What’s the deal with these Republican “intellectuals”? One tried to peddle the idea that all pornography is gay. Now there is a representative from Iowa (a good day to the Hamers) who thinks pushing for gay marriage is really a desire to transform the country into a socialist haven.

Iowa’s Rep. Steve King is no fan of same sex marriage. No biggie there. Free country, first amendment, blah, blah. All that good stuff. However, it would be nice if he had the decency to come up with reasons that are not loony.

“If there’s a push for a socialist society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they have to go to, same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation, they want access to public funds and resources.”

A few things. This exposition is nonsensical. How King gets from couples having rights to “one pot of resources” is a wee bit murky.  And the socialism charge seems to be the  only thing Republicans throw out about topics they don’t like.

Like your standard hysteric though. King seems unable to read numbers. While Iowans are presently divided over whether to vote for or against a ban on same sex marriage, an overwhelming majority, 92 percent, note that gay couples jumping the broom has not impacted their lives.  More than likely King would say they are just a bunch of socialist hacks.

The National Organization for Marriage has launched the Reclaim Iowa Project, targeting legislative races in the state in an effort to elect candidates who support putting the issue of gay marriage before voters.

“Iowa is important because the Supreme Court decision was so against the will of the people of Iowa and the Legislature and Gov. (Chet) Culver showed absolutely no backbone in giving the people the right to have their voices heard,” said Brian Brown, the organization’s executive director.

The group’s effort is beginning with a Sept. 1 special election in southeastern Iowa’s House District 90, where Republican Stephen Burgmeier is running against Democrat Curt Hanson for the seat vacated when Democratic Rep. John Whitaker resigned to take a job with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The organization has endorsed Burgmeier and spent $90,000 on television and radio ads supporting him, Brown said. The ads began airing Monday.

Burgmeier said he has never talked to anyone from the National Organization for Marriage.

“They may have heard about me and what I stand for and they’ve taken advantage of that to get their message out,” he said. “They seem to have the same core value I have … but I had no knowledge of them being interested in this race.”

A telephone message left Wednesday for Hanson was not immediately returned.

Brown’s group was the main supporter of California’s Proposition 8, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage. The organization also has been active with similar campaigns in Maine, New York, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Camilla Taylor, an attorney for Lambda Legal, the national group that represented several same-sex couples in a lawsuit that led to April’s Iowa Supreme Court decision, said the latest campaign doesn’t come us a surprise.

“They specialize in fear-mongering and scare tactics and it’s also clear in many cases their ads are fundraising ploys more than anything else,” Taylor said. “We’re very confident that Iowans … have no desire to write discrimination into their constitution.”

Brad Clark, campaign director for One Iowa, a local affiliate of Lambda Legal, said his group launched an online petition Wednesday asking the National Organization for Marriage to release a list of its contributors. NOM and other groups that sponsored Proposition 8 had sought to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying previous reports led to the harassment of donors.

Clark singled out the Mormon church, which has been criticized by gay rights activists for urging its members to donate to California’s “Yes on 8″ campaign, a move that pulled in tens of millions of dollars.

“They (NOM) and the Mormon church (have) invested millions of dollars and now they have their sights set on Iowa,” he said. “They have been funneling money from the Mormon church into these activities and we’re encouraging our friends and supporters to call on NOM to release a list of those donors.”

Brown said his group would not disclose its list of donors, citing its status as a nonprofit organization.

He rejected the idea that the anti-gay marriage campaign was directly tied to the Mormon church.

“We are an interreligious organization and we have plenty of members without any faith at all, and the one thing that bonds us together is our belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman,” Brown said.

Clark is confident that the campaign will fail.

“At our core, Iowa has been a welcoming place for all people and I believe Iowa voters will reject these attempts from outsiders to divide us,” he said.

Even if the National Organization for Marriage is successful in the Iowa House race, the state’s political landscape will make it years before Iowa’s gay marriage law could be changed.

Iowa law requires that successive general assemblies approve measures before they can be sent to voters. So lawmakers elected in 2010 would need to pass a measure, which would then need to be approved by legislators elected in 2012 before the measure would go before voters in a general election.

That means that the earliest a gay marriage ban could make the ballot would be 2014.

