Looks like Iowa’s congressional conservatives are putting the constitutional amendment on hold, in favor of pushing a residency requirement for marriage, to prevent people from coming in from other states to get hitched:
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, urged the Legislature to do so, saying he feared without residency requirements Iowa would “become the gay marriage mecca.”
I’m just thinking out loud here, but two potential consequences of such a bill are worth considering:
1. Think about the economic impact of being the only state without a view of the Atlantic that can host gay weddings, etc. Are we really looking to curb that? During a deep recession?
2. The residency requirement may actually keep gay marriage legal in Iowa in the long-term. It seems that such a law would inspire more gay couples to actually move to Iowa, Iowa City already being a very friendly place to such couples, in order to marry. Once they have legal residency and get married, if they stick around, they’ll be eligible to vote on the constitutional amendment when conservatives finally get around to putting it on the ballot in 2012 or 2014. According to Nate Silver at 538 (h/t to Sullivan for that), polls show by 2013 such an amendment would be likely to fail anyway. Attracting more gay couples to become voting residents of Iowa could provide that little push against the amendment a year earlier.
