‘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,

You May Also Like

A special needs nest is never empty

By Brenda Solomon - Oct 21, 2014

An unsettling component of raising a child with special needs is the sense that, as a mother, my work will never be done.  

Of course I will always remain “mother” to my three sons, but not in the same way—James, Justin and Jon are healthy and independent adults, married with children of their own.…

Read More

Supreme Court upholds health care law, disappointing pro-lifers

By Tom Strode - Jun 28, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the 2010 health-care law, dealing a disheartening setback to pro-life and religious liberty advocates who fervently oppose the controversial measure.

With Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote in a 5-4 opinion, the high court Thursday (June 28) announced its support for what critics often label “Obamacare.” Four associate justices — Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — said in a dissenting opinion they would have struck down the entire law.…

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