Not to mention that legislative leaders and the governor, all Democrats, have said they oppose amending the constitution to allow a ban.

“It is incredibly unlikely that issue will be debated next session,” said Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, who sets the debate agenda.

Even some Republicans who oppose gay marriage said it would be a mistake for the GOP to put too much emphasis on the issue.

State Rep. Christopher Rants, a Republican who is running for governor, said the economy trumps gay marriage for many Iowa residents.

“It’s jobs, jobs and jobs,” Rants said. “For some people, it’s a hot issue; for others, it’s just not on their list of priorities.”

It was an easy set up. Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman contacted thinkers and writers who have penned a lot of words on the ills of gay marriage and asked them to make predictions of what social problems will happen in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire now that those states have marriage rights.

You would think that given an opportunity to warn of the apocalypse would have these folk jump at the chance, but alas heavy hitters like Maggie Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz demurred. I’m surprised at Kurtz and will give him  a pass. He is the only marriage rights foe I can think of who does not come from the topic with anti-gay animus.

David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values and author of “The Future of Marriage,” nibbled at the bait, but declined to give any specific predictions.

“I disagree with those who say it will have no impact at all,” Blankenhorn said. “But beyond that, I don’t think you can say.”

Proclaim same sex marriage will destroy the country but you can’t tell me how. Riiiiiight.

Those in favor of marriage rights played along.

M. V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and author of  “When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage,” made this observation:  “In Europe, there’s no evidence that patterns have changed for marriage, divorce or non-marital births because of same-sex marriage or registered partnerships.”

I’m disappointed in the anti-gay marriage team. You would think after Chapman put down the gauntlet,  they would have swung for the fences.

And you wonder why we are winning the debate.

Post-script: this really shouldn’t be added but Gallagher did respond with some weak mess. Come on gurl. You can do better than people who don’t like same sex marriage will feel uncomfortable.

Requirements for marriage licenses vary from state to state, and couples  determining where to get married can find it baffling. Here’s a state-by-state equal marriage guide:

Connecticut:

The “Constitution State” followed Massachusetts  on Nov. 12, 2008, in allowing same-sex marriage. On Oct. 1, 2010, all existing civil unions will be automatically transformed into marriages.

* Where: Connecticut allows couples from out-of-state to get married, though they must apply for a license in either the town in which one of the individuals lives  or in the town in which the couple plans to marry. Couples can get the license from a local vital records office.
* How: Both partners must be present and must apply for the license in person.
* Out of state couples: Connecticut allows non-residents to get married.
* Waiting period: None.
* Cost: $35, cash only.
* ID: In addition to a photo ID (divers license, visa, passport, or military ID), those wishing to get a license will need to know their social security number, their mother’s maiden name, their parent’s birthplace, the date and location of the wedding, and the contact information of the wedding officiant.
* Other: The license expires after 65 days.

Iowa:

As of April 27, 2009, Iowa allows  gay residents and non-residents of the state to get married.
* Where: Couples should contact the county clerk’s office in the city they live in or wish to get married in to find out where to apply for a license.
* How: Both partners wishing to get married must be present when applying for the license.
* Out of state couples: Couples from out of state are allowed to marry in Iowa, though couples should contact the county clerk’s office to make sure no additional information is needed for non-residents.
* Waiting period: Iowa requires a three-day waiting period.
* Cost: $30, cash only. This does vary from county to county.
* ID: Along with a photo ID and social security information, Iowa requires one witness over the age of 18 be present when applying for the license.
* Other: Licenses are valid for six months.

Maine:

Though the state passed an equal marriage bill on May 6, 2009, the law will not go into effect until Sept. 14. A  people’s veto could prevent the law from taking affect – conservative activists are working to overturn the law now.

* Where: Couples should contact the local county clerk office to find the location of the town office where they need to get their license.
* How: Both partners must be present at the town office in order to get a license
* Out-of-state couples: Out-of-state residents can apply in any city or town office in the state;  it does not have to be in the same town as the wedding.
* Waiting period: None.
* Cost: $10 per person, cash only. Couples must also pay the cost of the certified documents, which varies.
* ID: A photo ID may be required, along with social security information.
* Other: The license is valid or 90 days, and no blood tets are required.

NEXT PAGE: Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire

Gay marriage became legal in Iowa in April after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry is discriminatory. In New Hampshire, the Legislature approved a gay marriage bill Wednesday that will take effect Jan. 1.

While some see opposition to gay marriage easing nationwide, that’s not the case among Iowa Republicans – especially the relatively small number who dominate the state’s leadoff precinct caucuses. Social and religious conservatives dominate that group, and their opposition to gay marriage is solid.

To be competitive among Iowa Republicans, presidential candidates likely will have to toe that line, key strategists said.

“I’m guessing that most of the serious candidates will be for a constitutional amendment to define marriage,” said David Roederer, a veteran activist who managed John McCain’s campaign in the state. “I don’t think there’s going to be much of a difference.”

Steve Scheffler, head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said the debate over gay marriage is part of a larger discussion of what he sees as the declining social culture of the country. Candidates must address that, he said, and gay marriage is a key element.

“I think there’s a whole wide range of issues they need to address – the state of our economy, the decline of our culture. All of those things have to be put on the table,” said Scheffler. “It’s absolutely essential, and it would behoove them to talk about it. I don’t think they can dodge it or duck.”

That isn’t the case in New Hampshire, where Republicans tend to be more fiscally conservative and socially moderate. New Hampshire has allowed civil unions since 2007; Iowa never allowed them.

“When presidential candidates campaign here, they have traditionally focused on the economy, foreign policy, health care,” said political analyst Dean Spiliotes. “Social issues have never really played a major role here in the campaign.”

A poll conducted by Dartmouth College in May found New Hampshire voters evenly split on gay marriage. Broken down by party, gay marriage had the support of 63 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of undeclared voters and 17 percent of Republicans.

Although the two states vote only days apart, candidates have a history of switching gears between Iowa and New Hampshire and will continue to do so, Spiliotes said, pointing to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa’s GOP caucus in 2008.

“When he was in Iowa, it was all about social conservatism, and then when he came to New Hampshire, that almost completely vanished,” he said. “So I don’t think that it’s going to have a huge impact on how people campaign here because I think to some extent, the state already had the reputation for being more libertarian, if not more moderate.”

New Hampshire’s primaries are open to independents, who outnumber those registered with either party and hold significant sway. Many are likely to vote Republican in 2012 if President Barack Obama seeks re-election and faces no primary opposition.

In Iowa, there’s very little party switching or involvement by independents, and history shows that a relatively small number of the parties’ hard-core activists determine the outcome. Giving an easy victory to Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, speaks volumes of the mindset of the Republican activists who dominate the party and the precinct caucuses.

“We’ve gone so far to the social right, particularly in caucus attendees, that unless you meet certain litmus tests, you have a very difficult time competing in Iowa,” said Doug Gross, the party’s 2002 gubernatorial nominee.

Gay marriage might pose a different kind of litmus test in New Hampshire, said Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

“The way people interpret this issue tells more about their feelings about government’s role in their personal lives than it does about gay marriage,” she said. “It becomes almost a litmus test for the candidates as to how libertarian they are.”

In recent weeks, Vermont and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage, while New York, Maine and New Hampshire have taken steps in that direction. Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues.

In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week found that a majority of people questioned, by a 55-38 percent margin, oppose gay marriage. But it also found that people, by a 57-38 percent margin, support civil unions that would provide marriage-like rights for same-sex couples, indicating a shift toward more acceptance.

With congressional elections next year, Republicans, Democrats and nonpartisan analysts say the changes benefit Democrats, whose bedrock liberals favor gay unions, and disadvantage Republicans, whose conservative base insists that marriage be solely between a man and a woman.

“This is not a sea change. This is a tide that is slowly rising in favor of gay marriage,” creating a favorable political situation for Democrats and ever-more difficulty for Republicans, said David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University in California.

Democrats have a broader base filled with more accepting younger voters, as well as flexibility on the issue. Hard-core liberals support gay marriage, while others, including President Barack Obama, take a more moderate position of civil unions and defer to states on gay marriage.

Conversely, the GOP base is older, smaller and more conservative. Republicans have no place to shift on the issue but to the left, because the party has been identified largely with its rock-solid opposition to gay marriage and civil unions. Also, the GOP has no titular head setting the tone on this or other issues.

In recent months, proponents have used state legislatures and court challenges to legalize gay marriage, mindful that the majority of the public still isn’t supportive and successful ballot measures would be less likely.

Because of high court rulings, gay marriage now is legal in Iowa, Massachusetts and Connecticut. A Vermont law allowing gay marriage will take effect in September. New Hampshire and New Jersey, where same-sex couples can enter into civil unions, are considering gay marriage legislation. So are Maine and New York.

Political insiders no doubt will pay close attention to developments in Iowa and New Hampshire, early presidential voting states, to see how the issue plays out in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election.

Despite the changes, gay-marriage opponents are buoyed by a voter initiative in California that blocked the state from allowing gay marriage, and by the 29 states where voters have approved state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

For years, the GOP and its conservative base has used its opposition to gay marriage to drive Republican turnout in elections and marginalize party moderates. Measures defining marriage between a man and a woman that were on ballots in a slew of states in 2004 were widely credited with boosting the number of conservative voters, giving Republican George W. Bush an edge over Democrat John Kerry.

But there’s been conflicting evidence since then over just how much that contributed to Bush’s victory.

What’s certain is that opposition to gay marriage for decades has been a potent tool for the GOP in rallying social conservatives. They are critical to the party’s grass-roots organizing and small-dollar fundraising.

But as more states accept gay and lesbian unions, there is a debate inside the party over how it should position itself on the issue. The dispute is just one part of a broader struggle within the out-of-power GOP over its identity and whether it should focus on rallying conservatives or attracting supporters from across the political spectrum.

Some prominent Republicans are backing away from cut-and-dried opposition, and some party operatives say it’s only a matter of time before others follow suit because the country is changing.

Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman of Utah, a Mormon who is a potential presidential candidate, backed a 2004 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But he says he favors civil unions and extending some legal rights to gay couples.

Last month, John McCain’s chief campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, told the Log Cabin Republicans: “Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds … that the party might be in the wrong on the question.”

The shifting landscape is emboldening the gay-rights’ movement, a pillar of the Democratic Party’s left flank.

“We are at a tipping point moment,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading advocate of gay rights. “The lingering minority that continues to think that the way to win is to hold GLBT people up as a wedge could not be more out of touch.”

With its groundbreaking marriage decision a year ago, the California Supreme Court set us on a path that — despite some setbacks — has led to one marriage victory a week in the past month: A first-ever unanimous state supreme court ruling in Iowa; a huge victory in Vermont, where there was strong enough support for marriage equality to override their Governor’s veto; and tremendous movement in the legislatures of New Hampshire and Maine, with similar progress likely in the months ahead in New York and New Jersey.

The result has been a profound sea change in public opinion, including my own view of what the next month will bring here in California.

Just this week, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed “a sharp shift in public opinion on same-sex marriage. Forty-nine percent said it should be legal for gay people to marry” — an 11 point shift from a similar poll conducted by the Post just three years ago.

I have always believed the California Supreme Court should strike down Prop

8 because the law is so overwhelmingly on our side. But I feared that other factors might result in an adverse decision. That fear has now been replaced by hope as courts and legislatures — as well as public opinion — have moved sharply in our direction. The Court can cement its legacy by overturning Prop 8 and upholding our Constitution’s promise of equal protection.

Or it can cause untold pain and hardship to our community and forever undermine the independence of the judiciary and the historic role of the courts in protecting minority rights.

I believe the Court will do the right thing.

Kate Kendell is executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Some couples from neighboring states where voters have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage plan to move to Iowa so their unions will be recognized.

“It’s a whole different world when you cross the river,” said Troy Fienhold-Haasis of Omaha, Neb., who plans to move with his partner, Jason, across the Missouri River to Council Bluffs, Iowa, this fall.

Fienhold-Haasis said the decision to move is about more than just tax and cost-of-living issues – though those factored heavily into the couple’s decision. When he had emergency gall bladder surgery last year, Fienhold-Haasis said he worried his partner wouldn’t be able to see him in the hospital.

“In Iowa, with a marriage, those questions are taken care of,” he said.

The couple plans to apply for a marriage license in Pottawattamie County, where more Nebraskans than Iowans sought same-sex marriage applications in the first three days they were available. Twenty-three of the 42 applications Monday through Wednesday came from Nebraska, and one was mailed in from Oklahoma.

