The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced Tuesday by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.). The bill, which has 76 House sponsors, would also provide same-sex couples with federal benefits if they receive a marriage license in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. DOMA, signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, allows states to disregard same-sex marriages contracted in other states and bars federal recognition of those unions. It also prevents same-sex couples from filing their taxes jointly, from receiving spousal benefits under Social Security, from taking unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse and from receiving employer-provided family health benefits without tax penalties.

Gay-rights group One Iowa is asking the Hawkeye State’s congressional delegation to support the measure.

Iowa passed a similar law in 1998, but the law was ruled unconstitutional in April by the Iowa Supreme Court. With that ruling, Iowa joined Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts and Connecticut in legalizing same-sex marriage. But because of the federal statute, same-sex couples are still being discriminated against, One Iowa said in a statement.

“Despite April’s unanimous ruling in favor of marriage equality in Iowa, many states continue to use DOMA as their model for discrimination,” the group said. “Repealing DOMA is critical to ensuring that ALL marriages are treated equally by the federal government, including those of same-sex couples in Iowa.”

In a letter to Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, the New Jersey-based organization that opposes same-sex marriage said some groups continute to make “unfounded and scurrilous accusations regarding NOM’s activities in Iowa and in other states.”

The state’s largest gay-rights group, One Iowa, and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa filed a formal complaint Monday alleging that NOM’s refusal to disclose its donors is in violation of election law.

Last week, Smithson said in a letter to NOM Executive Director Brian Brown saying that if his organization continues to engage in express advocacy in Iowa, the group would have to form a PAC and disclose its donors.

Barry Bostrom, NOM’s attorney, said in his response to Smithson that the group is following Iowa’s campaign regulations.

“These accusations and complaints are intended to inhibit our freedom of speech and freedom of association,” he said. “But we intend to aggresively safeguard these rights, while complying with all state and federal laws.”

The group is registered with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)4 non-profit. Bostrom said because of this NOM receives no funding from business corporations. This is in complete compliance with Iowa law.

Funding for activity in Iowa, which totals nearly $90,000 for a television advertising campaign in support of Republican House candidate Steve Burgmeier in district 90, came from the group’s general treasury.

“No funds have been solicited by NOM for Iowa independent expenditures, and no designated contributions have been received for Iowa independent expenditures,” Bostrom said.

In a statement to the Iowa Independent, NOM Executive Director Brian Brown said he looks forward to the complaint being dismissed.

One Iowa and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa filed the complaint Monday alleging that NOM, a New Jersey-based group that opposes same-sex marriage, violated Iowa campaign finance law in their Iowa House District 90 campaign.

“NOM has complete disregard of Iowa law as they engage in express advocacy in our state, while refusing to release the identity of their donors, as is legally required in Iowa law,” the complaint said. “NOM has a history of funneling secret money throughout the country to engage in similar activity.”

On Aug. 20, NOM reported making an independent expenditure of $86,060 to benefit Stephen Burgmeier, a candidate in Tuesday’s Iowa House District 90 special election. The complaint alleges the expenditure violates Iowa election laws requiring disclosure of political contributors. Similar complaints have been filed against NOM in California and Maine.

The Iowa complaint comes less than a week after Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, wrote a letter to NOM Executive Director Brian Brown saying that if his organization continues to engage in express advocacy in Iowa, the group would have to form a PAC and disclose its donors.

“We request a thorough investigation into their activities, including detailed accounting of any and all contributions and their sources, as Iowans clearly deserve to know who is funding last minute advertising to try and influence tomorrow’s election,” the complaint said.

NOM has said it will target target Iowa in the hopes of passing a state constitutional amendment reversing the unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court in April that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The effort, called “The Reclaim Iowa Project,” leads many to believe the $90,000 spent on HD90 represents just a preview of the group’s future investment in Iowa politics.

In Maine, the state’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices said in a letter to NOM that it will investigating their campaign practices at its Oct. 1 meeting. The group is trying to build support for a referendum to overturn a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage.

Fairness Fund PAC, which is associated with the state’s largest gay-rights advocacy group, One Iowa, is hoping a last-minute surge of money can help bring Democrat Curt Hanson to victory. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a New Jersey-based group that opposes same-sex marriage, spent nearly $90,000 on a television ad campaign for Republican candidate Steve Burgmeier.

