“Your family doesn’t derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, ‘Congratulations, you’re married,'” Zach Wahls, 19, told Iowa lawmakers yesterday. Wahls was raised by two women, and testified in opposition to a bill that would put a ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot in Iowa.
Although the House of Representatives has advanced the bill, the Senate Majority Leader, Mike Gronstal, is blocking it from coming to the floor of the Iowa Senate for a vote.
Here’s the House resolution:
A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 1 of the State of Iowa specifying marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union that is valid or recognized in the state.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA: 5 TLSB 1109YH (7) 84 pf/rj
H.J.R. 6 Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of 1 the State of Iowa is proposed: 2 Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa is amended by adding the following new section:
Marriage. SEC. 26. Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state. Sec. 2.
REFERRAL AND PUBLICATION. The foregoing amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is referred to the general assembly to be chosen at the next general election for members of the general assembly, and the secretary of state is directed to cause the same to be published for three consecutive months previous to the date of that election as provided by law.
EXPLANATION. This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the 16 Constitution of the State of Iowa specifying that marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state. The joint resolution, if adopted, would be referred to the next general assembly for adoption a second time before being submitted to the electorate for ratification.
The Des Moines Register profiles several politicians who are taking a , perhaps, unpopular stand:
As a Catholic, Sen. Tom Rielly, D-Oskaloosa, believes marriage is “one-man, one-woman, one time,” he said.
“But I’m not going to use that as a test to deny someone their civil rights. I’ve read the decision a couple dozen times, and I just for the life of me don’t understand how anybody can say, ‘This couple over here, you can enter into a civil contract to get health insurance, tax status, pension benefits, survivor benefits, end-of-life care. But you over here, because you’re gay, you can’t do that.’
“How is that not discriminatory?”