Home letusvotelogo Home Frequently Asked Questions from www.LetUsVoteIowa.com

 

 


Was Iowa targeted for institutionalizing same-sex marriage?  Why?
Iowa was targeted for this assault on one man, one woman marriage for at least three reasons:

  1. Judge Neary’s 2003 decision to grant a lesbian divorce in Northwest Iowa and the Iowa Supreme Court’s approval of that ruling revealed the vulnerability in our judicial system necessary to attract Lambda Legal to orchestrate a lawsuit against one man, one woman marriage.                                                                               
  2. Iowa is not a referendum state.  To stop same-sex marriage we must pass a Constitutional Amendment, which involves a complex process, unlike a one-vote referendum.  This makes defending against same-sex marriage more difficult than it would be in a referendum state.
  3. Iowa does not have a residency requirement for marriage.  This means that homosexual couples will be able to fly in, get married and go home without having to be residents of Iowa.

Why are some legislators proposing that we take a ‘wait and see how the Iowa Supreme Court rules’ approach that diminishes the immediate importance of the Iowa Marriage Amendment (IMA)?
Many of the ‘wait and see’ legislators simply don’t want to go on the record for or against same-sex marriage.  Some of them have received money and support from pro-homosexual groups* and don’t want to alienate those supporters.  At the same time, those same legislators don’t want to alienate the majority of Iowans who are overwhelmingly opposed to same-sex marriage.  Their ‘wait and see’ approach, then, is proposed in hopes that the Iowa Supreme Court will take this issue off their plates.
*Read “They Won’t Know What Hit Them” to learn about how nationwide, pro-homosexual money has been used to influence Iowa politics.


What about the legislators who say, “I’ll support the IMA if it comes up for a vote”?
Such a response should be encouraging, and at face value it is, but it may also be a deceptive response.  It might seem to indicate that the legislator supports the IMA, when in reality, they may not … the “if it comes up for a vote” portion of the statement allows quite a bit of wiggle room.  Not only do we need legislators to vote for the IMA, but we need legislators who are in the majority party (Democrat) to encourage their leaders to allow it up for a vote in the first place.  Therefore, we are inviting Senators to sign an open letter to Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, asking him to allow the IMA up for a vote during the 2008 Session.  If your Senator says they’ll “support the IMA if it comes up for a vote,” you can respond to them by thanking them and then asking them to sign the public letter to Gronstal.  If they’re willing to sign that letter, then you can be more confident that they really do support the IMA.

Find contact info for your Senator and Representative.

 

Which legislators should I prioritize when it comes to expressing my concerns about the IMA?
1)  Majority Party Leaders in the Iowa Senate (Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, Senate President Jack Kibbie)

2)  Key Senators

3)  Your own Senator and Representative


What are the most effective ways to express my concerns to a legislator about the IMA?
In this order: 

Personal Visit at the Capitol (this is most effective),

Personal Phone Call,

Personal Letter, (sample letter here)

Personal Email,

Mass Letter,

Mass Email (this is least effective).


Other very effective means of getting the “Let Us Vote” message out include:

Writing letters to the editor of newspapers in your area and in the districts of key Senators

Showing up at local legislative forums to ask legislators questions about their support or lack of support for the IMA. Schedule here

 

Why not focus on changing the law regarding Iowa's residency requirement for marriage?

This is a question that is increasingly being asked … our proposed answer:  We are not pursuing a change to Iowa’s residency requirement law at this time, simply because every ounce of energy and time must be directed toward getting the IMA through the Iowa House and Iowa Senate for the first time during the 2008 Session.  Once the 2008 Session ends, depending on where we’re at with the IMA, we may or may not pursue a change in Iowa’s residency requirement for marriage.