Despite setbacks — including Maine voters rejecting same-sex marriage law and legislators in New York and New Jersey unable to pass marriage equality bills — 300 “good” LGBT bills were introduced across the country last year and 50 passed, compared to 69 “bad” bills with four passing. The report pointed to the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling last April legalizing same-sex marriage (and lawmakers pledging to abide by it), as well as anti-discrimination legislation in Delaware, domestic partnership legislation in Washington and Nevada, and a Washington, D.C., law allowing domestic partners to be presumed as parents of their partner’s biological children and to be included on birth certificates as some of the year’s biggest highlights.

“We have had moments of genuine disappointment this year,” the report said, later adding: “Eventually, these moments of frustration will be a mere blip in history as we remember all our victories in 2009.”

The legislation, Senate Joint Resolution 2001, would amend the state’s constitution to say “marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.” In order to amend the constitution, the legislature must pass the resolution in two separate General Assemblies. The measure would then go to a public vote. If advocates of a same-sex marriage ban are unsuccessful in 2010, it would likely be 2014 at the earliest before the public would weigh in.

The resolution was sponsored by all 18 Republican members of the Iowa Senate. There are 32 Democrats.

State Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, told the Mason City Globe-Gazette that Republicans will try everything to force a vote on the issue, but it likely won’t matter due to opposition from Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs. In an interview with The Iowa Independent, Gronstal vowed to stop the amendment at every turn and block a vote on the measure.

The joint resolution has been turned over the the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which is chaired by Grontsal.

The Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last April in a unanimous decision. During the closing weeks of the 2009 General Assembly, Republicans attempted numerous procedural moves to force a vote on a constitutional ban on gay marriage, all of which were thwarted by Democrats.

Iowa Supreme Court building (file photo).

“Justice is not an optional government service,” Ternus said, noting that justice is “a constitutional imperative” and, as Alexander Hamilton described it, “the first duty of society.”

“The general theme of my previous reports has been that the state of the judiciary is good. This year, however, I cannot give a favorable report.”

Since the 2002 fiscal year, she noted, staffing levels have been reduce by 17 percent. In just the last year, staff was cut by 11 percent. In fact, the state’s courts now operate with a smaller workforce than it had in 1987, the year the state assumed full funding for the court system. The number of serious and time-consuming cases before the court, however, have increased by 66 percent.

Ternus also argued that budget shortfalls have adversely impacted the Judicial Branch more than any other aspect or agency in government.

“Unlike many state agencies and the regents, the judicial branch has no pass-through funds, no programs to cut and no reserves to tap. Nearly all our operating costs are for people – employees and judges who are the life blood of the court system — so when we cut our budget, we must cut our workforce.”

Court officials have begun to deal with cases based on a priority system. Those cases determined to have priority — for instance, civil cases that involve children — are continuing to be heard and decided in a prompt manner. Non-priority cases, however, are not provided this same access.

“Ironically, under funding the judicial system is counterproductive to economic recovery because a well-funded court system contributes to the economic well-being of our communities. Besides the obvious impact caused by layoffs of state employees, which harm local communities, cuts in court budgets impact the business community at large. Case delays add to the cost of doing business and create uncertainties for business, making them less likely to invest and expand.”

Ternus did provide a few avenues in which the judicial branch might be able to realize long-term savings — for instance, digitizing records. The only short-term revenue-producing change at the court’s disposal is to raise court fees. Ternus fears that raising costs could further hamper access to the courts.

Additionally, most long-term options do require upfront costs. And, while generally accepted and greeted by staff, there are some potential cost-saving measures that have created concern.

A key concern is the possible switch from traditional court reporter services to digital recording and transcript service. Although Iowa has not yet made the switch, 26 states and most federal courts have done so. Court officials concerned with the proposal speak of accuracy, cost and records access.

“You may think that rationing access to justice is not too much to ask Iowans given the state’s dire financial circumstances and the sacrifices being made by all Iowans during the recession. But think again.”

Those who will bear the brunt of the cuts, according to Ternus, are those who can least afford it — abused and neglected children, victims of violence, communities battling juvenile delinquency and crime, and business owners who meed to resolve conflicts.

Ternus and the judicial branch have requested that the legislature to keep their funding at existing levels.

File photo, left, and Creative Commons photo by Alan Light via Flickr, right.

The Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC) has organized a rally on the western steps of the Capitol for noon Tuesday. But before the formal event, the group will attend Gov. Chet Culver’s annual speech to a joint session of the legislature with the hopes of convincing lawmakers to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“We expect the members of the Iowa legislature to listen to their constituents and not to stand in the way of our constitutional right to vote on the Iowa marriage amendment,” said IFPC President Chuck Hurley. “Any member who stands between the people and our right to vote is risking their political future. We will remember in November.”

In announcing the rally, the IFPC noted that the Iowa Supreme Court justices will also be in attendance Tuesday to watch Culver’s speech. In April, a unanimous court legalized same-sex marriage, and the group has since been outspoken in their opposition to the justices up for retention votes this fall.

One Iowa, the state’s largest gay-rights organization, is asking supporters of same-sex marriage to gather at the capitol in an effort to thwart the IFPC’s attempt “to co-opt Gov. Culver’s state of the state address and intimidate Iowa legislators into pushing for a constitutional amendment that would deny civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples.”

One Iowa’s gathering is planned to be less formal, with supporters watching Culver’s speech and then delivering 18,000 petition postcards to legislators throughout the afternoon. The group kicked off its “Red Blue Purple Campaign” –  a coalition of labor, civil rights, and faith groups who support same-sex marriage — at a rally in downtown Des Moines on Sunday.

During an interview with The Iowa Independent, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal vowed to block any attempt to force a vote on a marriage ban, prompting leaders of Iowa’s social conservative movement to concede their is little hope of passing an amendment in 2010.

Last summer's Tea Party protest at the state capitol advocated for legislator's to allow a vote on gay marriage (file photo).

Spearheaded by the influential social conservative group Iowa Family Policy Center, the gathering is advertised as a public call for lawmakers to pass an amendment to the state’s constitution banning same-sex marriage, the first step toward allowing the public to vote on the ban in 2012. If it doesn’t pass the legislature in 2010, the earliest it could be on the ballot is 2014.

Despite the soaring rhetoric and lofty goals of the campaign, most conservatives agree — even if it is reluctantly — that there is no chance a gay-marriage amendment will pass the Democratic-controlled legislature in 2010.

“There’s just no chance at all,” said Jeff Angelo, a former Republican state senator from Creston. “Democratic leaders have really put themselves out there and said they are not going to allow a vote, so it won’t happen. I think Republicans know that.”

From the moment the Iowa Supreme Court issued its decision legalizing same-sex marriage last April, Republicans have vowed to pass an amendment overturning it. In the closing days of the 2009 legislative session, Republicans in both the House and Senate attempted numerous procedural moves in the hopes of forcing a vote on an amendment, including attaching it to a tax proposal and the state’s Health and Human Services budget. Democrats successfully blocked the efforts.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, upped the ante by declaring in an interview with The Iowa Independent that not only will he oppose an amendment, he won’t even let it come up for a vote. And with a commanding 32-18 Democratic majority in the Senate, Republicans don’t have a lot of options to prove him wrong.

“As long as Mike Gronstal is the de facto governor of Iowa, there’s not going to be a marriage amendment, barring direct intervention in that man’s heart by God himself,” said Steve Deace, who hosts a Christian drive-time program on Iowa’s largest radio station. “Beyond that, like the Pharoah of old Mr. Gronstal’s heart is hardened towards righteousness and morality, and it’s clear that promotion of homosexuality is something he’s serious about. He’s not budging, and the few of his fellow Democrats who might otherwise share the views of folks like me are too intimidated by him to stick their necks out for what’s right.”

The last time an amendment banning same-sex marriage came to a vote in the state Senate was in 2004. That year, 21 Democrats were joined by four Republicans to defeat the measure. Since then, the Senate has either been evenly divided or dominated by Democrats, a fact that has killed any momentum for passing a ban.

“The strategy going forward is to focus the debate not on passage of an amendment, because that’s not going to happen, but on who has the final say in this debate — the people or the courts,” Angelo said. “I think this could be a significant issue in the next election.”

So even though a ban won’t pass, gay marriage opponents should still hold their rallies, give their speeches and show up at legislative forums throughout the state, Angelo said. Even attempting to attach it to other bills, as was done last year, is a good strategy, because it forces the issue into the spotlight.

“This is about starting early in the battle for the hearts and minds of the public,” he said. “That’s why what they are doing will be important.”

The only way an amendment can ever be passed is if Democrats are voted out of office, said Kevin Hall, a conservative blogger and Republican strategist from Des Moines. So those who oppose same-sex marriage should be working to get Republicans elected in November.

“Republican leaders have already promised to make it a key issue in 2010,” he said. “It remains to be seen how well that helps them at the ballot box. Gay marriage is the key issue with the Iowa GOP’s social conservative base, but I think more people are concerned about the economy, jobs and the ineptitude of the Culver administration.”

The most recent Des Moines Register Iowa Poll, conducted in September, found Iowans almost evenly divided about whether they would vote for or against a constitutional amendment to end same-sex marriage, with 41 percent supporting a ban and 40 percent opposing. And while 43 percent say they oppose the Supreme Court’s ruling, a whopping 63 percent say other issues are more important going into the fall election.

Nearly all — 92 percent — say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.

Even if Republicans are not able to completely win back the House or Senate in November, by focusing on kitchen table issues the party could close the gap in both chambers and make a marriage amendment more likely, Hall said.

“Then, Republicans might be able to force the legislature to vote on a constitutional amendment in 2011,” he said.

Ultimately, while he doesn’t agree with Gronstal’s stance on the issue, or his promise not to allow an amendment to come up for a vote, Deace said he has a lot of respect for the Council Bluffs Democrat for being willing to stand up for what he believes is right.

“Although I vehemently disagree with his worldview he’s at least honest about it and acts on the courage of his convictions with great boldness and ferocity,” he said. “If only our alleged ‘Christian leaders’ had done the same when they had the chance, this discussion may not even be necessary. “

Amid the excitement of a new decade, the unresolved issues of 2009 and other years past are becoming more irksome and in need of solutions.

The Road to Recovery … or Not

The entire country watched in June 2008 as flood waters savaged downtown Cedar Rapids. The videos and pictures of the Cedar River overtaking downtown structures, destroying businesses and displacing residents were simultaneously heartbreaking and striking. Yet for every headline garnered by Cedar Rapids, another smaller Iowa town was left to cope with its own slow and tedious recovery without the benefit of national news crews.

Veterans Memorial Coliseum is shown drenched by flood waters on June 11, 2008. (file photo: Lynda Waddington/The Iowa Independent)

State officials have argued that all that could be done was done. They tout Iowa’s swift recovery, comparing the progress here to natural disaster recovery in other parts of the country. Yet even now families remain displaced, businesses are shuttered and Iowans, long known as America’s most politically intense residents, are becoming more and more disenchanted with government as a whole.

The few times that national cameras panned away from downtown Cedar Rapids, national viewers glimpsed thousands of working family homes drenched to their rooftops. Urban viewers were enchanted by footage of cows, herded onto a Vinton resident’s deck for protection from flood waters. Large portions of the residential area in the small town of Creston were damaged as a result of basement and ground-level flooding. No one can forget the images of a leveled Parkersburg following a May 2008 tornado. Many of the aftermath stories remain on public display at the state’s I-JOBS page, and much remains unfunded.

But once it is understood that the working class — farmers, nurses, shift workers, teachers and others — bore the brunt of Iowa’s disasters, it is much more easy to understand the state’s following economic downturn. Working class Iowans pay a disproportionate share of their income in state and local taxes, according to research by the Iowa Fiscal Partnership. This means that the very economic foundation of the state has been rattled by tornadoes, pounded by flood waters and then mostly left with empty platitudes of progress to bolster its continued support.

Those set aside in favor of corporate bailouts and unable to surf the tides of promised change remain disillusioned, confused and, at times, angry. Their way of life has not only been threatened, but, in many instances, decimated. Their long-held beliefs in the value of hard work, helping neighbors and self-reliance have been shaken and, for some, shattered. They no longer relate to a government that appears uncaring, and they no longer believe in political parties that provide soundbites that would be offensive if they weren’t so tired and humorous.

Iowa politics in 2010, despite being the vehicle by which reform and recovery could happen, have been regulated by those outside of Des Moines’ affluent circles to an oddity or, worse yet, a distasteful fairgrounds freak show. For when economic reality becomes too horrible, it is sometimes easier to grasp the nearest unfathomable boogyman than to confront the true monster on your doorstep.

It is in front of this backdrop of dismay and disconnect that Iowa politics will play in 2010, and it will factor into every facet of the state.

The Right to Love and Marry

Several participants in April's Tea Party protest at the state capitol advocated for legislators to allow a vote on same-sex marriage (file photo).

In April, same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa. As some state politicians rallied against the Iowa Supreme Court decision and others praised it, most Iowans quietly pointed to increased farm supply costs and skyrocketing health care payments.

But groups have galvanized on both sides of the issue and are preparing to continue the battles begun last year at the statehouse.

Same-sex marriage, depending on which group’s advisories you read, is either proof of society’s inevitable enlightenment or the complete downfall of all held dear. And while there are distinct minorities of Iowans on both sides of the issue who are ready to do whatever it takes to ensure that such marriages are the keystone of all action within the 2010 state legislature, many more residents are afraid that the battle over certain couples’ right to marry will overshadow the business that must take place if the state as a whole is to stand on firmer economic ground come summer.

But once your home has been washed away by flood waters, or blown apart by tornadoes, it is difficult to surmount a fight against another struggling family, traditional or non-traditional. By that same token, difficulties paying for needed prescriptions and sleepless nights worried about mortgage payments aren’t often precursors to a rising up against any perceived discrimination. It is hard to fight for anyone else, hard to stand on even preached moral principals, when the very ground beneath one’s feet remains the consistency of sand.

As a result, those who stand to lose the most by having the legislature dominated by political grandstanding on same-sex marriage could be the people who stay home, shaking their heads at a spectacle created and honed in 2010 election madness. Those who stand to gain the most — specifically, those who are paying more attention to November ballots than first quarter earnings statements — will be those who rejoice and revel in the folly.

Renewed Faith in Antitrust

Producing the nation’s food supply has always been a precarious occupation. Natural disasters, weather fluctuations and simple bad luck have historically plagued Iowa’s crop and livestock producers. It is part of the territory, and farmers have come to understand the roller coaster ride that often determines if their seasons will be profitable.

The past few years, however, a new unknown has emerged that many producers view as more threatening than those they’ve previously faced: Market concentration. Within each of the nation’s agricultural industries a few, large corporations have emerged that dominate the sector and, some producers have argued, use collusive and exclusionary tactics to drive independent and smaller operations out of business. The large corporations, on the other hand, argue that their market dominance and sheer size allow them to develop innovative techniques for smaller producers as well as lobby all farm interests before Congress.

While U.S. Supreme Court rulings and national policy have played a significant role in the changing landscape of America’s and Iowa’s agricultural sector, most producers believe the largest culprit to the woes they’re facing is lax government oversight of existing antitrust laws. And, in a move unprecedented in American history, federal agencies appear to be, if not actually siding with producers, at least willing to listen.

Throughout 2010, the U.S. departments of Justice and Agriculture will hold a series of workshops for discussions on possible anti-competitiveness in several key sectors — seed, poultry, dairy and other livestock. The first, which will focus on the seed industry, will take place in Ankeny this March. The workshops mark a significant change from “hands off” life under the George W. Bush administration, when the the U.S. Department of Justice oversaw and approved mergers between Smithfield Foods and Premium Standard Farms (2007) to create the country’s largest hog processor, between Dean Foods Co. and Suiza Foods Corp. (2002) to create the largest milk processor and between JBS and Smithfield Beef (2008) to make one of the nation’s largest cattle feeders.

The U.S. Justice Department, which appears to be making good on then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s pledge for more scrutiny of American agriculture, has brought in Christine Varney, a woman who built a trust-busting reputation within the Clinton administration, to lead its antitrust division. This Justice Department, unlike all of its predecessors, isn’t sitting back and waiting on an anti-trust complaint. It is willfully and meticulously investigating possibilities before formal complaints arrive.

Exactly what this means to Iowa, which maintains critical economic interest in agriculture, remains unclear. Although Iowa has fared better than other states in supporting and maintaining family farms, and has recently found the benefit of promoting smaller organic operations, the state also has strong ties to the large corporations that have now fallen under scrutiny.

Immigrating to Jobs, Congress

Census figures estimate that roughly 450,000 people over the age of 65 live in Iowa, comprising about 15 percent of the state’s total population. By the year 2030, the percentage is expected to blossom to 22.5 percent of the state’s population, or more than 650,000 Iowans over the age of 65.

It is widely known that due to Iowa’s out-migration of younger (and often brighter) residents, as well as its traditionally slow birth and immigration rate, the state is poised to lose a U.S. congressional district following the 2010 census.

What is less discussed, however, is the fact that Iowa’s rural counties are aging more rapidly than urban areas. As of the 2000 census, individuals age 65 and over comprised 20 percent or more of the population in 30 of the state’s 99 counties. Not only are all the impacted counties from 2000 rural, but the U.S. Census Bureau believes that trend will encompass 88 of the state’s counties by 2030, affecting the most rural first. At that time Iowa is expected to be the 12th oldest state in the union.

The direct and indirect impacts to the state, the tax base, local workforces and wider rural geographic health are far too complex for adequate recount in this short discussion of interest areas for 2010 and the next decade. Just in the realm of ongoing federal health reform, for instance, the implications of Iowa communities with 40 percent or more of their populations over the age of 65 — Littleport, Elk Horn, Berkley, Athelstan and Beaconsfield during the 2000 census — makes it clear that providing insurance alone won’t be nearly enough. As The Iowa Independent has documented throughout 2009 in a series of articles on rural health, those residing in rural areas are more likely to be living at or below poverty levels, with more chronic conditions, without sufficient nursing and physician access and lacking critical infrastructure needed for advances in tele- or distance-medicine that might alleviate existing inadequacies.

The 11 Iowa counties projected to maintain a percentage of older residents below 20 percent in 2030 also tell a story. The population centers in Polk, Linn, Johnson, Black Hawk, Pottawattamie, Story, Woodbury and Dallas counties are included among them. The other three — Marshall, Muscatine and Wapello — are all considered rural counties with one big difference from the rest of the state’s other rural areas. Each is home to significant immigrant populations.

At the time of the 2000 census, 12.5 percent of the populations in Marshall, Muscatine and Wapello self-identified as being either Hispanic or Latino. The latest estimates for each of the counties now lists that population demographic at above 15 percent. While this percentage compared to other states would not be considered significant, it stands out in Iowa, a state with an overall estimated percentage of persons of Hispanic and Latino origin at roughly 4 percent.

Iowans, who continue to express both outrage and compassion in the aftermath of a massive immigration raid at a Postville meatpacking plant, are only now starting to come to terms with their desire for maintaining the status quo in rural areas and the true need for a larger and younger workforce. Stephen Bloom, a journalism professor at the University of Iowa and author of a book on Postville, spoke candidly with The Iowa Independent seven months after the raid, noting that the move of slaughterhouses out of cities and into rural areas as well as mechanical advancements in the process has changed the face of rural America.

“The industry now requires a revolving door of employees because the wages are, if not minimum, then very low,” Bloom said. “The locals in these rural pockets don’t want to work for that kind of salary. The plants have this voracious appetite for hiring more and more people because a slaughterhouse worker who works for a year at the same plant is working for an extraordinary amount of time. The turnover in a year is nearly 100 percent.”

Workforce challenges in rural areas, however, are not only limited to meatpacking plants and other large factories. Iowa’s stalwart economic industry, the one most closely associated with rural life, is also beginning to feel the crunch.

At a congressional listening post in October, Clinton County dairy farmer Ben Blanchard discussed both his operation’s need for long-term younger workers and the nation’s need for comprehensive immigration reform.

“The way I feel, and I know that others may not feel the same way, but there needs to be legislation to allow [immigrants} to come over and not just on a work permit or whatever for six months,” Blanchard said, noting that short-term immigration solutions do not allow for farm knowledge and animal consistency.

Although this case was by no means the first to be prosecuted under provisions of the statute some consider archaic, its details have provided a springboard for Iowa’s launch into a larger national debate regarding whether criminal prosecutions for diseases are appropriate or constitutional.

Although those living with HIV/AIDS are more spread throughout the state prior to diagnosis, afterward they tend to gather in urban areas where there is greater access to needed services. Click this graphic to view much more statistical data on people living with HIV/AIDS in Iowa. (Source: Iowa Department of Public Health, 2008 Surveillance Report)

In the 11 years since Iowa began prosecuting behavior that could result in transmission of the HIV virus, a total of 36 individuals have faced charges. Of those, 24 have been convicted and have received sentences ranging from a few months on probation to several decades in prison.

There are currently 12 individuals — 10 men and 2 women — listed with Iowa Department of Corrections as in the state’s penal system due, at least in part, to convictions for criminal transmission of HIV, classified among the second-most serious felonies that can be committed in the state.

At least three of these convictions have made their way through the appeals process to the Iowa Supreme Court. In each instance, the state’s highest court has upheld the constitutionality of the law and affirmed the lower court’s sentencing decision.

One such appeal was launched by Justin Keene, a Dubuque County man accused of having unprotected sex in 1998 with his girlfriend, a mentally deficient McDonald’s worker. Keene, who is currently serving a 25-year sentence at the Iowa State Penitentiary, did not disclose to the woman that he was HIV-positive.

Although Keene’s attorneys argued that the law was too vaguely written to include any activities that “could” transmit the virus — the specific example used was the sharing of eating utensils — the court ruled that someone who had so obviously engaged in an activity commonly known to spread the virus could not reasonably make such a challenge.

Stating that the exact circumstance regarding the intimate contact between the two consenting adults did not matter, the court added that “any reasonably intelligent person is aware it is possible to transmit HIV during sexual intercourse, especially when it is unprotected.”

Disclosure and stigma

Rhea Van Brocklin, community relations director for the AIDS Project of Central Iowa, said transmission laws, along with overall health issues, are the primary reasons her organization counsels newly diagnosed individuals on disclosing their status.

“A lot of people, because of the stigma surrounding this disease, still believe it is a death sentence, but that is not necessarily the case,” she said. “So, for people who test positive, a lot of support is needed to help wade through issues like how to get a doctor, how to tell loved ones, how to start medication, and employment concerns. Sometimes disclosure might be the most pressing question, and sometimes it may not.

“Our responsibility as an AIDS service organization is to make sure they understand the HIV transmission law and help support them through that process.”

Some groups pressing for transmission laws to be revisited have argued that the added concern of possible criminal prosecution can add to the already imposing stigma attached to the virus and hamper testing efforts, but Van Brocklin says that such laws do not appear to be a deterrent to testing in Iowa.

“It could be hearsay within the community that people are afraid to get tested because of the law, but our agency specifically hasn’t seen that,” she said. “In fact, we doubled our testing numbers in 2008. We had a goal to test between 400 and 500 high-risk individuals and we tested about 800 last year. What we see is that people are taking HIV seriously and they want to know their status.”

Although the number of people living with HIV/AIDS in Iowa remains relatively low when compared to other states — as of Dec. 31, 2008, there were 2,045 such people in the state — Iowa has seen increasing numbers each year since statistics have been kept. In addition, the state estimates that there are an additional 500 to 625 individuals in the state who have the virus but are unaware of their status. That means that the AIDS Project and similar service groups need to work doubly hard to both educate the public and provide services to the afflicted.

“While the law may not take into account how different factors can impact probability of transmission of the virus — condom use, sexual position, intimate act, viral load, etc. — the Project does address those issues with individuals during counseling,” Van Brocklin said.

“We take a harm-reduction methodology here at the AIDS Project so we truly believe that while abstinence is a sure-fire way not to get infected with HIV, not everyone is ready for abstinence. We try to determine what each individual is willing to do to make him or herself safer in the future.”

Given that the mission of groups such as the AIDS Project are to inform and support, organizers and staff have little, if any, interest in enacting or even discussing law changes. Their role is to provide a sustainable framework within the parameters that already exist.

Ed Fallon, a former Iowa representative that supported the criminal transmission law when it passed in 1998, believes that it might be time for the state to revisit criminal transmission laws.

“It seems to me that since it is now 11, almost 12, years later, it wouldn’t be bad time to take a look at it again,” said Fallon, who admits he had some reservations before casting his affirmative vote for the bill. “I can think of so many bills we worked on that in the following year, or a few years later, we were rewriting or revisiting. … So, yes, surely the are some tweaks or changes that the legislature could consider relevant to this law, especially with all the new knowledge we have of the disease.”

There was at least one other major and peripherally related bill passed by the Iowa Legislature during the 1998 session: A ban on same-sex marriage.

“I know during that discussion that were a lot of references to ‘the homosexual lifestyle,’ and I know to a lot of people that meant promiscuity, deviant sexual behavior, exposing oneself to this disease and an inclination to spread this disease,” said Fallon, who was one of only 11 legislators who voted in February 1998 against the same-sex marriage ban deemed unconstitutional just this year by the Iowa Supreme Court.

“Certainly, in terms of that conversation, AIDS was a ‘gay disease,’ and we had to crack down on the lifestyle that helped spread the disease. So, there may have been a connection [between criminal transmission and same-sex marriage], but I honestly can’t recall if those types of sentiments continued into this debate.”

PREVIOUSLY: “HIV-positive man’s prison sentence shines light on Iowa law”

COMING FRIDAY: “Considering changes to Iowa’s HIV transmission law may make sense, but hesitation persists“

Opponents of the decision have vowed to make it the cornerstone of a 2010 campaign they hope will result in Republicans reclaiming control in Des Moines. But most observers agree that while marriage may be a factor, control of Terrace Hill and the statehouse will largely be decided by one thing: the economy.

“The marriage ruling is going to have a much smaller impact than it normally would because of where our economy is right now,” said Christopher Larimer, professor of political science at the University of Northern Iowa. “If the state budget is a mess and the economy isn’t doing well, that’s going to be what drives people in 2010. If the economy is doing well, I think that will make things easier for the Democrats.”

There is little doubt that for some, mainly social conservatives, the court’s ruling will be a the big issue of next year’s election, said Tim Hagle, an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa and a former member of the Johnson County Republican Central Committee.

“But the economy affects everybody. Maybe some folks aren’t as interested in the social issues, but when the state is going through tough economic times across the board, from the private sector to the public sector, that affects people more broadly,” Hagle said. “That’s going to be the big issue, unless we get some sort of dramatic turn around in the next 15 months.”

Tim Albrecht has a long career in Iowa Republican politics, serving as communications director for Rep. Christopher Rants during his tenure as House speaker and currently running a conservative news aggregator, TheBeanWalker.com. He said that while it’s true that the marriage issue will fall second to the economy for most voters, the enthusiasm it creates in the GOP base is where the true impact will be felt.

“This will mobilize volunteers,” he said. “It will get them on the phones and knocking on doors. They will provide a lot of the shoe leather. This is where everything comes together. While the economy is first on everybody’s minds, if you don’t have a campaign to turn out that vote, it won’t matter.”

Republicans are enthusiastic about their political fortunes for the first time in a long while, Albrecht said, after a legislative session that saw the GOP successfully fend off pieces of the Democrats’ economic plan, like labor legislation and ending federal deductibility.

“Maybe a voter is upset with the Democrats because of their tax plan,” he said. “Republicans have to get that person out to vote, and the social conservatives of the party are the ones who will be providing the volunteer power to do that.”

How the GOP handles the issue is also important, Hagle said. Polling shows a majority of Iowans oppose same-sex marriage but would support civil unions. If the Republicans seem like they are pushing a message of discrimination, there could be a big voter backlash.

“It’s a fine line between characterizing it as pro-traditional marriage and pro-discrimination,” Hagle said. “I think a lot of people in the middle are kind of live and let live.”

Former GOP gubernatorial nominee Doug Gross told The Associated Press that too much focus on same-sex marriage could spell doom for his party’s chances next year.

“For Republicans to win, they need to have a broad agenda,” Gross said. “That issue is not a negative one for Republicans, but if Republicans let this be the only thing they talk about, they won’t be successful in 2010.”

The races that will be most affected by the court’s ruling will be Republican primaries, said Dennis Goldford, a professor of politics at Drake University. Because primaries are dominated by a party’s base, and because social conservatives are the group most upset with the ruling, the issue could ultimately decide Iowa’s Republican gubernatorial nominee.

