On the recordJuly 9, 2015
I would like to reiterate this point that as you debated this in Kansas, I am one of the authors of the Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. Ours says differently than I think all the other States. All the other States say marriage is between one man and one woman. I insisted that the language say between one male and one female because I didn't want to be in a debate about what a man was and what a woman was. I didn't know that, within the last couple of months, we would be having that debate nationally, but I think our debate is more specific--however, overruled by the Supreme Court of the State of Iowa. I didn't get around to mentioning that we voted three of those justices off the bench, swept them off. There were only three up for retention ballot in 2010. We voted them all off of the bench. I still ask this question, which is, as precise as our language is, I could not divine any right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, not in the 14th Amendment, not in the Iowa Constitution that is mirrored to the 14th Amendment; but the Supreme Court found it anyway. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that, if your amendment becomes incorporated into our Constitution that a more liberal court, or this Court itself, might find a way to rationalize their way around no matter how we write it?
