Former Democratic state Rep. Ed Fallon has filed a formal ethics complaint against Republican state Sen. Merlin Bartz for “encouraging Iowans to pressure county recorders to break the law when same-sex couples begin to request marriage licenses.”
Bartz has begun a petition drive asking opponents of same-sex marriage to collect signatures and deliver them to county recorders demanding that they ignore the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage and deny marriage licenses to couples of the same gender. The court’s ruling goes into effect Monday.
“For a state senator to use his office and public resources to encourage other elected officials to disobey a unanimous ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court is unconscionable, and possibly a violation of state law,” Fallon said.
The complaint has been filed with the Senate Ethics Committee inquiring as to whether Bartz’s actions constitute a violation of his oath of office.
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller has already warned county recorders that refusal to issue a marriage license to same-sex couples would be a violation of the law and could result in being removed from office. Asked by The Des Moines Register if he was asking county recorders to engage in acts of civil disobediance, Bartz replied “I have to decide whether or not it’s civil disobedience. If you look at the code book, it hasn’t changed.”
In a statement to the Iowa Independent, Bartz said the petition drive is simply a way for Iowans to have their voices heard on the issue.
“They should have the opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, affirming the state law Defense of Marriage Act,” he said. “We have tried in the Senate on four occasions to let the voices of Iowans be heard on this issue and have been denied the opportunity all four times by obstructionist Democrats. This petition is a way for Iowans to finally let their voice be heard on this monumental issue.”
Ultimately, county recorders do not have the authority to decide whether to follow the court’s ruling, Miller said. The court’s ruling concluded that language “limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the [state] statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.”