Op-Ed: TIR Poll Reveals Political Elites In Trouble
- Friday, July 24, 2009, 6:45
- Iowa
- 995 views
- 20 comments
By Bryan English
The fact that nearly 70% of Iowa voters want the right to define marriage in the Iowa Constitution should come as no surprise to anyone. Thanks to the arrogance of the Iowa Supreme Court, and the impotence of both the Governor and the Legislature to do anything about it, the outrage among the public is tangible and only likely to increase. In an environment where people feel helpless to stop the government’s wholesale mortgaging of their children’s futures, free speech is being exchanged for hate crimes laws, and the moral foundation that was once the strength of a great nation is being systematically undermined, it is no wonder that everyday Americans are ready to take back the political power our founders gave us.
There is no guarantee that if the Iowa Marriage Amendment were to come to the people for a vote, that it would become a part of the Iowa Constitution. However, if the 30 other states that have passed marriage amendments to their constitutions are any indication, the vast majority of the nearly 70% of Iowans who want to vote on marriage would likely support passage of the amendment. In any case, the people of Iowa seem determined to send a message to their lawmakers and the courts. That message is clear, “You work for us,” and “we have the final say.”
Marriage is an institution that cannot be fundamentally redefined. Iowans intuitively know, as do most people, that marriage is and can only be the union of one man and one woman. If it were not for the long term implications to society of treating court-fabricated homosexual “marriages” as valid, the events of last April would be little more than a punch line to the Iowa jokes they tell in Minnesota. Unfortunately, the actions of the Iowa Supreme Court, in collusion with the Iowa Attorney General, perpetrated on the people of Iowa, and upon the Iowa Constitution, a breach not only of the obvious nature of marriage but also of the boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers.
So, people who support one man, one woman marriage because they understand its important role in society, find themselves marching in lock step with Constitutional purists who might not otherwise be as motivated by the issue of marriage. Add to that the tea party movement and the general dissatisfaction among voters with an increasingly pompous political class, and what you have is a brewing political storm unlike anything in recent memory.
Much of the political establishment in Iowa has worked to create a perception that marriage is a back burner issue at best. The talking points from the a-moral political hacks working the Republican side of the street mirror those of the supporters of the sodomy caucus among the Democrats. They all want to focus on the economy and the budget. Well, the truth is, social conservatives didn’t create the economic problems, and they are not the cause of the budget woes. Credit for those problems lay squarely at the feet of the two groups working the hardest to use the economy to distract people from the marriage issue.
Last week’s TIR poll numbers on marriage indicate that the people of Iowa are not distracted, and that they are not confused about the work that needs to be done to restore the Constitutional separation of powers and the definition of marriage in Iowa. The political elites ought to stop and take notice.
Marriage will play a major role in the next election. It appears that anyone running for office in 2010 will need to find a way to distance themselves from the current political establishment if they want to win. As an added layer of security, current lawmakers might want to consider banning the public display of pitch forks and torches leading up to the next election.
Bryan English is the Director of Public Relations & Outreach at the Iowa Family Policy Center.
About the Author
The Iowa Republican has written 548 stories on this site.
20 Comments on “Op-Ed: TIR Poll Reveals Political Elites In Trouble”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bryan, I disagree that marriage is going to play a major role in the 2010 election. Like it or not, the economy is first and foremost in the minds of the vast majority of voters and will continue to be for some time. I’m not saying we should ignore it, but to make it the highlight of the campaign like BVP has is not going to bring in the independents and libertarian-minded voters the GOP needs to attract to win elections. I talk to these people regularly and believe me, they are being turned off what they have perceived(rightly or wrongly) as an attempt by some social conservatives to make the GOP “God’s Own Party”. You have been around politics long enough to understand perception can make or break a candidate, it works the same for the party.
Timmy: This is probably an attempt to promote the candidacy of VP. Considering the fact that VP is a member of the Reformed church which has full fellowship with the ELCA with ordains homosexuals, one has to scratch our heads to try to figure out the reason for this desire to promote VP.
Rod Roberts is far better. We know he’s no hypocrite on the issue of religion.
