Same-sex marriage issue garners attention

DES MOINES – Efforts to bring a constitutional marriage change before Iowa voters may be dead for the 2010 legislative session, but proponents haven't given up on trying to force a debate this year.

Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, took issue Thursday with a state Department of Revenue policy bill that was redrafted to remove language related to same-sex married couples in filing state income tax returns – contending the section was intentionally omitted to avoid a Senate floor debate on the marriage issue.

Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, said he requested the redraft to avoid “a commotion” that might be created by the marriage language originally included to match the tax code with an Iowa Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa.

By omitting the language, Bartz said the department was making policy changes that were “not codified,” such as modifying the 2009 state income tax forms to provide filing statuses for same-sex couples based upon case law established by last April's Supreme Court precedent. Bolkcom called that contention “a stretch.”

All seven Supreme Court justices last spring ruled a state law defining civil marriage only as between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. The decision had the effect of legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa and the state Department of Public Health modified the marriage license application to reflect the change.

Earlier this year, the Iowa Public Employment Retirement System (IPERS) began a rule-making change that recognizes the validity of same-gender marriages consummated in Iowa on or after April 27, 2009.

The noticed rule change, which cleared a legislative review panel and a public hearing without challenge, indicates IPERS shall administer marital property and support orders of same-gender spouses married in Iowa if the orders otherwise meet IPERS minimum requirements. However, tax treatment of any benefit distributions would also have to comply with federal laws that do not recognize same-sex marriages.

Bartz, who is a member of the Legislature's Administrative Rules Review Committee, said he did not challenge the provision during January's meeting because “I didn't spot it.” In light of the marriage language, Bartz on Thursday requested a special review of the IPERS rule dealing with contribution rates and tax treatment for distributions when the committee meets next Monday.

“We have to follow the law. Whether they like the law or not is another question,” said IPERS spokeswoman Julie Economaki.

Bartz said the situation illustrates efforts by the Culver administration and legislative Democrats to initiate policy changes based upon court case law that bypass the Legislature so they can avoid a debate or vote on the politically volatile marriage issue.

“These types of situation are going to be all throughout the code,” he said. “They're trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They're trying to prevent a discussion in the legislative body by not allowing anything that has the word marriage, or husband and wife, or spouse or anything like that to be discussed on the floor. They're trying to initiate the Supreme Court decision without being honest with the people of Iowa.”

Comments: (515) 243-7220;

rod.boshart@gazcomm.com