Last week, Iowa Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling declared that ban on same sex marriage (SSM) is against Iowa state constitution. Gays will be permitted to marry in Iowa starting May 1.
While Iowa is much smaller than California, this decision may potentially be much more significant, much more devastating to SSM opponents than California decision. When California decision was handed down, all the spadework necessary to put the constitution amendment for a referendum was already completed. In a few months it was put to referendum, where it was approved narrowly.
However, Iowa ain’t California. They have much more sense in Iowa. I looked up the process for constitutional amendment in Iowa, and it is very difficult to amend Iowa constitution. It has to be passed by the House and the Senate. Then they have to wait until the next election, and House and Senate vote again after next election.
If they approve it a second time, then it goes to a referendum. Assuming it is approved in a referendum, it again comes back to House and senate, and they have to pass it yet again. This is how difficult it should be to amend the constitution, not California’s idiotic method of 50%+1 vote in a referendum.
Anyway, the earliest it can be put to a referendum is in 2011, but they will have to call a special election for that. I don’t see that happening, and the earliest it can go for a referendum is in 2012. After that the new Congress still has to pass it, which means that earliest SSM can be outlawed in Iowa, is 2013, fully four years from now.
And that is assuming everything goes smoothly. The last time they tried to amend the constitution to ban SSM, House passed it but Senate rejected it. If the same thing happens this time, nothing gets done until a new Congress is elected and starts its session in 2011.
It looks like SSM is here to stay in Iowa. Also Iowa does not have any residency requirements, anybody can go to Iowa and get married. So gays from other states would be free to go to Iowa, get married, go back to their state and challenge the SSM ban in the courts.
It is quite possible that in some states, the Supreme Courts may rule that while the constitution of their state bans SSM, marriage carried out in another state must be respected. If that happens, then ban on SSM in that particular state may become meaningless.
So, have the floodgates opened for SSM? It is too early to tell. It is certainly a possibility. However, Iowa’s decision is a much more significant advance for gays than the California decision.
While Iowa is much smaller than California, this decision may potentially be much more significant, much more devastating to SSM opponents than California decision. When California decision was handed down, all the spadework necessary to put the constitution amendment for a referendum was already completed. In a few months it was put to referendum, where it was approved narrowly.
However, Iowa ain’t California. They have much more sense in Iowa. I looked up the process for constitutional amendment in Iowa, and it is very difficult to amend Iowa constitution. It has to be passed by the House and the Senate. Then they have to wait until the next election, and House and Senate vote again after next election.
If they approve it a second time, then it goes to a referendum. Assuming it is approved in a referendum, it again comes back to House and senate, and they have to pass it yet again. This is how difficult it should be to amend the constitution, not California’s idiotic method of 50%+1 vote in a referendum.
Anyway, the earliest it can be put to a referendum is in 2011, but they will have to call a special election for that. I don’t see that happening, and the earliest it can go for a referendum is in 2012. After that the new Congress still has to pass it, which means that earliest SSM can be outlawed in Iowa, is 2013, fully four years from now.
And that is assuming everything goes smoothly. The last time they tried to amend the constitution to ban SSM, House passed it but Senate rejected it. If the same thing happens this time, nothing gets done until a new Congress is elected and starts its session in 2011.
It looks like SSM is here to stay in Iowa. Also Iowa does not have any residency requirements, anybody can go to Iowa and get married. So gays from other states would be free to go to Iowa, get married, go back to their state and challenge the SSM ban in the courts.
It is quite possible that in some states, the Supreme Courts may rule that while the constitution of their state bans SSM, marriage carried out in another state must be respected. If that happens, then ban on SSM in that particular state may become meaningless.
So, have the floodgates opened for SSM? It is too early to tell. It is certainly a possibility. However, Iowa’s decision is a much more significant advance for gays than the California decision.
