Iowa Senator's Resignation Puts Gay Marriage Ban Back in Play

With news that Iowa Senator Swati Dandekar is set to resign to take up a governor-appointed position on the Iowa Utilities Board and the possibility of a special election looming, marriage equality advocates are concerned there is potential for Republicans to chip away at the slim Democratic majority in Iowa’s upper chamber and pass a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would ban same-sex marriage.

Dandekar represents the highly competitive Senate District 18 where registration data shows that Republicans narrowly outnumber Democrats 15,945 to 15,752. The district is also represented by two Republican Representatives. Republicans are quietly confident that they could flip control in the Senate regardless of this, but their chances of securing Dandekar’s seat could be bolstered by the active campaigns of Republican presidential hopefuls. Moreover, the Democratic party reportedly has no immediate candidate for the seat. As such, they’ve already issued a call for help.

Democratic legislators currently hold 26 of the 50 seats in the upper chamber and that majority has been used to prevent a number of Tea Party-backed pieces of legislation from passing, including the gay marriage amendment. All 24 Republican Senators support putting a constitutional amendment before voters. It should be noted that a handful of Demacratic Senators are also thought to support the measure but have never had to commit either way.

Religious conservatives have wanted to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before voters since the state’s Supreme Court unanimously overturned the state’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage in 2009. Indeed, the Republican controlled House passed the amendment this year, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) prevented the amendment from coming to the floor in the upper chamber and recently affirmed that he would continue to do so, effectively scuppering those plans.

If Republicans do win the seat they would not gain control of the chamber but with an even split, as was the case after the 2004 elections, Gronstal would not have the same power to prevent the amendment from coming to the floor.

Democratic lawmakers have said Dandekar’s appointment, made by Republican Governor Terry Branstad, is politically motivated.

From the Des Moines Register:

Branstad and his staff have declined to speak about the issue but the political intent to potentially eliminate the slim Democratic majority in the Senate is evident, Democrats said.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal and other leaders discussed the issue with their members today in a conference call. They have not conceded defeat, promising an aggressive challenge to retain the seat.

“It would certainly change the Senate,” said Senate President Jack Kibbie of Emmetsburg. “A lot of the conservative issues that came from the House died in the Senate.”

Branstad must call for a special election within five days of the official resignation notice. Branstad leaves on a trade mission to China on Sunday so the announcement would likely come before then. The special election can occur no sooner than 40 days after the announcement.

Last year religious conservatives in the state successfully mounted a campaign to oust three of the justices who ruled that Iowa’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Republican House lawmakers have since launched impeachment proceedings against the remaining four justices who were part of the decision. This drive was again halted by Mike Gronstal’s gatekeeper effect in the Senate.

Respected statistician Nate Silver recently calculated in a piece for the New York Times that if there were to be a vote now, current polling data would indicate Iowa voters would indeed vote to ban same-sex marriage by between 52-58 percent. However, as Silver points out in the piece, the ballot process in Iowa is quite cumbersome and requires a majority vote from two consecutive Legislatures. Not only does this throw up a future opportunity to stonewall the amendment, it also puts back a vote on the amendment by a couple of years by which time Silver predicts the margins would be much closer and Iowa could be swayed to voting down the amendment. Read more on that here.

Still, it is undeniable that this news adds up to a potential blow for equality advocates and progressives.

Gay Solider on How Air Force Band Video Outed Him

Ugandan MPs Vow to Pass ‘Kill the Gays’ Bill

Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License with thanks to netsu.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Mark L.

1:26AM PDT on Sep 28, 2011

If two gay people truly love each other, what difference does it make that they're married or not?

send a green star

Annmari L.

12:20PM PDT on Sep 23, 2011

When will it enter the thought process center of the repukes and teabags (sorry for assuming they have one!) that you can NOT put civil rights on the ballot!?!?
What is the next step? A ballot with a ban of interracial marriages? Stripping Africa Americans and Native Americans of their civil rights? Women's right to vote? It won't surprise me at all, that if those medieval "thinkers" of the extreme right are allowed to roam free, they will put all those and several more, on the ballot.

Dan(iel) M.

5:24AM PDT on Sep 19, 2011

Thanks for posting Steve. Yet another state where the GOP are trying to move backwards on this issue.

Valjean O.

9:55PM PDT on Sep 18, 2011

I agree people!
well, atleast there is progress:) weve come a fair amount since 1950's & so much more is needed. EVOluton is such a s l o w process

Donna P.

5:33PM PDT on Sep 18, 2011

I cannot understand in this day and age why this is still being debated.Love should be considered unconditional.It should not matter if it is man and woman, man and man or woman
and woman.Too much interfering with peoples private lives and not just living your own.If you are
are LBGT or are straight, be happy you are alive.Why do people feel the need to judge others,
yet cannot stand it when others do it to them?

kenny s.

3:51PM PDT on Sep 18, 2011

One more time: Homophobia is not a fear of homosexuals. It is a fear of ones hidden homosexual desires. God forbid anyone ever learns the truth. That is the real fear.

Glen P.

11:48AM PDT on Sep 18, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court needs to rule once and for all (as they eventually will, whether it be the current SCOTUS or another in the not too distant future), that marriage equality for same-gender couples IS a Constitutionally protected right, as a matter of the liberty to marry whom one chooses, and a matter of equal protection of the laws.

And then all the bigots, or ignoramuses, who supported or voted to restrict the equal rights of their fellow citizens can have their wrists slapped, learn the error of their ways, and move on as their legislation and State constitutional amendments are overturned for the anti-American shames that they are.

Sally W.

11:11AM PDT on Sep 18, 2011

So what they are saying is marriage is a union meant to be shared between a man and a woman... that is what makes is sacred and legal right? So basically.....

Young people who had sex once, don't love each other but got pregnant are allowed to marry....
Drunk people in vegas are allowed to marry....
Celebrities who are looking for publicity are allowed to marry....
Reality show contestants are allowed to marry....
Young Gold diggers and old rich men are allowed to marry....

But two people of the same gender who have been in a committed relationship for years and truly love each other have no right to marry.......

I think all those who are against LGBT people marrying need to take a look at the reality of the "sacred" marriage institution before they start throwing stones. If two consenting adults love each other, they should be allowed to marry.