Marriage amendment vote unlikely

By The Gazette Editorial Board

Terry Branstad's running mate in his bid to return as Iowa's governor supports a public vote on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. If Kim Reynolds and Branstad should defeat incumbents Gov. Chet Culver and Lt. Gov. Patty Judge in November, should we expect such a public vote?

There are two ways to get there, and we don't see either as likely or as something most Iowans regard as a top priority.

In the first path, the Legislature must approve a ballot measure in two consecutive General Assemblies (each Assembly is two years. The soonest a statewide vote could happen that way is 2013. Unless there's a dramatic change in the Legislature's makeup, that's not going to happen.

A potentially quicker route: Every 10 years, Iowans can vote on whether to convene a constitutional convention. That opportunity returns in November. Even if voters approve a convention, legislators would set the ground rules - no assurance a statewide vote on a marriage amendment would occur.

While Iowans certainly have a right to push elected leaders for a vote on this issue, we're not convinced that most are hungry for a continuing battle on marriage equality.Polls taken since the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in April 2009 that Iowa's law banning same-sex civil marriage was unconstitutional indicate Iowans are evenly divided on whether to support a constitutional ban on same-sex civil marriage. More telling: An increasing majority doesn't view this among top issues.

Instead, most Iowans are most concerned about jobs and the economy.

As with most social issues, the people are ahead of policy makers on same-sex marriage rights. Yes, many Iowans, because of religious or other personal beliefs, are not supportive of same-sex marriage. However, polls also indicate many of the same folks don't believe any one religious or personal viewpoint should dictate public policy.

More Iowans are acknowledging that civil marriage - i.e., legal, secular - is not the same as religious marriage, in which a couple enters a sacred relationship as part of their faith beliefs - which may or may not include marrying gays .

And all Iowans should, if they don't already, understand that neither the U.S. or Iowa constitution requires any clergyperson to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. That would violate religious freedom.

While agreeing on a definition of marriage isn't likely, we expect most Iowans believe that stable, committed relationships protected by legal rights are good for families and society. Debating honestly and civilly about our differences on marriage equality and other social issues is an ongoing test of our ability to uphold our freedoms.

Amending our state or U.S. constitutions, which guard those freedoms, is risky business.