‘Wedding’ bells ring off key in nation’s Heartland

By Richard Land
Apr 8, 2009

Iowa is now the poster child for why it is important to have constitutional amendments that decree that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

It has been my contention for some time that each state needs to have in place a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Without such an amendment, a state’s activist Supreme Court can overturn a law adopted by the legislature, declaring it to be unconstitutional. That is what happened in Iowa and Massachusetts. In passing Proposition 8 in referendum last November, voters reversed a similar move by the California Supreme Court the previous June.

The April 3 decision propelled Iowa to the forefront of our nation’s same-sex “marriage” debate when the state’s highest court ruled the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Iowa joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont in permitting marriages between homosexual and lesbian couples.

Once again, it was the judiciary branch of state government rending the nation’s moral fabric, bent on rewriting our country’s social construct.

With no residency requirements, the court’s opinion means at the end of April when the order goes into effect, same-sex couples will be free to travel from other states to exchange “vows” in the Iowa Heartland.

This ruling turns Iowa into a destination for same-sex “marriages.” No doubt there are weekend travel packages already being planned. Iowa will soon be the Las Vegas of same-sex “marriage” for America. And you know those folks won’t be resettling in the Hawkeye State, but will be heading back home–perhaps to your state.

And given there is no provision for citizen-initiated constitutional referendums in Iowa, it will take at least two years for proponents of traditional marriage–if successful–to get a ban on same-sex “marriage” in the state’s constitution.

The Iowa Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal promised he would block any legislation codifying a ban on same-sex “marriage” in the state’s constitution, saying he doesn’t see anything wrong with a “bunch of people who merely want to profess their love for each other.”

The only way to stop another state’s judges from trumping the people’s elected representatives is to pass an amendment to that state’s constitution. Over 20 states have already done this and are at least protected from the overreach of their state’s Supreme Court.

The Iowa Supreme Court couldn’t have ruled that an amendment to the constitution is “unconstitutional.” If they had done that, then a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” would be imperiled. If the California Supreme Court does this in the case they are currently considering, then we’d have to say that our entire system of government is coming to a tragic end.

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to preserve the institution of marriage. To learn more about these important issues, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing bulletin inserts or other materials on marriage and family, please visit our online bookstore.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality,


1 On Apr 8, 2009, at 2:21am, Betty Gibbs wrote:

What must our heavenly Father be thinking of us in so called Christian America!!! I am 78 years old and never thought I would see what is going on in our nation. We Christians must take much of the blame for what is happening in our nation. When Anita Brtant took a stand against homosexuals, no one stood with her. Betty B. Gibbs

2 On Apr 8, 2009, at 2:22am, Roy S. Harrell wrote:

It really doesn’t matter if you have a constitutional amendment or not against gay marriage.  Activist judiciaries can and do override the will of the people by a simple majority vote within the courts.  This is where we are today in America.  We have seen it here in CA and it won’t stop, even though we have recently voted against gay marriage for the second time.  We at Ojai Valley Baptist Church took a stand for marriage and paid a price for it.  We will do so again.  If we hold to biblical morality, we can do nothing else.  But don’t think that a constitutional amendment will settle the issue.  It won’t.

3 On Apr 8, 2009, at 4:29am, B C Price wrote:

My thoughts on same sex relationships is that the union should be called “ANYTHING” but a marriage. It should be classified different because of it’s unnaturalism. The sex act between this union doesn’t produce anything. And because of the extreme & unusual sex acts that go against the norm,there are psycological changes that reorganizes normal brain patterns so one can adapt to the homosexual way of thinking which has been discovered by Physicians that study homosexuals thought patterns. Not marriage for same sex deviancy that goes against nature on “ALL” levels.

4 On Apr 8, 2009, at 11:55pm, James E Reeves wrote:

We are seeing the effects of the theory of evolution in all walks of life take away all sense of moral obligation in the individuals overall mental capacity to differenciate faith and fiction. This will worsen until some notable leaders bring action against the Supreme Court decisions to hold the religon of evolution above belief in Jesus. That would enable teachers to engage students in honest debates of evaluating all theories of creation.


5 On Apr 9, 2009, at 5:42am, Jack Haskins wrote:

I realize that God gave man a “choice”.  But why do men and women have to make such an obviously wrong “choice” when it comes to something so obvious as the relationship between a man and a woman.  And why do such “intelligent??” people rule that it is proper!??

6 On Apr 10, 2009, at 11:41pm, Olin Maide wrote:

You ask, “What could have prevented this?” The answer is: Our pulpits! Had our pulpits set aside the politics and preaching don’t mix philosophies; and preached the complete word of God, the governmental mess we currently experience would never have been able to surface with such power and indifference to the will of its citizens. Scripture is clear: We cannot aid and abet the promoters of evil. For the past 70 years, many dedicated Christians have adjudicated on th side of evil by tradition or self needs by supporting and electing a political party that openly advocates and enacts laws that promote the destruction of Christian morality.  Our pulpits should have been stressing our accountability for our every idle word, which includes our deeds and that party would not have the power to override the will of its citizens.
Olin Maide
Pastor, Calfornia Baptist Church, California, PA

7 On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:25am, B C Price wrote:

Gooooooooo Betty :+)

The comment thread for this article is now closed. Please use our contact form.

You May Also Like

Post-DOMA, gay marriage backers target states

By Staff - Jul 10, 2013

At least five states are facing legal battles over marriage definitions that could determine whether the tone set by the Defense of Marriage Act’s demise will resonate in individual states.

An Arkansas lesbian couple filed a lawsuit in Pulaski County Circuit Court that alleges the unconstitutionality of an Arkansas amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, the Arkansas Baptist News said.…

Read More

When motherhood is hard

By Christina Fox - Nov 20, 2013 - (5)

“Hello? Anybody home?” I overheard one son say these words to his brother in a voice laced with sarcasm. As I watched their interaction my heart was pierced with conviction. It was my own words and tone coming from the mouth of my nine-year-old son.…

Read More

Briefs: Gay marriage would harm children

By Michael Foust - Mar 22, 2013

If the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage it would be sending a detrimental message to society that children don’t need both mothers and fathers.

That’s according to friend-of-the-court briefs filed by traditional groups and others urging the court to leave the issue of marriage to the states and to uphold both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.…

Read More
Smoke clears after House tobacco vote Spouses sometimes find themselves as caregivers