Here is the text of House Joint Resolution 8:
Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is proposed:
Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa is amended by adding the following new section:
Sec. 26. Marriage. 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.
Sec. 2. REFERRAL AND PUBLICATION. The foregoing proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa is referred to the general assembly to be chosen at the next general election for members of the general assembly, and shall be published as provided by law for three months previous to the date of that election.
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.
This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa relating to marriage specifying “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.”
The resolution, if adopted, would be published and then referred to the next general assembly (91st) for adoption before being submitted to the electorate for ratification.
The state constitution is purposely hard to amend. This proposal would have to be approved by the current legislature and again by the next legislature in 2025 or 2026 before being placed on a ballot in a general election.
Presently this amendment would have no effect. The US Supreme Court ruled in the Obergefell case (2015) that everyone in the United States has the right to enter a same-sex marriage. But if the Supreme Court later overturns Obergefell, then this amendment would be valid law, just like the anti-abortion trigger laws that several states enacted before Roe was overturned.
Note the explicit religious justification. It doesn't help that they used Deist terminology ("nature's God") instead of Christian terminology. A plain reading of the 1st Amendment to the US constitution should rule this out. However, today's Supreme Court and Republican Party think that religious freedom means different things depending on who you are and which religion you have.
Note also that the proposed definition of marriage does not say anything about a minimum age or about consent, nor even about not being married to someone else.
The federal Respect For Marriage Act, which Congress passed last year, does not require any state to offer same-sex marriage but does require every state to recognize marriages performed in other states. However, Iowa Republicans have a plan for that too. House File 508 talks about marriage being a sacred religious sacrament and therefore no resident of Iowa can be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages. It does not say anything about opposite-sex marriages that were performed without a religious ceremony. It specifically calls out the Respect For Marriage act as unenforceable in Iowa, setting us up for a new nullification crisis.
My readers outside Iowa won't know or care about our state legislators. But I like to list the names of the responsible people for my own future reference. The christofascists who introduced HJR 8 are Brad Sherman (Williamsburg), Luana Stoltenberg (Davenport), Mark Cisneros (Muscatine), Helena Hayes (New Sharon), Zach Dieken (Granville), Skyler Wheeler (Hull), Mark Thompson (Clarion), Thomas Gerhold (Atkins).
romaincrisis
theartofmadeline
origamiaround
2087
germansingergirl
areudirty
dededos
