Let Us Vote Iowa - Common Responses

These are actual responses that we have received from various legislators who do not want to move forward with passing the IMA for the first time in 2008. You may hear similar responses from the legislators you contact, and we want you to be prepared to respond to them effectively. You might even want to pre-empt some of these responses in your initial contacts with legislators.

#1 - Response to: “We need to let the judicial process do its job. Don’t overreact. Let’s wait until the Iowa Supreme Court rules.”

What kind of leader “waits to see” what will happen when something as important as the definition of marriage is in jeopardy? Waiting to see whether marriage will be redefined before doing something to defend marriage is passive and reactionary, and it doesn’t display good leadership.
Waiting until the Iowa Supreme Court rules on this matter will result in the Iowa Legislature not passing the Iowa Marriage Amendment (IMA) for the first time in 2008. This will delay Iowans from being able to vote on the IMA until 2011 at the very earliest. If the Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage in before 2010 (not unlikely), then this means we would have same-sex marriage in Iowa for at least a year and a half, if not 3 years, before the people of Iowa having any voice in the matter. Instead of waiting to see how the court decides, we should begin the process to allow we the people of Iowa to decide how we want marriage defined in our state.

#2 - Response to: "The legislature shouldn't undermine or influence the judicial process." (similar to above response)

The reason we are dealing with this same-sex marriage in Iowa right now is because Judge Robert Hanson – a member of the judicial process in Iowa – overstepped his bounds by throwing out the Defense of Marriage Act, which was written into law by the Iowa Legislature in 1998. Constitutional procedure allows for the Iowa Legislature to give "we the people" of Iowa an opportunity to vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. We're asking for that opportunity, and we think it is a much better option than leaving the definition of marriage up to the Courts, where it doesn’t belong.

Not only will we need support from legislators if the IMA comes up for a vote in the House and Senate, but we will also need their influence in helping bring it up for a vote. To confirm a particular legislator’s support for the IMA, we are asking for their signature on open letters to Senator Mike Gronstal and Representative Pat Murphy, personally and publicly asking those legislative leaders to allow the IMA up for a vote of the full House and Senate during the 2008 Session. (If they are unwilling to sign such a letter, we will assume and communicate that they are not truly supportive of the IMA.)

#4 - Response to: “I am responsible for representing many constituencies, and there are people in my district who are supportive of same-sex marriage, so I need to weigh their view on this subject, too.”

Somewhere between 75-80% of Iowans favor defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. While certain pockets of the state might not reflect those numbers exactly, support for one-man/one-woman marriage is overwhelming. Don’t be fooled into believing that an effectively-mobilized and well-resourced, yet small minority, is any larger than it really is.
Bringing the IMA to a vote as soon as possible the best way to go on this issue and it is the fairest to both constituencies. We want all Iowans – including the people for and the people against same-sex marriage – to have an opportunity to voice their opinion on this important issue. By holding this issue up in Courts and in the Legislature, no Iowans – regardless of their position on this issue – have the chance to vote and to voice their opinion.

#5 - Response to: “This issue is too political and too divisive. We need to start focusing on getting work done for Iowans and quit bickering so much about these partisan issues.”

Political divisiveness is no reason to keep an issue from we the people of Iowa. In fact, because of the nature of this issue, we believe it should be brought up for a vote as soon as possible so we can appropriately and fairly address it, and then put it behind us.
As far as “getting work done for Iowans” goes, we can’t imagine anything more dangerous to the future of our state than the definition of marriage being up for grabs. After all, marriage is the most basic institution of human civilization and it is the rock from which the next generation is hewn. What is more important than that?

#6 - Response to: "Last session an amendment was approved on a unanimous vote to Senate File 427 that said, 'This chapter shall not be construed to allow marriage between persons of the same sex, in accordance with chapter 595.'"

The amendment to Senate File 427 is nothing more than an amendment to a regular law, like DOMA, which, as we now know, cannot be relied upon to defend one-man/one-woman marriage from activist judges who favor same-sex marriage. Such an amendment gives us absolutely no assurance – none – in light of what we’re facing today regarding same-sex marriage in Iowa. The most appropriate and most secure measure we can take in terms of defending one-man/one-woman marriage in Iowa, is to let we the people of Iowa vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment no later than 2010.

#7 - Response to: "If we try to pass the IMA, it might fail ... and failure would be worse than doing nothing. We need to proceed very carefully, considering the ramifications of an amendment of this significance failing."

It is never good strategy to avoid letting we the people of Iowa be involved in a process as important as defining marriage just because it might fail. Can you imagine Martin Luther King, Jr. suggesting that his followers shouldn’t take up the Civil Rights cause because, “we might fail”?! This is preposterous.

If we don't move forward with the Iowa Marriage Amendment, there is great likelihood that marriage will be re-defined in Iowa anyway, which is, essentially, the same result as the IMA failing. In one instance, the decision will have been made by the Courts, and in the other instance, even if it fails, at least we the people of Iowa will have had a say in the definition of marriage

Common responses from www.LetUsVoteIowa.com