Iowa Marriage Amendment Passes Iowa House 62-37

| February 1, 2011

Iowa State CapitolThe Iowa House passes HJR 6 by a vote of 62-37, this resolution introduces an amendment to the Iowa Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.

The entire Republican caucus voted in favor of the resolution minus State Representative Betty DeBoef (R-What Cheer) who was ill today.  Three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote yes – State Representatives Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla), Brian Quirk (D–New Hampton), and Kurt Swaim (D-Bloomfield).

Before Iowans can vote on the language in this amendment it first needs to pass the Iowa Senate.  Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has already promised to block a vote, and an attempted vote to bypass Senate rules to allow the Senate version to come to the floor to be debated and voted on failed.  The amendment would have to be passed again in the next General Assembly before it could be placed on the ballot.

Share on Tumblr

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Category: Constitutional Issues, Iowa Grounds, LGBT Agenda

About the Author ()

Shane Vander Hart is the founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts.  He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, LLC, a social media & communications consulting/management firm.  He is a communications director for American Principles Project’s Preserve Innocence Initiative.  Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings.  He has also served as an interim pastor and is a sought after speaker and pulpit fill-in.  Shane has been married to his wife Cheryl since 1993 and they have three kids.  Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA.  You can connect with Shane on Facebook or follow him on Twitter and Google +.
  • http://www.facebook.com/ryandward Ryan Valverde Ward

    I call upon all Democrats. Buy a digital camera, and keep it with you at all times, photograph your hypocrite Republican friends/enemies doing things that proves how hypocritical they are.

    • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

      Hey yeah, that’s mature.

  • Baltimatt

    And what happens to existing same-sex marriages should this pass. With language the precludes any kind of recognition of same-sex relationships, what does this mean to the families … yes, the children … of same-sex couples?

    • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

      What a mess the Iowa Supreme Court and a spineless Democratically controlled Iowa Legislature made.

      The Legislature should have acted to either amend the constitution or to codify SSM.

      What will happen to the children? Probably nothing there was already guidelines for gay adoptions on the books beforehand.

  • Baltimatt

    Rep. Rich Anderson, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said this is meant to foster “responsible procreation,” according to the Des Moines Register. And how many out-of-wedlock births will this prevent? It will probably increase out-of-wedlock births. Gay people will still be having children, but now they won’t be able to marry their partners. While I admit some unease in creating children through artificial means, that genie is not going back in the bottle.

    • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

      I’m not going to defend every poor argument that is made in support of HJR 6. I didn’t hear the entire context of his statement.

  • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

    I don’t have any more info.

    Typically I would say yes that it is better for opposite sex parents to marry, especially if they are cohabitating. There are circumstances where it wouldn’t be a good idea though.

    Regarding same sex couples – you don’t have two biological parents here, so no I don’t think it matters and I don’t think it a healthy example for kids regardless.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JZDWJXWNWQ43UMWT6KQU4QQAQI Peter

      guess then you’d feel the same way about adopted kids….pretty heartless, there.

  • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

    The polygamy question has already reared its ugly head in Canada – http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51081832-78/polygamy-law-utah-court.html.csp

  • Baltimatt

    Shane–

    Tying up a few issues–

    The only mess is being caused by those who voted to take away the freedom to marry regardless of sex.

    Polygamy is a separate issue that was not addressed in Varnum. If you’re saying it’s a slippery slope, when did the slope start? With same-sex marriage? With the courts striking down anti-miscegenation laws? With women becoming legally equal to men in marriage? With the introduction of the legal marriage itself (if you let men and women marry, the next thing you know men will be marrying cats!)?

    I’m still trying to figure out what good will come of this. I’m still trying to figure out how this will benefit Iowa’s families.

  • Baltimatt

    Shane–

    Tying up a few issues–

    The only mess is being caused by those who voted to take away the freedom to marry regardless of sex.

    Polygamy is a separate issue that was not addressed in Varnum. If you’re saying it’s a slippery slope, when did the slope start? With same-sex marriage? With the courts striking down anti-miscegenation laws? With women becoming legally equal to men in marriage? With the introduction of the legal marriage itself (if you let men and women marry, the next thing you know men will be marrying cats!)?

    I’m still trying to figure out what good will come of this. I’m still trying to figure out how this will benefit Iowa’s families.

  • Jarv

    How did the Democratically-controlled Iowa Legislature make a mess? Didn’t the Republicans hold majorities during the 77th General Assembly?

    • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

      Not following you, Republicans were not in control when DOMA was struck down.

  • Jarv

    No, but they were in control when it passed…

    • http://caffeinatedthoughts.com Shane Vander Hart

      I wouldn’t agree that DOMA was the mess. It was simply protecting the definition of marriage as it has been for thousands of years.

      • Jarv

        I don’t know that I’d agree that it was the mess, either. However, the current mess is, at least indirectly, a result of the passage of DOMA

«
»