image With 60% of same-sex marriages in Iowa being from out-of-state, I agree with “Emily Geiger” at TIR – we need a residency requirement.  I expressed my concern back in October about this eventuality.

I understand, but didn’t agree with the strategy at the time this decision was passed.  Opponents didn’t want to give any acknowledgement to the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision.  We are now a year out with another General Assembly in the books with a Governor unwilling to call a special session to remedy this.

No constitutional amendment in sight.

It’s time to look at the bigger picture nationally – we now have have over 1000 potential court challenges throughout the nation.  Fortunately some of those states likely have constitutional amendments of their own, but many I’m sure do not.

I know some will say, but “that’s discriminatory” and say we’ll have to do that for all marriages.  Well, if we have to, fine, but I don’t think that’ll be the case.  Marriages between a man and a woman are recognized in all 50 states.  Same-sex marriages are not.

A residency requirement needs to happen next General Assembly, but at this point I’m afraid the proverbial horse is already out of the barn.

Originally posted at The Des Moines Register’s From The Right

11 comments
  1. I have another idea that will solve the problem. Let’s allow same-sex couple to marry in all states. In this way there will be no need for same-sex couple to travel to another state to marry.

  2. Banning it outright? Let’s ban interracial marriage too. That was also illegal in most states. Discrimination will not last. It is just a matter of time, but marriage equality will be the law of the land.

    1. Yawn, apples and oranges, but tell you what how about trying to advance this through the Legislative branch like what African-Americans did in the 60s? That way it’s at least following a constitutional process eh?

      But since you can’t, I guess keep going to a judiciary that forgets it isn’t their job to write law.

      “It’s just a matter of time” – this is 0 for 31 when put to a vote – I mean even California and Maine shot gay marriage down. I wouldn’t hold my breath.

      1. Brown v. Board of Education was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1951 (ie: by judicial activists that said segregation was unconstitutional). The Civil Rights Act wasn’t enacted by the Legislative branch until 13 years later in 1964 and actually provided less protection for African Americans than had already been established by the courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn’t provide any marriage rights. Those were secured by judicial action throughout the 60’s until the Supreme Court finally struck down all marriage restrictions based on raced in 1967.

        Your comment that African Americans used the legislative branch to secure their freedoms ignores the actual reality that judicial decisions were the primary source of almost all protections that African American’s actually received.

        Our system of government includes three branches of government. The judicial branch was ALWAYS intended to provide a balance to the political system and to protect the rights of ALL citizens, especially minorities. Their rulings have always been, and will continue to be, the primary way for minorities to secure the equal protections that our constitution requires.

      2. A couple nits:
        1) State Supreme courts are part of the constitutional process.
        2) As others have noted, the Jim Crow laws were reversed by the US Supreme Court. Legislatures were much slower off the mark. At the time of my parent’s marriage, there were states where such a marriage would’ve been illegal.
        3) Vermont approved same sex marriage via the legislature. In 2008, Massachusetts easily repealed a law that prevented out of state marriage of people from marrying there if their home states did not recognize the marriage (the law was originally used to prevent mixed-race marriage but was applied by the Romney administration against same sex marriages). New York doesn’t perform these marriages but does recognize them.

        The idea of blocking marriages for out of state couples seems like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. The horse has long since left the barn.

  3. Same-sex couples are fighting for the same right that interracial couples were fighting years ago: the right to marry who they love. The ban on interracial marriage was not ended by the legislative process, but by a unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court (See Loving vs Virginia). And that was the proper way to end the ban, since a right should never be up for a majority vote. That is why we have a Constitution, and it is the role of the judiciary branch of government to enforce it.

    While it is true that voters repealed same-sex marriage in Maine and California, the votes were close, and the repeal happened only because the campaign against same-sex marriage was full of lies, instilling fear on the mind of the voters that somehow the fact that two people of the same sex love each hurts children. The battle in those and all other states (and all over the world) continues. Eventually the voters too, like the judiciary, will realize that homosexuality is nothing more than a normal variation of human sexuality, and thus two people who love each other have the right two marry regardless of their gender. I predict that that will happen starting in California in November 2012.

  4. Why does Shane Vander Hart want to deny the citizens and small businesses of Iowa millions of dollars $$ in revenue at a time when the economy is struggling? Businesses affected by his decision would include airlines, airport vendors, car rentals, hotels, caterers, florists, and a number of other small businesses. Hundreds of people would lose thousands of dollars because of his decision. Obviously he is better off than the average Iowan. He doesn’t even give an argument to back up his position on why same-sex marriages are damaging Iowa. That’s because he has no argument. There is no negative impact whatsoever on Iowa, or any other state for that matter.

  5. What’s the problem here? I don’t see it.

    Do you want a blanket ban on non-resident marriage, meaning an opposite-sex couple from Omaha who worships at a church in Council Bluffs couldn’t get married in their church? I doubt a residency requirement only for same-sex couples would pass constitutional muster. Or, would you do it the way Massachusetts did by barring marriages that would not be legal in the participants home state (a law that has since been repealed). That way, the registrars would have to know the rules in all states before issuing a marriage license (for opposite-sex couples as well).

    But then, I don’t see any problem that need a remedy.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

King Seeks Restoration of 15% Tax Rate for Small Farms

Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) offers the “Kitty Rehberg Bill” as an amendment to the House Republicans Year-End Tax Package.

Craig Lang to Run for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture

Craig Lang, a former President of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and dairy farmer in Poweshiek County, declared that he is running for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture.

Iowans, Make Your Voice Heard and Vote on June 7

Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate: Primary Election Day is Tuesday, June 7, and I encourage all eligible Iowans to make their voices heard by participating.

Restoring Iowa’s Proud Heritage in Education

By Senator Paul McKinley, Iowa Senate Republican Leader The end of the…