Gov. Culver cautious: "The next responsible step is to thoroughly review this decision, which I am doing with my legal counsel and the Attorney General, before reacting to what it means for Iowa.”
Mike Gronstal and Pat Murphy solidly favorable: "When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today's events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency." Translation: Not this session.
Senate GOP leader Paul McKinley: "Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter and that is why the Iowa Legislature should immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman and gives every Iowan a chance to have their say through a vote of the people.”
Senator Matt McCoy, the only out legislator:
I believe marriage equality is here to stay. And Iowans will quickly realize that it is no big deal.
Today Iowa is sending a message to young people, both gay and straight. If you are looking for a great place to live, a place where people treat their neighbors with respect, come to Iowa to work, to invest and to raise a family.
I’m so proud to be an Iowan today. Thanks for celebrating with us. And whether you’re gay or straight, think about coming to Iowa to get married.
Tom Harkin, not sounding happy:
"My personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept. But I also fundamentally believe that same sex couples in a civil union should be entitled to all the basic legal protections and benefits of marriage. The Court found that it is necessary to afford same sex couples the ability to marry in order to allow them those legal protections and benefits. I will respect and support that decision and I hope that other Iowans can do the same."
Which gets a big raspberry from Janelle Rettig: "Thank goodness Tom Harkin isn't on the Supreme Court. I'm betting he hasn't read the Iowa Consitution in a long, long time. His lead off statement undermines anything else he has to say and show that he just doesn't get it."
Dave Loebsack:
"Today is an important day for many Iowa families. The beliefs of every Iowan should be respected and I understand that many people have strong opinions regarding this issue. The unanimous Supreme Court decision should be respected as a continuation of Iowa’s long standing national leadership in ending discrimination and protecting the rights of all of our citizens."
Bruce Braley:
“While Iowans will disagree over today’s historic Supreme Court ruling, it’s important to remember that we’re all neighbors,” Braley said. “The Court unanimously found that gay couples are entitled to equal protection under the Iowa Constitution. This ruling marks a big change in how our state defines marriage, which is both unsettling to many Iowans and welcome to many others. Either way, we must come together as Iowans to resolve our differences on this divisive issue and ensure that no Iowan is discriminated against because of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation.”
Steve King, worth reading in all his Worst Person In The World rage:
“This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench.
“Now it is the Iowa legislature’s responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.”
No comments:
Post a Comment