Iowans looking to overturn the state
Supreme Court's decision legalizing gay marriage have few precious
moments to waste. Their tallest hurdle might be time.
On Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court
unanimously declared a decade-old ban on gay marriage
unconstitutional and rejected civil unions as a remedy. Gay nuptials
are set to begin in Iowa on April 24, a Friday. (Did I mention it
was unanimous and rejected civil unions as unequal?)
Adversaries of gay rights quickly
denounced the decision, calling it “unconstitutional.”
A long-standing critic of gay rights,
Iowa Rep. Steve King – whose amusing ramblings on the subject
include comparing gay people to unicorns and leprechauns, “Unicorns,
leprechauns, gay marriages in Iowa – these are things you will
never find because they just don't exist,” and insists being gay is
a choice – said the decision would make Iowa “the gay marriage
Mecca” in beating the drum for a marriage amendment.
It was the theme of the day: amend the
constitution.
On the steps of the Iowa Supreme Court,
Danny Carroll, a former Republican legislator and chairman of the
Iowa Family Policy Center, told reporters: “Courts do not determine
law, people determine law.”
Some critics groused it was a blow to
democracy: “Same-sex 'marriage' continues to be a movement driven
by a liberal judicial elite determined to destroy not only the
institution of marriage, but democracy as well,” fumed Tony
Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research
Council.
Phyllis Schlafly evoked the spirits of
right wing defeats of the past in her battle cry: “The American
people will not continue to stand by silently in the face of more and
more of these activist court rulings that openly defy the will of the
people,” the Eagle Forum president said.
And so did Liberty Counsel's Matt
Barber: “The Iowa Supreme court has earned its rightful place in
the judicial activism hall of shame.”
“If you think you saw a fight in
California to restore natural marriage with the successful passage of
Proposition 8, then hold on to your hats,” Barber blustered.
But it is Barber who should consider
grabbing hold of his helmet; undoing the court's decision will not be
as simple as in California where a simple referendum sufficed. And
gay activists in Iowa have one huge advantage: time.
Passing a constitutional amendment in
Iowa requires approval by both chambers of the Legislature in two
consecutive legislative sessions and a majority vote of the people.
The earliest that could be accomplished is 2012, if lawmakers acted
this year, which does not appear likely. (Democratic legislative
leaders applauded the decision.)
Nate Silver, a statistician at
fivethirtyeight.com,
broke it down this way: “Voter initiatives to ban gay marriage are
becoming harder and harder to pass every year.”
The site analyzed gay marriage bans of
yesteryear and concluded that such measures are loosing ground at a
rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. Silver's model
accurately predicted the outcome of Proposition 8, the California
initiative that placed a gay marriage ban in the state's
constitution.
The model predicts a win for gay
marriage ban supporters with 56% of the vote, in 2009. But by 2013,
the pendulum would swing in the opposite direction. (In case you're
still in doubt, Silver also accurately predicted the outcome of every
state and national race on November 4 – he's a stats man's
statistician)
What gay rights opponents fail to grasp
is that in calling for a vote by the people they are simply talking
themselves into a corner. Because the people are on the move to the
side of equality. But good luck with that 'cause time's wasting.
The Gay Slant is a weekly feature of On
Top Magazine. Walter Weeks is a writer for On Top and can
be reached at ww@ontopmag.com.