TN bill that allows government employees to refuse solemnizing marriages passes House

[GMDino]

This one likely won't pass.  For one it will take too long and secondly putting it up to a statewide vote usually gets it shot down.

But it shows what these "conservatives" want to do and why.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3879471-eight-iowa-state-gop-lawmakers-propose-constitutional-amendment-to-ban-same-sex-marriage/

Quote:Eight Iowa state GOP lawmakers propose constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage
BY [/url]BROOKE MIGDON - 03/01/23 1:13 PM ET


Eight Republicans in the Iowa state House have proposed an amendment to their state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage, arguing that the state should only recognize marriages between one man and one woman.

“In accordance with the laws of nature and nature’s God, the state of Iowa recognizes the definition of marriage to be the solemnized union between one human biological male and one human biological female,” [url=https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=HJR8&ga=90]reads the joint resolution introduced Tuesday.

Same-sex couples in Iowa are not in immediate jeopardy of losing their right to marry, however, as both passing and enacting the resolution are multistep processes that will take several years to complete.

The resolution to amend the state constitution, if adopted, would not be actionable until 2025, when the next slate of state lawmakers are inaugurated. At that time, if the resolution is passed a second time, the measure will head to the electorate for ratification.

While the adoption of such an amendment is not unconstitutional — multiple states have constitutional amendments or statutes that ban same-sex marriage still on the books — the amendment would not be enforceable under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

However, in June 2022, the fate of that landmark ruling was upended by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who in a concurring opinion to overturn federal abortion protections suggested additional decisions, including Obergefell, should be revisited.

But even if Obergefell were to fall, same-sex couples are still guaranteed certain protections under the Respect for Marriage Act, which safeguards the rights of same-sex and interracial couples to marry. President Biden signed the historic legislation into law late last year.

In the case of Iowa, if Obergefell were overturned and Tuesday’s joint resolution adopted, same-sex couples would still be able to have their marriages recognized by the state as legally valid, just as long as those unions were performed in states where neither statute nor constitutional amendment bars same-sex partners from marrying.

Iowa House Democrats on Tuesday vowed to defeat the GOP-backed proposal, which they will have to do by Thursday to prevent the measure from coming up for a vote in the state House.

“No, @IowaGOP, we will not be going back to the days when committed, loving same-sex couples don’t have the same right to marriage equality as everyone else,” state Rep. Sami Scheetz (D) wrote on Twitter. “This kind of disgusting hatred and backwards thinking has no place in Iowa. And I’ll fight it every single day.”

Democratic state Rep. Adam Zabner on Tuesday said that the state, which in 2009 became the third to legalize same-sex marriage, should be focused on moving forward, “not backwards.”

A petition against the measure organized Tuesday by Iowa House Democrats has collected more than 27,000 signatures.

In a separate move on Tuesday, eight Iowa Republicans — six of whom also proposed the joint resolution — filed another bill, HF 508, which would allow state residents to deny same-sex marriages on religious grounds. The bill would also rule certain elements of the Respect for Marriage Act “null and void” in Iowa.

“The state of Iowa also recognizes the deep historical and religious roots that uniformly defined and understood marriage to be the union between one male and female,” the bill says. “Therefore, no resident of Iowa shall be compelled, coerced, or forced to recognize any same-sex unions or ceremonies as marriage, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary that may exist in other states, and no legal action, criminal or civil, shall be taken against citizens in Iowa for refusal or failure to recognize or participate in same-sex unions or ceremonies.”

In a Twitter post on Friday, Iowa state Sen. Liz Bennett (D), one of three openly LGBTQ lawmakers in the legislature, said the introduction of both measures amounted to “an outright attack on the entire LGBT community.”

Iowa state Rep. Austin Harris, the legislature’s only LGBTQ Republican, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Iowa is one of less than a dozen states to have an openly LGBTQ Republican serving in the state legislature.

In an email to NBC News, bill sponsor Rep. Brad Sherman, a Republican who also sponsored the joint resolution to ban same-sex marriage by way of the state constitution, argued that the measure “does not seek to tell same-sex couples what to believe.”

“If they want to call their relationship a marriage, they are free to do so; that is freedom,” Sherman said. “But, by the same token, people who do not define same-sex unions as marriage must not be forced to do so.”