***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at [email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at: PO Box 112 Sioux Center, IA 51250

State Sen. Zach Nunn is running to flip Iowa’s Third Congressional District seat from blue to red. He’s hoping to unseat Democrat Congresswoman Cindy Axne, who has been supportive of the ultra-unpopular policies of President Joe Biden.

A number of TIS readers reached out asking if we knew where Nunn would stand on H.R. 8404, the bill to codify homosexual marriage, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and force all states to recognize a “marriage” from any other state — meaning whatever California may dream up for “marriage,” Iowa would have to also recognize.


Nunn was asked by KMA Radio for his position on the bill. In his initial answer, he referred to the Dobbs decision and abortion and the radical position Axne and congressional Democrats have taken, which is to offer abortion up until the day of birth.

He said that the bill codifying homosexual marriage and repealing DOMA is “political posturing” in an effort to distract voters from things that are “immediately impacting their lives.”

“Things that really matter to Iowans,” he said.

Nunn then referred to the largest tax cut in state history which was passed this last legislative session.

The reporter asked Nunn more specifically about the homosexual marriage issue and whether he agreed with Justice Clarence Thomas, who suggested the Supreme Court revisit previous decisions such as Obergefell.

“Eveyr dissenting opinion or a majority opinion can have a next level,” Nunn said. “I think here in Iowa we’re at a point now where we’re very comfortable with where marriage is. To go back and change those things — I would side with Congresswoman Hinson and Miller-Meeks have said — is that we’ve already established that in law. And more importantly, this is something that the states have not only a responsibility to, but in a state like Iowa, we have pretty well settled.”

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});


  1. Really? “ we’re very comfortable with where marriage is” in Iowa??? Has Nunn looked at the Iowa Republican platform? Hours, days, are spent getting the platform right. Why waste our delegate time writing it? Our representatives must not even look at it, much less read it.

  2. Although I personally would have preferred gay relationships be defined as LEGAL UNION, I believe any Republican attempt to change the law and nullify gay marriage would be disastrous to the future of the party. Hundreds, if not thousands of us have either family or close friends who are gay married and very happy and many are Republicans. Let’s not screw this up.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here