DVFO,
VP wasn’t mentioned in this article. I’m okay if you don’t like VP, but are you serious about making the connection to VP and ordained homosexuals. REALLY? You bash him day after day about his stance on the gay marriage issue, and then try to say we have to scratch our heads about VP. Really, how does that work? I’m glad you can read Wikipedia, or wherever you got this crap about the Reformed Church, but its completely misleading.
Like I’ve said before, go support your candidate, but be intellectually honest before you start slinging mud. Your comment doesn’t help the party, it doesn’t help any of the candidates, and it certainly doesn’t further your Christianity.
Thinking: I have not been bashing VP.
There are those on this website that have inferred that unless others agree with them on the candidacy of VP, they are not Christian enough.
Now this. If you want to ignore this info, then it shows you do not WANT to know the truth.
I had to google to verify that VP was indeed a member of the Reformed Church.
The info about the Reformed Church is true. I’ve known it for a long time. I just hadn’t put together the fact that VP belonged to that church. But every word I said about the Reformed Church is true.
>Much of the political establishment in Iowa has worked to create a perception that marriage is a back burner issue at best.
I think you’re talking about me. But I’m not involved in politics at all. Not establishment. Not even close to old enough for that.
> The talking points from the a-moral political hacks working the Republican side of the street mirror those of the supporters of the sodomy caucus among the Democrats.
Oooh, ooh, you’re talking about me again! I have no morals. Wait, I mean, I don’t go to church, but I *do* have morals. “Sodomy”-caucus. Nice…way to really frame the discussion.
> They all want to focus on the economy and the budget.
Stupid moderates. My favorite quote goes something like this: “It’s the gay marriage, stupid!”. I think I remember that right…
> Well, the truth is, social conservatives didn’t create the economic problems, and they are not the cause of the budget woes. Credit for those problems lay squarely at the feet of the two groups working the hardest to use the economy to distract people from the marriage issue.
Ah, this is the “not created here” mentality. Let’s make sure we assign blame first, and then state that since we didn’t create it, we don’t have to fix it. And we shouldn’t worry about the economy anyway until these gross gays stop marrying each other.
> So, people who support one man, one woman marriage because they understand its important role in society, find themselves marching in lock step with Constitutional purists who might not otherwise be as motivated by the issue of marriage.
Not at all. Provide some evidence and maybe I’ll believe you. If I remember correctly, our constitution talks about our freedoms, not our restrictions and the right to discriminate. I want *less* government, not a government telling me that I can’t marry another consenting adult. Leave that to the church.
It’s the economy, stupid. (I don’t really think you’re stupid, just ignorant)
DVFO,
Its also true that Evangelicals, Catholics, and Lutherans have cheated on their wives, have had homosexual relationships, and abused children. I bet some of those pastors have even talked to people from other religions. Everything you said about the Reformed Church may be true, but is it misleading with regards to VP. Can you honestly contend that VP is a hypocrite on the issue of religion as you suggest? If you can thats fine, but it seems like a very misleading and misguided argument you are attempting to make.
Thinking: First, I’m going to ask you to not misrepresent what I say. That is not Christian.
Where does Evangelicals, Catholics and Lutherans cheating on their wives, etc., have anything to do with this discussion.
I was pointing out official positions of the Reformed Church. Go to their website and see for yourself and also read the article about the Reformed ministers blessing the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.
I said that how do we know what is in the heart of VP if he claims to put the marriage issue as his primary issue and yet attends a church that at best refuses to call homosexuality a sin and is even in full communion with a denomination who openly ordains homosexuals.
This means that it is conceivable for a homosexual to conduct religious services in a Reformed church. It is confusing at best.
For those who have claimed that unless the rest of us support VP, we are not good enough Christians, now you have to justify the very church that VP attends.
Again, you accuse me of not helping the party or the candidates and I’m certainly not furthering my Christianity–whatever that means.
If (notice I say IF) you’re part of the Deace crowd, your intention is to destroy the party and all candidates except for VP. Again, you’re inferring you’re a better Christian than I.
If you’re going to judge others on whether you think they’re good enough Christians, you’re going to have to be willing to be judged by others. I don’t like this elitist attitude and there is no end to where we stop in judging others.
