.S. has turned historical precedent upside down. She points to the battle for suffrage as evidence that groups previously understood the process of amending the U.S. Constitution was the proper avenue.
“If Iowans and Americans would really look at this, they would see that this is a federal issue,” Scott said. “Look at the U.S. Constitution. I believe it was the 14th Amendment that gave the black man the right to vote. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. The white male already had that right, but nowhere, at any time, did the black men and the women assume they were included as well. They knew and they were forced to go through the long and purposefully difficult process of passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution so they could obtain the right to vote.”
Pawlewski is adamant that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, is and should be the law until a different wording or definition is passed by the Legislature.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that says everybody has a right to marry whoever, or whatever or how-many-ever they want,” he said. “There was nothing wrong with the law that was passed. It went through the appropriate procedures, and, if the homosexuals want gay marriage in the state of Iowa, then they ought to go through the Legislature just like everybody else.”
Although these groups did not file individual friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, they did work closely with the Alliance Defense Fund to ensure their arguments were read by the justices.
For now, English and Scott are willing to take a “wait and see” approach to the court’s ruling.
“You never know how a judge is going to rule,” Scott said. “You think you understand the legal ramifications and implications and precedents — but you just never know. I’m hopeful that they will understand that this isn’t a position the courts should be making. This is something that belongs in the legislature and something that should be a process that goes through the state Constitution, not seven individuals.”.
Follow Lynda Waddington on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter