The calls, which feature the voice of Republican Joy Corning and were paid for by gay rights group One Iowa, say the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage continues “Iowa’s tradition of protecting the civil rights of all Iowans.”

One of Branstad’s rivals for the 2010 gubernatorial nomination, Bob Vander Plaats, said the calls are another reason to question Branstad’s commitment to opposing same-sex marriage.

“Terry Branstad enters the governor’s race on Saturday night without stating where he truly stands on the issue and on Tuesday night his lieutenant governor does an automated call urging Iowans to support same-sex marriages. All of that takes place not too long after his former chief of staff wrote an opinion piece saying the Republican Party needs to nominate a candidate with ‘centrist’ views on social issues,” Vander Plaats said. “Urging Iowans to support same-sex marriage is not only out of touch with Republican values but it is overwhelmingly out of touch with Main Street Iowa.”

Conservative group Iowa Family Policy Center issued a statement saying if Branstad had never appointed a “public supporter of abortion and homosexuality” to be his lieutenant governor she would never have a platform to “undermine traditional family values.”

“Joy Corning has given us another clear example of just exactly why as Christians and conservatives we should no longer sacrifice our convictions for perceived political victories,” said Chuck Hurly, president of IFPC. “When we elect people like Joy Corning, we elevate and advance the destruction of the family.”

Conservative blogger Craig Robinson believes that since the calls didn’t encourage people to attend One Iowa’s Marriage Equality Public Forums in December, they could be attempts by liberals to thwart a Branstad candidacy.

“…Corning’s call might have also been orchestrated by gay activists and liberal Democrats to lessen the chance that Branstad will win the Republican nomination for governor,” Robinson said.

He also wonders whether One Iowa is “taking advantage of the 77 year-old former lieutenant governor in hopes to advance their own political agenda.” Corning is a long time supporter of marriage equality, even writing joint letter to the editor of the Des Moines Register promoting same-sex marriage with former Democratic Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson. She is also a member of Plymouth Congregational Church in Des Moines, which is a prominent supporter of civil rights, including same-sex marriage.

Both issues are big topics in the Hawkeye State. The Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in April, and since that time Iowa Republicans have repeatedly demanded the legislature pass a constitutional amendment overturning the decision. That amendment would eventually go to the voters to decide.

Marriage equality advocates in Iowa kept a watchful eye on Maine for months, knowing one day they could have to fight that battle themselves. The organization leading the fight against same-sex marriage in Main and across the country, the National Organization for Marriage, has already vowed to dedicate time and resources in Iowa.

“We were watching this election closely in Iowa as it is a precursor to we will be up against,” said Carolyn Jenison, executive director of the state’s largest LGBT advocacy group One Iowa. “Our hearts go out to the couples in Maine who have lost something so dear and central to being an America family.”

Maine is the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Iowa and four other states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont — allow same-sex marriage.

Iowa conservatives are pointing to the Maine decision as proof that the issue could be a big advantage to Republicans in 2010.

“There is no doubt that a marriage amendment would find overwhelming support here in Iowa, yet Gov. [Chet] Culver, Speaker Pat Murphy and [Senate] Majority Leader Mike Gronstal are preventing the vote from taking place,” conservative blogger and former Republican Party of Iowa Political Director Craig Robinson wrote Wednesday. “While that strategy might help propel their liberal philosophy, it could hurt them at the ballot box next November.”

Gronstal and Murphy have repeatedly said the same-sex marriage issue will never be debated as long as they lead their respective legislative chambers.

Maine voters approved an expansion of the conditions that would qualify for medical marijuana and allows for a statewide system of storefront distribution centers. The Iowa Pharmacy Board has held a series of hearings around the state on the topic of medical marijuana, and state Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, introduced a bill during the 2009 legislative session to allow the possession and use of marijuana for therapeutic purposes.

Rod Roberts

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Rod Roberts of Carroll supports the ouster of three Iowa Supreme Court justices that are up for retention votes in 2010 due to their verdict legalizing same-sex marriage earlier this year.

Roberts said he will personally vote “no” on all three who will appear on the ballot — Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker — and will use his campaign to encourage Iowans to do the same.

“We need to send a message to the Iowa Supreme Court that they are accountable to the people of Iowa,” Roberts said. “The problem with judicial activism is that it thwarts the will of the legislature and of the people of Iowa. Next November, it is our duty as voters to let these justices know what we think of their judicial activism.”

Roberts has long been critical of the court’s April decision in Varnum v. Brien, in which six same-sex couples sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien for not issuing them marriage licenses. The court unanimously ruled that Iowa’s law denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

In Iowa, Supreme Court judges are up for retention every eight years.

In an interview with Bret Hayworth of the Sioux City Journal, the men, who were plaintiffs in the case before the Iowa Supreme Court that made same-sex marriages legal in April, said the legal sanctions afforded to them by state-recognized marriage have allowed them to make big changes.

Six months later, their life has changed for the better, they said, for the ability to both be covered by the health insurance Chuck Swaggerty-Morgan has at his job and for being able to adopt children as a couple.

Speaking as some of their four kids played in the living room, Jason Swaggerty-Morgan explained that previously one person in a partnership would adopt a child individually, then the other partner, months later, would adopt as a second parent.

“It is twice as expensive, it is twice the hassle, plus I had to wait six months, knowing that I wasn’t really the adoptive parent. It was really sad,” Jason Swaggerty-Morgan said.

On Oct. 16, the two may have made another Iowa first — the married same-sex couple adopted children, the Swaggerty-Morgans said.

“It was a real victory for us when we adopted these children…. We were treated equally, as if we were a heterosexual married couple,” Jason Swaggerty-Morgan said.

In particular, according to my notes, he didn’t mention same-sex marriage or abortion at all.

I can’t remember the last time I listened to a Republican politician speak without hearing at least something about those issues, even just as a side-comment.

AP’s Mike Glover even asked Brasntad, point-blank, about conservative anger over the fact that one of his Supreme Court appointees wrote the decision legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. Branstad refused to answer the question, and he didn’t even take the opportunity to say how he thinks marriage should be defined.

It seems unlikely that Branstad’s positions on either same-sex marriage or abortion are out of step with the GOP primary electorate’s, but he’s going to have to talk about them a lot if he hopes to convince social conservatives that he’s committed to their values.

Even if Branstad can ultimately (miraculously?) win the primary without tacking to the right on social issues, he should be at least a bit concerned about an independent social conservative candidate skimming votes from him in the general election. Depending on what happens between now and June, that’s a real possibility.

The annual Anaheim event, which is neither sponsored nor discouraged by Disney, hosts roughly 30,000 attendees.

Eric Heinkel, left, and Joe Jennison staff a booth promoting Iowa to gay couples who want to get married. (Photo courtesy of Paul Rodriguez, The Orange County Register)

Eric Carpenter of The Orange County Register reports that the Iowa booth allowed potential newlyweds to sample wedding cake, receive brochures and other tourism materials and pose for photos inside a frame that read, “Just Married … In Iowa City!”

The Iowa representatives took the free photos and supplied the tuxedo jackets and bridal veils. They also handed out brochures touting Iowa City, Cedar Rapids and Coralville, among other cities.

“We want people to know that if the California Legislature is unwilling to take the step to give gay couples the right to marry, then please consider coming to Iowa where we will gladly welcome you with open arms,” said Joe Jennison, executive director of the Iowa Cultural Corridor Alliance.

Jennison, who is gay, is originally from Iowa and lived in California – including Orange County – for 13 years before moving back to his home state in 2003.

“Even I thought I might be greeted as a gay man by bigots and closed-minded people,” he said. “But it turned out nothing could have been further from the truth. Iowa is a very progressive state.”

The booth also was staffed by Eric Heinkel, who is not gay, and is convention sales manager for the Iowa City Coralville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau.

U.S. Rep. Steve King

King was being interviewed in regards to what he believes is the impact of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage. He repeated his earlier assertion that the Hawkeye State will become a “Mecca for same-sex marriage,” then explained that Iowans do not have “a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage.”

In order for a socialist society to come about, the foundation of society, i.e., marriage, must be destroyed, King said.

“If there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they’d have to go to, is same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal,” King said. “They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.”

However, as the Raw Story’s Daniel Tencer points out, King manages to ignore historical fact in his assessment of socialism and homosexuality.

In the “socialist paradise” known as the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin criminalized homosexuality with a punishment of up to five years of hard labor. Some historians have argued that many individuals accused of pedophilia in the Soviet Union were in fact engaged in adult homosexual relationships.

Sweden, long considered a social democracy, is today a leader in the gay rights movement; but in 1979, it declared homosexuality an “illness.” Transvestitism was only de-listed as an illness in Sweden in 2008.

King also defended former Sen. Rick Santorum,R-Pa., who said  legal same sex marriages would open the door to legal polygamy or bestiality. Santorum will be speaking in Iowa Oct. 1.

(h/t Think Progress)

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.