“If Stephen Burgmeier wins this election, it will be spun as a victory for anti-gay marriage opponents in Iowa and across the country,” said Carolyn Jenison, executive director of One Iowa, in a post on the PAC’s blog. “We can’t let this happen.”

One Iowa has also started a petition drive hoping to force NOM to reveal its donors. Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, said in a letter to NOM Executive Director Brian Brown that if his organization continues to engage in express advocacy in Iowa, the group would have to form a PAC and disclose its donors.

NOM filed an independent expenditure Aug. 20 disclosing it was purchasing television advertising in support of Burgmeier. Smithson said in his letter that the independent expenditure process is “not a vehicle to shield political contributors.”

“It is a way for a group to disclose an expenditure it makes outside of a direct contribution to an Iowa committee,” he wrote. “However, if you are accepting more than $750 for political activities in Iowa, then you become a ‘permanent organization temporarily engaging in political activity’ and would be required to disclose donors to your Iowa activities under Iowa Code sections 68A.401(9) and 68A.102(18).”

The race to fill the southeastern Iowa district of Democrat John Whitaker has become the focus of the Republican Party of Iowa, the Iowa Democratic Party and activist groups of all political persuasions. Despite the fact that its outcome will have no bearing on control of the legislature, it is thought that the winning side will gain much needed momentum going into the 2010 elections.

Republican Steve Burgmeier raised $60,101. His campaign has spent more than $40,000 and has received in-kind donations, mostly direct mail pieces from the Republican Party of Iowa, totaling more than $77,000. His biggest contributors include $15,000 from the RPI, $10,000 from tax watchdog Iowans for Tax Relief and $10,000 from a political action committee associated with U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Democrat Curt Hanson has raised $42,881. His campaign has spent $27,651 and received nearly $129,000 of in-kind donations, mostly mailing paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party. His biggest donations came from numerous labor organizations.

Republicans were also assisted by the anti-gay marriage group National Organization for Marriage, which spent nearly $90,000 on a television advertising campaign. Gay-rights group One Iowa has also been highly involved in the race, although their financial commitment is not yet known.

Both candidates have said they support a vote on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Justin Uebelhor, communications director of One Iowa, said the video is a part of the organization’s “Extreme Right Watch.” It features Deace, who hosts an afternoon show on Iowa’s largest radio station, discussing whether county recorders should obey the law and abide by the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize gay marriage.

Republican state Sen. Merlin Bartz of Grafton spearheaded a petition drive trying to convince county recorders to ignore the ruling and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. When the effort failed, Deace warned that the price of obeying the law was steep.

“If you are a county recorder today or any local official, and you are either enabling or equipping or facilitating or assisting essentially sodomy permission licenses, aka, marriage licenses to homosexuals, I just might remind you that Hell is really hot and a really forever place,” he said.

Carolyn Jenison, executive director of One Iowa, called Deace’s rhetoric “destructive and divisive.”

“Iowans believe in treating each other with fairness and respect,” she said. “There’s no place in a civil discussion for the divisive rhetoric displayed on Deace’s show.”

The past few months have put the spotlight on Deace’s program like never before. He has been highly critical of Republican leadership, especially Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley and Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn, for what he deems as a lack of action on the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

In May, he and his pastor, Bob Deever of Grace West Church in West Des Moines, spent an hour of the program calling into question the faith of state Sen. Matt McCoy, saying he couldn’t be a Christian because he is openly gay. Deace later reminisced about the days when a homosexual could not “live this way without any sort of societal retribution for them.”

When Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller was assassinated earlier this month, Deace made national news by celebrating his death, saying “babies in Kansas are safer today than they were yesterday while George Tiller was still taking in oxygen.”

However, Deace is no stranger to controversy. In 2004, Deace garned headlines when he criticized Shawn Green, a Jewish outfielder who at the time played for the Los Angeles Dodgers, for missing an important game scheduled during Yom Kippur. Deace said Green could solve all his problems by converting to Christianity and recognizing Jesus Christ as his Messiah.

The One Iowa video is below. In addition to his afternoon talk show, Deace co-hosts a morning sports talk show, and his co-host, Jon Miller, is asking the questions in the video.

Dean, who placed third in the 2004 Iowa Caucuses, will be at the First Unitarian Church, 1800 Bell Ave., Des Moines, from 5:30 to 7 p.m. The visit is one of only three health care forums for Dean, each of which is sponsored by his organization, Democracy for America. The event is free and open to the public.

Later that evening, Dean will attend a reception honoring Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Speaker Pat Murphy hosted by the gay rights group One Iowa. Tickets cost from $35 for students up to $2,500 for top-tier donors.

Justin Uebelhor, the organization’s communications director, told the Iowa Independent in an email that the ad would run for at least a week on cable stations in markets across the state and on broadcast stations in Des Moines, and that they are “planning to expand when possible.”

Carolyn Jenison, the executive director One Iowa, said the resolution singles out gays and lesbians for unequal treatment.

“It’s disheartening to see council members pushing such a mean-spirited resolution, when most Iowans want their leaders to focus on the issues we all face. I can’t understand how, in the midst of economic turmoil, the council can spend their time finding ways to divide us,” Jenison said.

Sioux City Councilman Jim Rixner, who voted against the resolution, told the Sioux City Journal that while the vote carries no weight it does open a divisive discussion in the community.

“This has already been a long journey, but we still have a long way to go,” Brad Clark, campaign director for One Iowa, a marriage equality advocacy group, said during a forum in Cedar Rapids following the oral arguments.

Advocates of same-sex marriage have learned  from recent events in California and other states that a court ruling isn’t enough.

“It is critical — as we saw in California — that equality moves forth in the court of public opinion,” said Catina Lowery, community educator for Lambda Legal. “We don’t want to be in a place where equality is given and then, because we have not done the hard work of educating Iowans, have it removed.”

Meanwhile, supporters of the gay marriage ban, aware the court might overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, are looking to redouble their efforts to win approval for a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. Because of the state’s reading and hearing requirements, passage of such an amendment is a lengthy process likely to take a minimum of three years.

“The justices even said that one of the outcomes could be a redefinition of marriage,” said Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a group headed by former legislator Chuck Hurley. “That’s different from 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.”

Norm Pawlewski, spokesman and lobbyist for the Iowa Christian Alliance, said if the gay marriage ban is overturned, it will be time for the Democratic majority in the Legislature to “put up or shut up.”

Pawlewski said he spoke with Democrats roughly two years ago about the court case while lobbying on behalf of ICA.

“They told us at that time, and I’m talking about the Democratic majority, including Sen. [Mike] Gronstal, who said to me — and this is a quote — ‘I believe the court is going to uphold our Defense of Marriage Act and I’ve talked to a number of justices including former Supreme Court justices, and they’ve assured me that it was a legal and constitutional act. But if they overturn it, we will look again at the constitutional amendment,’” Pawlewski explained.

Senate Majority Leader Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, would not speculate on what he might have or might not have said so long ago, but did state that he would never even consider approaching a sitting Supreme Court justice in such a manner.

In the emerging struggle over a constitutional amendment, both sides are looking to win over the political center.

“There is obviously a section of the population that has already made up its mind either for or against marriage equality,” Lowery said. “But there are people who haven’t. Those are the people we want supporters to reach out to and speak with. It’s difficult to discriminate when you become personally involved — when you are confronted with another human face that is attached to the issue.”

If the Supreme Court rules that the existing laws are unconstitutional, Iowa would join Connecticut as the only state with legalized same-sex marriage and no marriage residency requirement. Each side of the debate thinks the combination of Iowa’s unique status and lengthy amending process works in its own favor.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe that as Iowans watch gay couples marry, the specter of immorality and social dissolution that has been painted by conservative groups will vanish.

“It helps us when people see, meet and know committed gay couples,” Lowery said. “If we are successful, then Iowans will have at least a couple of years to see the benefits of opening up marriage to gay couples, and that can only be of benefit.”

Opponents of gay marriage point in particular to Iowa’s lack of residency requirement and the possible controversies it could create in other states that have not legalized same-sex marriage.

“People will be able to come from California or from Texas and get married in Iowa,” Pawlewski said. “People will be able to come here from states with Defense of Marriage Acts and be married and then return to their home state to challenge the laws there for not recognizing the Iowa marriage. It’s going to cause a legal problem throughout the country.

“I think they are opening up a real big bag of worms if the Supreme Court overrides the Legislature on this,” he said.