you rock. If I lived in Iowa I would volunteer to campaign for you!

Marriage licenses aren't required in Iowa. Common law marriage is still legal here. Varnum v. Brien was about the right for same-sex couples to have any kind of marriage, not just a licensed one. This would make sense if you wanted to get rid of the $35 fee for marriage licenses, but same-sex marriage doesn't affect this issue either way and vice-versa.

What about those marriages not performed by clergy? As the state (government) provides a plethora of legal and financial benefits to married couples, shouldn't these costs be paid for, in part, by those who choose marriage? What about the costs associated with maintaining the vital statistics and records marriages create? Are you advocating eliminating marriage license requirements as well as all tax and legal benefits to marriages?

If someone is paying lower tax than others then the tax needs lowered across the board-that would be a fair system. The government was never meant to be in the marrying business.

Can you cite any of the above facts or are we supposed to take your word for it because you're a politician?

Randi, Is your view that marriage, whether it is same sex or opposite sex, should be left to the church or whatever organization that performs the ceremony?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license scroll down to the United States. You must do your research-do not take my word for it or anyone's for that matter. "By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we merely have privilege, not the right, to marry. As an example, those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license. Marriage is a contract between two people and God, so no authorization from the state is required. For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families.

Todd-I am not a politician. I'm running for a job to serve the people because others that have been in the public eye or in the political arena for quite some time have brought our state and our nation to it's knees. Being a senator is not something to be idolized or turned into celebrity status. I've been in the private sector doing my own thing for nearly 20 years. But since the government won't stay out of my business i'm going to get in theirs and put a stop to their overreach, well at least make a big dent. I'm going to point out every single unConstitutional thing they are doing. We do have laws and we have a small group of people that could care less about them. It's more about the revenue-as i've pointed out here.

You are welcome and B.A. Morelli, I hope that answered for you as well.

Daniel-you are funny. My points are simple and well made-have a good night.

As you had mentioned above:

One of the 3 part questions was "Should voters be allowed to decide whether to amend the State Constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman? Do you support the April 2009 Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage or do you oppose such unions? Should the Legislature impeach the four remaining justices who supported that unanimous decision? In response to the questions, I decided to help educate the voters on just how marriage licenses came to be.  I think it's rather fascinating and it's a part of history that no one talks about.

Is there a link you can offer to show the questions and the answers that where given? I understand the history you are sharing with us, however, the topic of the questions are still something that is very debatable. With many individuals it's a very touchy subject. That aside, given the history you have shared, wouldn't it seem that if the purpose of a marriage license is to bring in revenu, then it shouldnt be that difficult to pass a same sex marriage law. Wouldnt allowing same sex couples to marry just help bring in that much more money for the state?

Benjamin. This is the link you requested http://c3.thevoterguide.org/v/cedarrapids12/index.do
If you read my answers you will find the answers to your questions. Interesting side note, NOT 1 democrat answered the survey.

I don't see the answers to those questions anywhere on your website. If I'm wrong, can you link to the specific page? Is there some reason voters should not be allowed to know your views on those subjects?

But anyway, my question was directed to how the state laws would have to change if the state stopped issuing marriage licenses. Example: Suppose I die without a will. Under what circumstances will my significant other inherit my property? Only if we were married in a church? Only if we are straight and were married in a church? Something else? What's the answer?

Marriage is an unalienable right (endowed by our Creator).
I personally believe in traditional marriage.
I think that marriages should be between a single man and a single woman.

I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman quite frankly because this is not a federal issue.

My personal hope is that the states will stop sanctioning marriages altogether.
I think the government should just be out of it. I think marriages should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t even be having this argument of who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.

If we absolutely must have the government say something about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal. The reason I say this is it’s the people who have the say so, not the government. It’s We The People, not we the government. They were never supposed to be more powerful than the people.

Iowans should be granted the opportunity to vote on this issue; they should be given the facts and then the opportunity to have their say.

I have appreciated all of your friendly input. If you'd like to know more about my stand on issues being debated and or affecting our state/nation, please go to my website www.ShannonForSenate.com

I guess it boils down to this....it's going to come down to whatever group is more powerful at the voting booth. I have written my personal views but at the end of the day, the law and treatment will be what the people vote for. Whether the people vote for same sex marriage or 1 man 1 woman, then all rights the government grants will apply.

Chris -I don't get your comment. Once the people make a choice a law goes into effect. Whatever 1 man 1 woman is getting then it would all be the same. You have taken the blog subject and turned this into whether you are voting for me or not. If i win it's because you see my issues and you make a choice. IF the people vote for same sex marriage then why wouldn't they be treated the same-isn't this common sense? IF the people see it as 1 man 1 woman then a same sex couple will not be recognized with rights. I have made my position very clear. For me personally...I don't look to the government to give me anything and I certainly don't go to them for my unalienable rights that are endowed by my creator. I have in the past and I only received a headache :0) I'm headed out for the day. Chris I hope this answers your question. You have a super day!

I understand that people get to vote. Since you're running for a public office, we'd like to know what people will get if they vote for you. That seems like a pretty basic concept.

You have not made your position clear. Do you think that state law should ever treat same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples? Yes or no?

Hey Randi. As a Republican political candidate, what do you think of the Iowa Republicans for Freedom — the group of Iowa Republicans that are for same-sex marriage?

Ms. Shannon, if being able to marry is an "inalienable" right, isn't it inconsistent to then put that right up for a popular vote? Or, are you afraid to deviate from the party line laid out by the GOP's evangelical activists? And, if it's fair for voters to decide by ballot who gets rights, does that mean you're okay with us putting up for a vote which churches and denominations receive the government benefit of a tax exemption?

I'm not clear why people are having such a hard time understanding her standpoint. She made it resoundingly clear that the federal government should not be in the marriage business and made the entire blog entry about getting the state out of it. I was married by my father in law who is a pastor, to his daughter. That the state of Iowa had ANY business in telling me that was ok or not was a joke. Legal quandaries caused by the practice are a huge waste of resources and don't warrant the time and division they cause. Is that clear enough?

Chris, if you are so concerned about where your property goes when you die maybe you should take the responsibility to make a will. If you so desire, persons should be able to enter into civil contracts with one another and call it whatever they want... but they shouldn't expect preferential treatment or some grand acceptance and parade by the state over the issue. I am totally against preferential tax treatment for married individuals regardless of sex. What you all ought to be worried about is the innocents our Presidents kill in undeclared wars not authorized by the Constitution or the fact that your country is flat broke and looking for the next country to invade. Maybe even consider the helicopter drones they are building in and to be used by local police in cedar rapids.

Aaron -- People are going to die without wills sometimes. What should the law be in that circumstance? There has to be an answer, but neither you nor Randi Shannon has given one. The issue comes up in other circumstances, too. If I am suddenly incapacitated, who gets to make health care decisions on my behalf? My significant other? Or not?

Saying that you want to "get the state out of the marriage business" does nothing to answer those questions. There are different possible answers, but what we want to know is: under your answer, would the law ever treat same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples?

I'm actually getting these sense from you that your answer might be "no." But I'm not getting that sense at all from Randi Shannon, who is entirely avoiding the question. It's a simple yes-or-no question; either there would be different treatment, or not. It would be very easy to put the issue to rest just by answering it yes or no.

Aaron, there are over 1600 federal benefits accorded to married couples, e.g. Social Security survivor benefits. It is Utopian and impractical to assert, as you do, that the government "get out" of the "marriage business." To be blunt, I never heard a libertarian make that argument before same-sex marriage became an issue: is that because you cannot state explicitly your own opposition to it, but have to hide behind libertarian platitudes?

I can sum up in two words the over-emotional, over-simplistic and under-thought out sentiment of many in our country today: "Government Bad". The issues may rotate on a daily or weekly basis, but the "solution" always remains the same...eliminate this nebulous "government" monster by all means necessary.

Why do I need to sign a paper contract confirming my feelings toward somebody else? Lol! Randi/Rand 2016?!

Beyond all the diversions and side tracking their is a truth, the government should not be in the business of charging people who decide to commit to each other for life, not should they be in the business of charging people who decide to nullify that commitment. The government and law should only seek to protect written contracts.

