GOP lawmakers look at residency requirement in wake of gay marriage ruling

With legislative leaders saying they won't bring up a measure that would amend Iowa's Constitution to ban gay marriage, opponents have their eye on another tactic - requiring that people who apply for marriage licenses live in Iowa.

The state currently has no residency requirement to obtain a marriage license, and GOP lawmakers are looking at the possibility of trying to change that.

House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, called the option "clearly a possibility."

He pointed to the legal complications that could occur when same-sex couples who marry in Iowa return to states that don't recognize those unions.

Back before Iowa law recognized same-sex marriage, a lesbian couple that had been joined in a civil union in Vermont sought a divorce in Iowa, which was granted in 2003.

"I would not be surprised to see that scenario unfold ... in other states," Paulsen said.

Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, said he thinks lawmakers should consider a residency requirement to prevent Iowa from becoming a "mecca" of gay marriage.

Bartz lives in Worth County, which borders Minnesota, and thinks the county recorder's office there could end up inundated with applications for marriage licenses when same-sex couples can begin applying for licenses in the coming weeks.

Some have said an influx of same-sex couples marrying in Iowa could mean an economic development opportunity for Iowa.

They cite a UCLA study issued last year that found that allowing same-sex marriage would be a boon to Iowa's economy, generating $160 million in spending over three years.

Bartz rejects the idea it would help out Iowa during a recession.

"I certainly believe it's disingenuous to suggest that it's economic development, because it's like using a crisis to promote your social agenda," Bartz said.

It's currently too late in the legislative session to file a bill that would change Iowa's residency requirement, but sponsors could try to tack it on another bill in the form of an amendment.

Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, R-Chariton, said a residency requirement is something Senate GOP members are discussing as well.

"I don't know how many would intend to come to Iowa; I truly have no idea. And I suspect if there were a residency requirement, people would obey the law, and so it would stop some, I suspect," McKinley said.

But he notes that Senate rules would require Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal to allow it to be considered this late in the session.

Gronstal said he thinks the idea is dead this year, and notes possible complications with having a residency requirement.

"You've got a guy back from Iraq wanting to marry his longtime girlfriend (and) can't get it done. I think that creates a host of other problems," Gronstal said.

Brad Clark, campaign director for the gay rights group One Iowa, said they are opposed to the idea.

"It's very clear that this is tied to the recent court ruling, and that it's aimed to undermine that court ruling," Clark said.

Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull, thinks Iowa shouldn't be an exporting state of these types of marriages, especially since all states don't recognize it.

But he has reservations that a residency requirement might mean more people move into Iowa and stay here.

"That might be something I wouldn't be real favorable of either," Alons said.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, said House Democrats haven't talked the idea over.

"That would be the discussion I guess we would have to have in caucus," McCarthy said.

He noted that any amendment offered establishing a residency requirement would have to follow procedural rules.