A February 2008 Iowa Poll showed that 62 percent of Iowans believed marriage should be only between one man and one woman, with only 32 percent saying it should not. According to the Des Moines Register, the poll showed majority support for civil unions.
"Marriage means a husband and wife. That’s not discrimination, that’s common sense," Gallagher continued in a press release. "Even in states like Vermont, where they are pushing this issue through legislatures, gay marriage advocates are totally unwilling to let the people decide these issues directly."
Doug Napier, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona, said Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act was "settled and overwhelmingly supported."
"There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage," he continued.
Speaking in a Friday statement, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality and a board member of Protect Marriage Illinois, characterized the decision as "judicial tyranny."
"Homosexual 'marriage' is wrong because homosexual behavior itself is wrong and destructive -- as proved by its role in the early deaths of countless 'gay' men," he argued, referencing Founding Father Noah Webster’s definition of the behavior as a "crime against nature."
LaBarbera further argued that "secular, public policy arguments" against same-sex "marriage" proposals ignored the evils of homosexual behavior.
The restoration of the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman will require the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment. The Des Moines Register says the amendment must be approved in consecutive legislative sessions and also in a public vote, meaning the reversal of the court’s decision might not take place until 2012.
The process could begin if lawmakers take up the issue in the next few weeks, but leaders said they had no plans to do so.
CNA spoke with Iowa Catholic Conference (ICC) Executive Director Thomas Chapman, who said the ICC will continue to advocate a constitutional amendment which would "reserve marriage to being between one man and one woman."
He said the effort has a chance at succeeding, adding "a lot will depend on the reaction of the Iowa people."
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
"Some legislative leadership hasn’t wanted to take up the issue at all. We do have an uphill climb, but it’s doable if we can get enough people involved."
Responding to the court’s argument, Chapman said it was telling that the court argued that equal protection, the basis of their decision is "defined by the standards of each generation."
"That kind of tells you where they were coming from," he told CNA.
Addressing the court’s characterization of the marriage controversy as a "religious debate," Chapman said Catholics do believe what they believe in terms of religious dogma, but also believe marriage between man and a woman is "a good policy decision."
It is important that a man and a woman "bring something unique to marriage."
"Now the law is teaching that it’s not really critical that one should have a mom and a dad in the home," he remarked.