If people choose to be legally connected to someone else
in terms of finances or property, that should be outlined in an individual contract between the two parties, not a third party who's involvement is based soley in its
Insistence to be there. There is a lot of riff raff about "what happens if someone dies" well that's what wills are for. And if the government did not tamper in marriage people would likely take wills more seriously as they should. If they don't property goes to next of kin, and ultimately and quickly people learn their lesson and take more accountability for themselves.

The end result is marriage is not a government but a religious institution. The government has no say, no place and no opinion about what happens in anyone's bedroom, or their church. It's involvement in marriage is merely an industry for them, a huge industry for marriage and a huge industry for the legal field when they go south. The government should not be involved in marriage to any degree, and furthermore marriages "definition" should be and is a religious matter not a legal one.

I'm a mind your own business Republican.

I cherish the autonomy of the individual. I prefer Liberty to central control. Liberty is diversity and the cornerstone of our country and If the people have there liberty, our society has strength through the diversity it brings

The government should not prop up one type of marriage, and they shouldn't try to prevent another.

Randi makes a interesting observation about the origin of marriage licenses and I think that speaks to and underlying theme:

We maintain an empire on other peoples holylands while carrying out an indiscriminate bombing campaigns while influencing oversees governments (friendly and unfriendly) with our foreign aid yet we wonder why we have a problem with anti- American extremism

In the past we have allowed special interests to turn a government approved food pyramid upside down all while subsidizing H.F. corn syrup making unhealthy food prevalent and cheap yet we wonder why we have an obesity epidemic.

And lests not forget our country's past regarding racial injustices, up to a certain point, it was government that promoted, incentives, protected and codified racialist slavery.

It was a peoples movement that helped to put a damper on racial injustices - yet for political purposes the government finally agreed on the civil rights act.

HE GOVERNMENT IS VERY GOOD AT GETTING OUT IN FRONT OF THE PARADE. THE POWERS THAT'S BE ARE SECURER IN THERE STATION IN LIFE BECAUSE THEY CREATE PROBLEMS AND THEN AT A LATTER POINT MASQUERADE THERE SELF'S AS THE SOLUTION TO THOSE PROBLEMS

The tradition in our country is to expand the rights of the people. For that reason I stand with Randi on the premises that the government has no role in marriage. If there are issues with inequitable tax rates, LOOK AT THE TAX CODE. AND IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH HOSPITAL VISITATION, LOOK AT THE LEGALIST AND PEDANTIC ASPECTS OF OUR INTERACTION WITH GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Randi is not the Republican establishment and she has all ready shown courage in standing up for the best in our country even if that puts her at odd with the big-wigs in our party.

Chris, I want you to consider that if there are certain things that prevent you from usually supporting a person with (R) in front of there name, you may find upon reflection that those concerns may not be warranted with Randi. I find open mindedness to be one of the best traits of Independents or democrats..

Shannon uses a typical neoconservative tactic here. Knowing that American conservatism historically has been soft on racism, she has to invent a narrative which shows conservative sympathy for civil rights, hence her story that state-issued marriage licenses began as a way for the postbellum South to regulate marriage. I've seen similar arguments about gun control: that such laws originated in order to control southern blacks.

Such narratives are half true, but still fanciful. Shannon says nothing about how tax policy, to name one, has been used to encourage behavior the society finds beneficial: hence tax policies which favor married couples over singles, or which allow deductions for children. And look at how strange the discussion has become: so many users here project their abstract ideal, always libertarian, of how society should work, because they cannot engage in the debate about the policies now in place. And, it is completely impractical and Utopian to insist that tax policy must be overhauled from top to bottom in order to conform to what Ayn Rand told them is politically correct.

Shannon and many commenters here are proposing scorched-earth social policy. They cannot state their opposition to same-sex marriage in arguments based on secular law, so their only recourse is to scrap the institution as currently configured so they can deny its benefits to same-sex couples.

Jeff-you give me too much credit . My story is simply about licenses being revenue for the government. This is a blog folks, a place to share information. From what I can tell no one is disagreeing with the main point of the story. I appreciate it when everyone can share their viewpoint civilly. Otherwise this isn't too much fun. I would hope that some are happy to have learned something and others are happy to share their information so that we may learn more or look at a different viewpoint. It's most definitely not for interjecting venom. Maybe a future blog will be on same sex vs man/woman but that is not where i'm going today. My thoughts are government is way way too big and if I can point out ways where we can find a way around forking over more to them then I'm going to do it. As for where the conversation was going-i'm going to guess it's going to end up being a Supreme Court Decision one day in the future. We are a divided nation and as long as it stays that way -people seem to miss what's really going on around us. Best wishes to you all and hope to see you back for future blogs. God Bless

Thanks everyone for being involved in this discussion, and thanks Randi for writing this post. Clearly, this blog has sparked many different viewpoints, which is what a good blog should do. But, as the conversation continues, please keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks.

