Gay Marriage | Iowa | News | Terry Branstad

Iowa Governor Won't Comment on Reach of Gay Marriage Ban as House Prepares for Public Hearing

The Iowa House is holding a hearing on a proposed ban on same-sex marriage this event, and Iowa governor Terry Branstad won't say if he thinks the ban, which he believes voters should get a chance to weigh in on, goes too far in also banning civil unions and domestic partnerships.

The Iowa Independent reports: Branstad

“I think the people of Iowa would appreciate and feel strongly that they should be given the opportunity to vote,” Branstad said in a news conference with Statehouse reporters in response to a question from The Iowa Independent. He said whether the proposal goes too far is a matter for the legislature to sort out and not an issue that falls under the purview of the governor.

“That’s a legislative issue,” Branstad said. “What the people of Iowa want is an opportunity to vote on marriage defined as one man and one woman.”

Monday night’s two-hour hearing on House Joint Resolution 6 begins at 6:30 in the Iowa House chambers. Dozens of Iowans are scheduled to speak for and against the proposed amendment, which would have to pass both the House and the Senate in two consecutive general assemblies before going to a public vote. The proposed resolution faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat, has vowed to block it.

Says Joint Resolution 6: “Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Civil rights are not an appropriate issue to be decided by popular vote. Period.

    Marriage is a civil right, as has been demonstrated many times.

    I doubt that the pragmatic and fair-minded Iowans (and in my experience, most really are) would allow THEIR civil rights to be subject to the whim of the majority.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Jan 31, 2011 2:32:22 PM


  2. I want to ban Republican governors (and Iowans generally) from ruling on issues that don't directly affect them.

    Shall we get that ball rolling too? What and who would you like to ban?

    Posted by: yonkersconquers | Jan 31, 2011 2:36:03 PM


  3. The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law

    The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

    "Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

    Posted by: I'm Layla Miller I Know Stuff | Jan 31, 2011 2:48:16 PM


  4. Civil rights issues should never be up for a vote. I wonder if the dear governor would trust all of his neighbors to vote on his rights?

    Posted by: Brad | Jan 31, 2011 2:48:54 PM


  5. Every time I see this tool’s picture I can’t help but think of NYC drag king, Murray Hill. (No offense to Mr. Hill, of course).

    Posted by: ichabod | Jan 31, 2011 3:13:39 PM


  6. If the Senate has already voted down the amendment, is it likely that they will take it up for reconsideration pending the outcome of the hearing?

    Posted by: Mathew | Jan 31, 2011 3:55:22 PM


  7. Once again: to those who claim that we should just ask nicely for civil unions and be done with it, please note what this legislation would do. The homophobes are against EVERYTHING.

    Posted by: KevinVT | Jan 31, 2011 4:06:52 PM


  8. Once again: to those who claim that we should just ask nicely for civil unions and be done with it, please note what this legislation would do. The homophobes are against EVERYTHING.

    Posted by: KevinVT | Jan 31, 2011 4:06:53 PM


  9. Go here (http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Audio/Audio.html) to listen to the house hearings Windows/IE seems to work, windows/firefox seems not to. (The Iowa House seems to like Windows Media Player.)

    I posted oneiowa's advice to people who live near Des Moines and plan to attend.

    Posted by: EnzoInOmaha | Jan 31, 2011 4:45:23 PM


  10. Why do they want to make Iowa synonymous with idiots who hurt people in the law?

    Posted by: X | Jan 31, 2011 8:17:03 PM


  11. Why do they want to make Iowa synonymous with idiots who hurt people in the law?

    Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/01/iowa-governor-wont-comment-on-reach-of-gay-marriage-ban-as-house-prepares-for-public-hearing.html#ixzz1SFjEhwwT

    Posted by: oakley frogskins | Jul 16, 2011 3:53:15 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Man Sues Glaxo, Claims Parkinson's Drug Made Him Gay Sex Addict« «