Michigan Family Leader Predicts Iowans Will Reverse ‘Gay Marriage’ Activist Court Ruling

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, offered the following assessment to the Michigan Messenger on Iowa’s homosexual “marriage” ruling:

“Activist judges in Iowa proved once again today how right the American Family Association of Michigan was to call for a preemptive Marriage Protection Amendment constitutionally securing the definition of one-man, one-woman marriage in our state, and how right the people of Michigan were to overwhelmingly approve it. … Homosexual activists will of course now parade counterfeit ‘marriages’ through the streets of Des Moines for a while, as they did in California, but eventually the people of Iowa will have a chance to vote on the issue, and the result will be the same there as in Michigan and 29 other states.”

Note in the Michigan Messenger article that Illinois is viewed as a likely state for a court challenge like Iowa that produced the “gay marriage” decision:

—————————

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
April 3, 2009

Michigan gay rights advocates praise Iowa’s same-sex marriage court ruling

by Todd A. Heywood

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday morning struck down a state law restricting marriage to one man and one woman, and many Michigan residents are hailing the ruling that makes the Hawkeye State the first in the Midwest to OK same-sex marriage. However, the case will have little direct impact on Michigan.

“This is a great opinion,” said Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s Gay Lesbian Project. “This was a unanimous decision from Iowa’s Supreme Court and the first time we have a favorable opinion in the Midwest.”

“While the ruling itself is significant, the reasoning behind the unanimous decision is insightful, fair, and thorough,” said Julie Nemecek, co-director of Michigan Equality, a Lansing-based LBGT rights organization.

“It’s a different scenario there,” Kaplan said. “Iowa doesn’t have a constitutional amendment like we do. Its civil rights laws cover LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] people, and the make-up of its Supreme Court is different than what we have here. We’d have to repeal our constitutional amendment, replace several justices on the Michigan Supreme Court before we’d be able to see a decision like this here.”

Michigan voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 that banned gay marriage and other same-sex unions.

Still, Kaplan said, other states can look to Iowa’s ruling. “I think it sets a good template for states that are similarly situated to Iowa (in terms of laws, courts, etc.), and we may see more developments in marriage equality in the Midwest (possibly a successful challenge in Illinois in the future) — so that the successes are not just limited to the coasts.”

As gay rights groups across the country hail the ruling, opponents are not as happy.

Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan, opposed the ruling.
“Activist judges in Iowa proved once again today how right the American Family Association of Michigan was to call for a preemptive Marriage Protection Amendment constitutionally securing the definition of one-man, one-woman marriage in our state, and how right the people of Michigan were to overwhelmingly approve it,” he said. “Homosexual activists will of course now parade counterfeit ‘marriages’ through the streets of Des Moines for a while, as they did in California, but eventually the people of Iowa will have a chance to vote on the issue, and the result will be the same there as in Michigan and 29 other states.”

According to Lynda Waddington over at Michigan Messenger’s sibling site, The Iowa Independent, state law there does not have any residency requirements for marriage. This means same-sex couples could begin going to the Hawkeye State to get married, as was seen last year when California legalized same-sex marriage.

The Iowa Supreme Court judges are appointed by the governor, approved by the state Senate, then serve one year. At the end of the year they face a judicial retention election.