At least the candidate is out here interacting with the public. Show me another candidate who is.

I personally believe people should be treated fairly. I personally see "marriage" as a religious ceremony, although many who have researched this take it way back, will disagree. So that is an argument that probably will never end. I’m not going to go all the way back to Nero or Roman Times, I’m here in America and Iowa specifically. I personally believe that if you are giving a benefit or tax relief to one it should be across the board but this is a government victory, you see-pitting people against each other and the people lose out. I believe we should have never started agreeing or complying with the government for a license for this and a license for that. This is government overreach which makes them like a god with control over the people their actions their families their privacy etc. Marriages were done within families or with pastors. I prefer this. If the government doesn't have the ability to track your lineage or keep records on you then I say all the better. As for SS etc., who's going to be getting it anyway-they've already spent it and now you must hope to live to be 80-as they want to collect it from you your whole life and hope you drop dead before you can collect it. As far as being recognized by having a 'license' or if you are same sex and married or man/woman married-it's a government overreach-why beg them for permission?

They just see you as a slave who's come a begging and when/if you get a divorce you must beg them again and pay more fee's and God help you if you had children. They become property of the state. Does this sound like a great thing you'd like to recommend anyone be a part to? So the purpose of my blog post is to educate as many as I can to this and to hope that some will find answers. If I’m elected I will vote to shrink the government any way I can. If it's unconstitutional I will not be in favor of it-that goes for any legislation-so please don't read into that. Now down to the nitty gritty...what you have asked for. I would vote to uphold the sanctity of marriage, that is the word we use here in our nation for 1 man and 1 woman, marriage is the word that is used. That has been the definition. Because someone is of a different mind, does not mean they can ethically change the definition of words to suit themselves. Civil union is another way of saying you are 'partners' and receive the same tax benefits or SS income or whatever are in those 1600 benefits.
I am very open and work very hard to clearly communicate situations and positions on them. I appreciate feedback that I can learn from. Any remaining disagreements will be resolved at the polls. Three Iowa Supreme Court justices learned that people do have a say about how things ultimately get decided. I strongly support the people’s right and responsibility to have their say. Joe, I look forward...

to meeting too, as well as anyone else that wishes to meet. Again I appreciate all the posts and I'll see you on the next blog!

Through most of human history and in most cultures the most widely accepted tradition of marriage has been polygamy -- one man and multiple women. We're not just talking about exotic island cultures or lost tribes in the African jungle. Polygamy is the family form most often mentioned in the first five books of the Old Testament. For the first 16 centuries of its existence, the Catholic Church held that marriage was inherently tainted by what Pope Gregory the Great deemed the degrading "carnal pleasure" that took place under its auspices. The church decided that a man and woman were married if they had exchanged "words of consent," even if they had done so out by the haystack, without any witnesses or involvement by a priest. Not until 1215 did the Catholic Church make marriage a sacrament, and not until 1563 did it begin to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage legitimate. Sixteenth-century Protestant reformers had a much more positive marriage a sacrament, and not until 1563 did it begin to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage attitude toward the blessedness of marriage than Catholics.

Randi, I'm uncomfortable with the mentality I infer from you here. You dismiss marriage licenses as a revenue scam, imply those of us who are legally married are dupes or slaves, all in order to conform to the unreasoned prejudice of Republicans who refuse to accept same-sex marriage. I'm also concerned that you are not a good listener, and value your own ideas so much you will not consider reasoned rebuttals: those are qualities which I don't like to see in an elected official who will have to represent the interests of people who didn't vote for her while working with Democrat lawmakers whose ideas differ from your own.

