Marriage, who should define it, debated at Iowa House hearing

Nearly 400 people listened for more than two hours to a debate over equality, fairness, liberty, God's law, natural law and what's best for families, the state and society.

At a public hearing on House Joint Resolution 6, which calls for a referendum on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, some speakers defended traditional marriage – one man and one woman, while others said gender does not define marriage or family.

“Marriage is two people committed to love each other and build a life together sharing one another's hopes dream and a lifetime together,” said Dawn BarbouRoske of Iowa City, who spoke with her wife and their two daughters at her side. “Our marriage is roped together with love, honesty, hard work, laughter trust and respect … core values not dependent on gender.”

However, former House member Danny Carroll, a Grinnell Republican, said the debate at this point isn't about same-sex marriage but whether Iowans will be allowed to vote to define marriage.

Carroll made clear that he – and the Family Leader, an organization he represents - supports marriage “as created by God, consistent with natural law and God's law.” However, his primary purpose was to “respectfully ask that we have a chance to vote on Constitution.

“When will the people have a chance to be heard?” he asked.

Marriage - and who should be allowed to be married - should not be determined by a referendum, BarbouRoske said.

“We don't vote on who should have equal rights,” BarbouRoske said. “We're smarter and kinder than that.”

The issue, which has been hotly debated in the Statehouse and elsewhere since the 2009 Iowa Supreme Court's Varnum v. Brien decision, will be debated Tuesday when it is taken up by the full House. There's little doubt about the outcome. House Republicans, who hold a 60-40 majority, have made it clear that allowing Iowans to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage is a priority.

House passage is just the first hurdle, according to HJR 6 sponsor Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull. The debate will continue despite Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, pledging he will not bring it up for consideration.

“Putting discrimination in the Constitution is a really stupid thing to do,” he said Monday.

Despite Gronstal's position, Alons believes there are ways Iowans can force a vote on the issue.

The resolution “will still be out there as a vehicle for the people of the state to push the issue to let Iowans vote,” he said. “We should trust the people to make this decision.

The focus will shift to the Senate, Alons said, with efforts being concentrated on senators, including Senate President Jack Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg, who have indicated they will support the resolution if the measure comes up for a vote.

“It only takes two,” Alons said, referring to Democrats' 26-24 majority, and said there may be a backlash against Gronstal single-handedly blocking Senate debate of the resolution.

Troy Price, political director of One Iowa, agreed House action won't end the discussion. One Iowa is planning at least two more lobbying days at the Capitol to let lawmakers hear the stories of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Iowans and to “put a face on the issue,” Price said.

“We're not going to leave any stone unturned,” he said. “We will continue to put couples and families in front of them to tell their stories. As more people hear there stories we start to change hearts and minds.”

Although the governor plays no role in a resolution – it doesn't require his signature, Gov. Terry Branstad said Monday Iowans should be given an opportunity to vote on defining marriage.

“I think the people of Iowa people would appreciate and feel strongly they should be given an opportunity to vote on this issue,” Branstad said. “It would be a mistake not to let people vote.”

For constitutional amendments to come before a vote of the people, both the House and Senate must pass the exact same language in two consecutive general assemblies, which would mean the earliest the matter could come before voters would be in the 2014 election unless it was handled by a special election.

The proposed constitutional amendment would undo an April 2009 Iowa Supreme Court decision that ruled a state law unconstitutional that defined marriage as only between one man and one woman, which paved the way for civil marriages between couples of the same gender in Iowa.

Carroll wasn't the only former legislator who spoke. Jeff Angelo, a Republican who served 12 years in the Iowa Senate. He urged lawmakers to “default” to the side of liberty and oppose the resolution that places pro-active, legislative language in the Constitution to limit the ability of one group of citizens to be civilly joined in marriage.

“It does not restrain government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens and therefore violates the very purpose of our Iowa Constitution,” Angelo said.

“Each day, Iowans worship, work, live with, and love people who are gay,” he said. “This debate centers around the devaluation of the lives of a select group of people. At its worst, we are asked to believe that our gay friends and neighbors are involved in a nefarious agenda, the outcome of which, supposedly, is the unraveling of society itself.”

Dean Genth of Mason City Genth equated a ban on same-sex marriage to civil violence, which, he said “is just as damaging as physical violence.”

“It would be less harmful to me if you would just jump me in a dark alley and beat me up,” Genth said. “It would be less hurtful to me if you would just sprayed faggot on my garage door. Nothing that you could do to me physically could be more hurtful than the action you are proposing to take with this resolution.”

Bernard Hayes of Cedar Rapids warned the consequences of same-sex marriage will be an assault on freedom of speech and religion because its supporters want to ban any criticism of their lifestyle.

“With legal standing, any dissenting speech, sermon or opinion could potentially be litigated as libelous, slanderous and hate speech,” Hayes said. “The state has a similar, if not equal, obligation to protect the free speech rights of those who dissent against this lifestyle just as those who have broken from tradition have the freedom to do so.”