The story was similar in other counties at the state’s edges. On Monday and Tuesday, five of the 14 Dubuque County applications came from couples in nearby Wisconsin, and 12 of the 38 applications in Scott County came from across the Mississippi River in Illinois. Both applications filed Monday in Worth County were from Minnesotans, and Missouri couples filed all four applications that day in Decatur County.

Out-of-staters accounted for only five of the 95 applications received Monday through Wednesday in central Polk County, which includes Des Moines.

One Republican legislator from the Scott County community of Bettendorf said the influx from other states was nothing to celebrate.

“I feel sorry for those states where they will be going to,” said state Sen. David Hartsuch. “In those states, many of them have made their will known and … protect traditional marriage.”

Four of Iowa’s six neighbors – Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin – have approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

“At this point, the Supreme Court of Iowa is imposing its will on other states,” Hartsuch said, adding that the issue will be a galvanizing point for Republicans in the elections next fall.

But Fienhold-Haasis said Nebraska and other border states are losing out.

“One state is going to get tax dollars and one state is losing them,” he said.

The Iowa Supreme Court on April 3 upheld a lower court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. The decision took effect Monday, prompting a flood of applications from same-sex couples. Some couples got judges to waive the state’s three-day waiting period and were married in front of government offices.

“You can’t undervalue the spiritual value of it,” said Jim Kieffer, who moved to Council Bluffs with his partner in March, in part due to a belief that Iowa would legalize gay marriage. They plan to get married next week.

Kieffer, formerly of Omaha, said concerns about inheritance taxes and health care decisions for his partner helped him make up his mind.

“Hetero couples don’t have to worry about that,” Kieffer said.

Gay and lesbian couples in other Midwestern states are encouraged by Iowa’s decision, even if they don’t plan to move there, said Katie Belanger, legislative director for the gay-rights advocacy group FAIR Wisconsin.

Massachusetts and Connecticut allow gay marriage, and Vermont has passed a law that will take effect in September, but the decision in Iowa is more important to Midwesterners, she said.

“It’s not just a state on the coast with a reputation for being extremely liberal and progressive. They’re just like the people in Wisconsin,” Belanger said.

Melanie Rexroad is hoping gay-marriage rights spread in the region.

The 36-year-old and her partner, Samantha Gillen, had twins two years ago in Kentucky, but had decided before the boys were born to move to Minneapolis. Kentucky doesn’t allow same-sex parental adoption, and Rexroad wanted to find a more “diverse” community.

Rexroad said she would rather wait for Minnesota to allow same-sex marriage than pick up her life once more.

“We shouldn’t have to keep moving to obtain equal rights,” Rexroad said. “I believe it can happen here.”

Same-sex couples began marrying Monday following the state Supreme Court ruling this month striking down a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Republicans and social conservatives are now planning on making it an election issue in 2010.

GOP lawmakers blame Democrats for thwarting attempts to advance a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and say they intend to make it a campaign issue.

“Whether it be the pursuit of a constitutional amendment to give Iowans the right to vote on this issue; the establishment of residency requirements to obtain marriage licenses; or the appointment of future judges — none of these options are possible as long as Chet Culver remains governor and Democrats control the Iowa Legislature,” Paulsen, McKinley and Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn said in a statement to the media.

“Democratic legislators who campaigned at home to protect marriage and then hid behind procedural votes in Des Moines to thwart the will of the people will have to answer for their hypocritical actions in 2010.”

Likely GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats said he will use the issue in his battle against Culver in 2010.

“Chet Culver may not be listening to Iowans now, but I’m convinced he’s going to hear them loud and clear on Nov. 2, 2010, when they give him his pink slip and elect a governor who respects the will of the people,” Vander Plaats said.

Social conservatives are planning a separate attack to amend the state constitution – through a Constitutional Convention.

Once every decade, Iowa voters can decide whether to hold a convention. The question is scheduled to go on the ballot in November 2010 and needs only a simple majority.

Conservatives believe that if a Constitutional Convention is approved, they can convince delegates to vote for an amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

If voters approve holding a convention, and if enough delegates can be convinced to amend the constitution, the question could be put to voters in a special election, possibly in 2011.

Hundreds of same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses this week. If the constitution were to be amended, their marriages would be nullified.