Bryan, I think you underestimate the Conservative’s ability to walk AND chew gum at the same time. Mark Levin’s best selling book asserts that Conservatives can not be divided into different groups. A true Conservative believes in limited government and personal responsibility in fiscal as well as social issues.
flames, thank you!!
flames, you have hit the nail on the head! Conservatives CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. A winning platform includes a storng position on several key issues like marriage and government spending. Be wary of so-called conservatives who want to run away from the marriage issue. They can’t be trusted with the economy either.
DVFO,
You need to be careful assuming that Bob Vander Plaats goes to a church that endorses the homosexual agenda. It is even further disturbing to hear you call him a hypocrit before doing your research. (And a simple google search is not acceptable.)
First, did you confirm specifically what type of reformed church he goes to? The term reformed church is extremely ambigous. There is the Reformed Church of America (RCA), the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), the United Reformed Church (URC), the Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPC), the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), Protestant Reformed Church (PRC), and Reformed Church in the US (RCUS) just to name a few of them.
Second, these denominations do not all agree with the same moral values. Obviously with a wide variety of church denominations that assume the reformed name, there are many different opinions and some are more liberal that others. To just lump everyone into the same fold is just plain wrong.
You claim that you are not mud slinging to lump a person into a group of people without knowing the facts. (And yes, a simple google search is not enough information.) I am more than willing to hear the information that you want to present but you should atleast take the time to develop a well thought out organized thought. Try finding which specific denomination he is from, try finding his specific churches stance, try finding the official stance of his denomination, and etc.
Sorry, but I am going to disagree with you, Timmy. I do think that there are several issues that are extremely important to people right now. Although you think the budget is very important (which it absoutely is) there are also people that are very passionate in their beliefs about gay marriage. Although I do not believe in gay marriage, I would rather not have “an executive order the first day” to change this. I believe this is a very important issue and people should be able to vote to change it. Those that don’t want a vote, what are they so afraid of? If 70% of people want to vote to change gay marriage, then put it in the hands of the people.
If I understood the poll correctly it said 70% wanted to vote on the issue. That doesn’t necessarily mean they all want to vote against it. I’m not any happier about the Varnum decision than most of you, but let’s make absolutely sure we are on solid ground before we focus the campaign on “gay marriage”.
I agree with you that 70% wanted to vote on it–not necessarily to change it. I was just trying to make a point that I do think that it is important issue to many people right now.
Anyone who doesn’t think that the marriage issue will be an important issue in the 2010 elecion has their head in the sand. Iowa will be a battleground on this issues as groups on both sides of this issue will arrive to duke this out..
Excellent Article Bryan. There are enough people out there that are fed up with their elected officials that we do not have to compromise. There are several people ALREADY coming forward that are good on everything including Social and Fiscal issues. Our only problem will be which candidate do we run who is a true conservative. There are so many that are good on the Marriage issue as well as the economy. From where I am standing, that is an extremely good problem to have.
Speaking as someone that goes to the exact same church as BVP, I can tell you that our church has absolutely no problem calling homosexuality as sin. I can send you the sermon on CD if you’d like.
It’s a Reformed Church of America church and, yes, if you do go to the website it does look our denomination is having a “discussion” regarding homosexuality. Seems like it should be a pretty quick discussion, but it looks like it isn’t. However, there is no question about where our specific church stands on this issue. At least for now!
Tyler, thank you for posting this. Your post verifies 100% what I said. The problem is your denomination is on a steep slippery slope. Of course, there are individual churches that are not yet preaching the acceptance of homosexuality and abortion but you’re getting there and by affiliating yourself with the NCC and being in full fellowship with the ELCA (which already ordains homosexuals while the Bishop looks the other way) you will have this coming to your church soon.
Liberals do not give up.
My remarks were not made to disparage VP. My remarks were made to show the hypocrisy of those who claim they have a direct pipeline to God and God says we’re to support VP (or any other specific candidate) or risk going straight to hell without passing GO.
These “Christian elites” think they’re morally superior to others and they’re even insulting to anyone who may disagree with them.
dvfO wrote: “These “Christian elites” think they’re morally superior to others and they’re even insulting to anyone who may disagree with them”
I looked for some kind of emoticon after that sentence because I sure was hoping you wrote that with tongue fully in-cheek. That sounds like a looking-in-the-mirror description of dvfO himself.
A little clue, Con Dim: I am NOT Deace.