Jeff- you like Obama-I don't. Tell us all what you like about him? Please be specific in your answer. Thanks

The thing about writing is often times there is no tone to it, but readers tend to take it the way they are feeling or thinking at the moment. You should call direct and have a conversation with me, you'll find i'm about as easy to talk to as it gets. I found your facebook page and saw something there in your likes about Obama and it would seem to go hand in hand with your writings here. Also it seems from your writing you have a lot of anger of which I don't have and you would find that out when we speak. Writing like this is incredibly impersonal and easy for people that are just the nice people next door to all of a sudden attack and speak in ways they wouldn't normally, because they believe (mostly) that no one will ever be able to put a face to the name. I have made my points clear. I've hardly dodged a thing. Go to the start and read the post. Either way, whatever way you decide to take it, I have made my statements and i've been clear. You just don't like my answer. Government granted marriage licenses are an overreach and are there for the revenue. As for your post about being appalled on the renewal of the Patriot Act, the association with the financial industry, his aggressive military movements, the drones for assisination etc. we ARE in agreement. So maybe you liked his page for another reason, I have had to do that to make comments on peoples pages, so I would understand that.
Folks God Bless You all! I wish you all the best and I thank you for a

great dialogue here! Till the next post............

Jeff what is hilarious is your constant rude response. You believe because I a regular citizen am running you now have the right to kick another human being and you stand on your soapbox bloating like a goat-and yet you say all should be treated fairly and humanely-what hypocrisy on your part . I SAID all should be treated =. I never said a private ceremony OR a bought license made you not married. You OBVIOUSLY have NOT read my posts. I can promise you this-this girl isn't your typical politician and I'm NOT afraid to speak my mind. I have allowed you enough time wasting. We are WE THE PEOPLE, NOT we the states or we the federal government. They don't speak for me.

All, this is quite a lively debate. Let me add something here. Many people who are Christians object to gay marriage. I do, based on the Scripture. However, this does not give me a right to force on them my religious views. It does not give me the right to use state force. Likewise, the gay couple should have no right to force me to recognize their union. I should not have to do business with them either. They should not be forced to do business with me. In a free country, there are certain things we will have to put up with if we want to remain free, some of them are immoral and disgusting. I would advocate that if you go out and be involved in your community, that you can make the moral changes on the culture you wish to take place. The government should not interfere in this aspect either. If you do not like to hear someone preaching the gospel, go somewhere else. It is free speech. The same goes if you do not like someone advocating for positions you do not like. Too bad! In ancient Rome, particularly Corinth, there was rampant prostitution and homosexuality there. Rome never interfered with it. Yet, Christianity flourished there. Why? Because people were involved with the culture and engaged them. Today we have busybodies who are much involved with government force instead of engaging the culture.

continued........Politicians will always be there to divide and conquer. This is what they do and how they "stay in office." When realize the government should be small and out of our lives, we will experience a true change in this country. If people want to make a change in a state and use state force, I guess I have to just sit back and take it since I do not engage my culture. What do you think?

The problem I have with the Christians is not the religion but the fact that they want everyone to be Christian. They for the most part don't seem to understand that not everybody is a Christian. I for once would like to have a discussion with them on a subject like this with out having to bring up the bible. They can't seem to figure out that saying God said so in the Bible does not convince me. You don't see other Religions coming here and saying to the Christians it has to be this way because Buda says so. Lord Shiva said it should be this way but they always have to tell you what Christ wants. The same chapter of the Bible that calls a man laying with a man an abomination also says eating shellfish in an abomination but you never see the Christians protesting in front of Red Lobster or partitioning the state house to pass a law banning calm chowder because it offends God. The thing I have found is many Christians have very little knowledge of their own bible they only know what their priest/minister tells them but few read the whole thing for themselves. I just get tired of being told I need to follow Jesus all the time.

Randi, you appear to be quite an adept politician! Soooo many words when the questions posed could easily have been answered in a few succinct sentences.

FTR, you cannot treat people equally & deny gay couples the right to marry. Nor do gay marriages pose any threat to heterosexual marriages. Those who support banning gay marriage are supporting blatant bigotry.

States Rights is such a disingenuous dodge...It's nothing more than an attempt to deny &/or limit personal liberty under the guise of protecting the 'rights' of voters to decide deeply personal issues that s/b outside their purview. Individuals can & should make such decisions without the unholy interference of pandering politicians & a judgmental, paternalistic populace.