Iowa Catholic Conference Does End Run Arround IA Speaker of the House Pat Murphy

Before the Iowa Supreme Court legislated from the bench, Pat Murphy, Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives (& another Catholic in Name Only) promised that if the Court allowed gay marriages he would let a constitutional amendment be brought up in the House to change things. Of course, after the Iowa Supreme Court did so, he backed off from his promise. But given he has more loyalty to the Democratic Party & maintaining power than telling the truth or representing those of us in his district, that was no surprize. So teh 2009-10 Iowa General Assembly did nothing.

The Court's ruling & Murphy's failure to keep his promise to the people of Iowa who want the amendment brought up have resulted in 2 things.

The 1st is a move to vote out the 3 Iowa Supreme Court Justices who are up for a retention vote this year. In 1962 the Iowa constitution was amended changing the way judges on all levels are selected. Previously they ran for office. Now they are appointed by the governor based on a recomendation by a special committee. After a year in office & every 8 years thereafter, their names are placed on the ballot for the general election & Iowans are asked if they shall be retained or kicked out. (The Legislature still can impeach as well.) Up to now only 4 judges have been voted out. Bob Vander Plaats, who was a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor (& the 1 I supported) decided after losing to Branstad that he would lead up an effort to convince Iowans the three Iowa Supreme Court Justices up for a retention vote on the Nov. 2 ballot should be kicked off the bench. Something I fully support. To aid the effort he started a group called Iowa for Freedom.

They 2nd thing is also related to the upcoming General election & Murphy's failure to keep his promise. There are 2 ways that the Iowa Constitution can be amended. The 1st starts in the legislature with 2 consecutive legislative sessions* voting to approve the amendment which is then sent to the voters for their OK. But there is also a 2nd way. Every 10 years the Iowa Constitution requires there to be placed on the ballot a measure asking if Iowa voters want to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments for the constitution. The approved proposals are then voted on by the people.# Given Murphy's unwillingness to allow for the legilative vote & the fact that this is the year that measure has to be on the ballot, a movement has arisen calling for an afirmative vote.

Monday the Iowa Catholic Conference sent out a special announcement. In part, is said that the ICC was throwing its support behind the effort to call a constitutional convention. Here is what the e-mail I received said: "In addition, the Iowa Catholic Conference supports a marriage amendment to Iowa’s constitution. The flier states, 'The way to do this is by convening a constitutional convention. Every 10 years, including this year, Iowa voters have the opportunity to call for a constitutional convention. A ‘yes’ vote on this measure will allow Catholics and others to work for a marriage amendment to the Iowa constitution. This amendment would affirm the traditional understanding that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.'”

Here is the complete quote from that flier under the questions to ask the candidates section:

"Amending Iowa’s Constitution to recognize marriage only as a union of one man and one woman?

The way to do this is by convening a constitutional convention. Every 10 years, including this year, Iowa voters have the opportunity to call for a constitutional convention. A "yes" vote on this measure will allow Catholics and others to work for a marriage amendment to the Iowa Constitution. This amendment would affirm the traditional understanding that marriage is a union of one man and one woman." (emphasis ICC. Note: This was the only part in the questions section in boldface on the flier.)

I have to applaud the ICC. usually they do not come out this boldly & try more low key approach of trying to persuade the Legislature through lobbying & letter writing by Iowans. But dersperate times call for desperate measures. & the ICC realizes this is the case.

Before the ICC came out with this, I was already fully in support of the "Yes" vote. I realize there is a danger depending on how the delegates are selected as to what may or may not get passed. Not every amendment passed by the Iowa Legislature has gotten voter approval. & if the Convention went the wrong way it could delay the amendment. But at the least for the time it would take the legislature to approve an amendment. The risk is worth taking. If we can do it in 2 years rather than 4 or 6, why not?

The only reason Murphy is unwilling to let the people vote is that he knows Iowans will vote to undo the Supreme Court's mistake. Hopefully Murphy will lose his job as speaker, if not his seat, in Nov. & if he does, his failure to let the people have their say on this issue will be part of it.

_______
* If the Iowa Legislature had approved it in the 2009-2010 session then it would have again had to be approved by the new Legislature in the 2011-2012 session. Then in the Fall of 2012 the voters would have had their say. Now the earliest it could go to the people is 2014.

# If the convention OKed a marriage amendment or any other amendments the vote on them would be in 2012 like the legislative process would have if Murphy kept his word.

See Midwest Catholic Bishops Exhort Flocks to Fight for Marriage for more on what is going on in Minnesota alomg with Iowa.