Marriage Maneuvering Fails

The Iowa House and Senate were 100-percent theatrics-covered this morning, with blowing and drifting hyperbole.

Opponents of marriage equity in both chambers tried to use procedural maneuvers to force votes on a constitutional amendment banning same sex unions. Both efforts failed.

I followed all the tweeting and blogging and listened to legislative audio. Sounds like things got a little more dramatic in the House, where a "call of the House" was invoked requiring that the chamber's doors be locked and that missing stragglers be hunted down. In the end, the effort to pull the bill from committee for a vote failed 45-54.

The main point of all this, of course, is to get Democrats on the record so their vote can be used to beat them up at re-election time. A procedural vote = a vote on the actual amendment, according to Republicans.

They're convinced this is political gold, even though polls show most Iowans don't want lawmakers to spend time on the issue and don't rank it among the issues they care about most.

Equity opponents say most Iowans want to vote on the issue, and legislative leaders are tyrants because they won't allow an amendment to move. They act like this is tactic just invented by one party.

But the truth is top leaders, such as Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, block legislation all the time. Sure, it's unpleasant and maddening when it's something you support, but it's hardly tyranny and it's not new. It's a hard fact of the legislative process.

It's part of a leader's job to decide what gets debated and what doesn't. Always has been.

When Republicans ran the place, for example, they refused to allow a vote on raising the minimum wage, a measure that enjoyed broad public support in virtually every poll.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Stew Iverson, R-Dows, annually  killed legislation to ban public smoking, despite polls showing support for tougher restrictions. He usually declared the bill dead talking with reports and puffing away on the Senate's smoking porch. Ditto with a popular cigarette tax hike.

Republicans for years blocked popular legislation addressing health insurance parity for mental illness treatment and bills to crack down on car title loans with astronomical interest rates. Those bills sat frozen even though passage was considered likely.

Do a poll on mandating the use of motorcycle helmets sometime. And yet, there is no chance it will ever happen. A bill that would have required bike helmets for kids was shelved by leaders in the late 90s because motorcyclists saw it as the dreaded slippery slope. They beat back lobbying by emergency room doctors.

Democrats have also blocked plenty, beyond marriage. Gronstal wouldn't allow a vote on the death penalty in the wake of Jetseta Gage's kidnapping, rape and murder. Back then, in 2005, the Senate was split 25-25.

If voters cared, it didn't show. Democrats took over the Legisalture and governor's office in 2006.

Republicans have also pulled the plug on the death penalty, despite its popularity in polls. House Speaker Ron Corbett declined to debate capital punishment in 1998 because it lacked the votes to pass. You don't unleash big debates without the votes.  

Gronstal says the same about the marriage amendment this year.

"The votes aren't there," Gronstal told our editorial board last month. "We're not a debating society. We're a legislative body. We're about passing legislation, not grand debates. I don't think the constitution is the place you put discrimination."

Gronstal has said repeatedly that he opposes putting minority rights to a majority vote that could enshrine discrimination in our constitution for the first time. That's a stand, not a dodge.

In my book, that beats kicking mental health parity or title loan rules down the road because opposing  industries filled your campaign coffers.

Sure, Gronstal's also shielding some cowardly Dems from having to vote on the marriage issue. But that's also what leaders do. In fact, leaders who leave members in tough spot or who fail to take bullets for their caucus aren't leaders for long.

Should a few powerful lawmakers have this much power? That's certainly debatable. But it's not going to change. Unless there's a leader someday who voluntarily gives up his or her clout. Good one.

The only way it changes is through an election, although big party power dynamics rarely loom large in local legislative races. Regardless, we'll find out just how politically potent today's golden moment and the marriage issue are come fall.

There's also a lot of talk about "31 states" that have banned marriage equity. Well, we''re about to be the first state to have legal gay and lesbian marriage for years before anyone votes on banning it. Why that's a bad thing, I have no idea. We'll all get to see which side is right, over time.

Which makes you wonder why one side is in such a big hurry.