“The single most passionate group of supporters in the Republican Party are social and religious conservatives,” Goldford said. “For them, politics is not about pragmatics, it’s about what is right and what is moral. That will make life much more difficult for moderates to get elected.”

Albrecht said the outcome of 2010 would also come down to whether his party can overcome years of being outmaneuvered by the Democrats.

“It’s going to take integrated campaigns and efforts unlike social conservatives and Republicans have ever seen before,” he said. “We need to get out of the 1950s in regards to how we run our campaigns.”

“I will tell you that I first came into this political arena with the belief innocent human life was the most important thing that I could be involved in,” said King, a Kiron Republican who represents the 5th Congressional District in western Iowa. “I still believe that is the most important value. But I also recognize that if we don’t save marriage, we can’t remain pro-life.

“The values we have we pour through marriage into our children and into the next generation. Our religious values. Our values of faith. Our values. Our work ethic. Our entire culture comes through a man and a woman joined in holy matrimony, being blessed with children and pouring those values into the children and then living vicariously through them as they go off and we are blessed with grandchildren.”

King told the 50-some people in attendance at the Cedar Rapids event that “it has been thus since the beginning.”

“We don’t have to apologize to anybody for this,” he added. “They are the ones who are offending our civilization and our culture. … The state is interested in marriage. We want to promote marriage. We want to do so because of the things I said — because we pour the values of our society through that marriage, and we encourage the birth of children to [be] brought up in that holy union and that sacrament of marriage. And because the state is interested in it, we want to have generational, healthy societies that will continue to blossom out across this state and this countryside.”

For the most part King stopped short of encouraging people to defy the decision handed down by the Iowa Supreme Court on Friday that declared the state’s law banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

“This decision by the [Iowa] Supreme Court puts us in a position where we can either defy the court — which I would prefer to do, but I don’t see the appetite out there to do that,” the congressman said. “If it were up to me I’d say, ‘You made this decision, so now you enforce it because you stepped outside your bounds.’ But the logical approach to this — to get something that we can do —  I think is to pass a constitutional amendment to correct the court.”

While comparing gay couples with incestuous relationships, King said that the state must act quickly to pass a marriage residency requirement.

“We have no residency requirement in Iowa law, which means that people can come from all over this country — a man and a man, a woman and a woman — it could be, I suppose, a father and a son or a mother and a daughter,” he said. “They can come to this state and get married and then go back to the state where they reside. And then what they will do — and this will be a national effort — is file suit in their own state. They will press those states to recognize Iowa’s marriage law. If that happens, in each of these courts, it puts a lot of pressure on and breaks down the defense of marriage that has been created by most of the states.

“We have a real problem here in Iowa, and we’ve become the embarrassment of the nation. But we don’t need to proliferate that embarrassment to the rest of the country. We can at least save the rest of the country from the mistake made by the Supreme Court justices here in Iowa.”

King said he has called on Gov. Chet Culver to pass a such a residency requirement before this legislative session ends, and has requested a phone conversation with Culver on the topic.

King, who continues to be rumored as an Iowa gubernatorial candidate for 2010, gave no clear answers as to his future political ambitions. He did remind those in attendance that he and Culver had “previously quarreled” over English-only legislation. King also repeated his challenge for Culver to fight to override the state supreme court decision.

Although the event, sponsored by Linn Area Pro Life United, was supposed to focus on abortion, King only touched on issues and concerns related directly to that subject. He outlined a few bills designed to restrict or limit abortion access, and voiced his strong opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act.

Even during his ending battle cry where he called for “the faithful” to take back everything from culture to journalism, King noted perceived differences between “traditional” families and “other” families.

“You are the people who are raising your children right, with good values — values of life and marriage and Constitution and faithful values to govern,” he said. “That’s what makes the difference. If we are ever to win this in our time … we need to do those things we can do that are transformational.”

From Loebsack:

“Today is an important day for many Iowa families. The beliefs of every Iowan should be respected and I understand that many people have strong opinions regarding this issue. The unanimous Supreme Court decision should be respected as a continuation of Iowa’s long standing national leadership in ending discrimination and protecting the rights of all of our citizens.”

From Boswell:

“I remain consistent in my belief that this is a decision best suited for the states. I respect the decision of the court.”