Vander Plaats Grabs the Cover of Citizen Magazine
- Friday, October 16, 2009, 4:30
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,399 views
- 97 comments
The November cover of Focus on the Family’s Citizen magazine features a familiar face – Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats. In this addition of the magazine, columnist John Pailton looks ahead to the 2010 elections while also examining Vander Plaats’ pledge to restore the definition of marriage in the state of Iowa.
Citizen magazine examines how Vander Plaats has used the marriage issue to spur his gubernatorial campaign. It documents how Vander Plaats was invited to speak to a small group of pastors about the marriage issue. The article states that 50 to 75 people were expected, but 538 showed up to hear what Vander Plaats had to say about the marriage issue.
The article also points out that while all of the Republican candidates for governor take pro-marriage positions, it is Vander Plaats who has distinguished himself from his opponents on the issue. Pailton writes, “[W]hat sets Vander Plaats apart is his decisive commitment to take action as soon as he takes office. He calls his planned executive order the Foundation Proclamation, with an overt nod to Abraham Lincoln, who objected to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision and later issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation.”
Vander Plaats also clearly articulates the three areas in which he believes the Court overreached by claiming powers in their decision that they do not possess. Vander Plaats said, “They legislated from the bench by saying Iowa will be a same-sex marriage state. They don’t have that ability to make law, only the legislature does. Second, they executed it from the bench by saying that all 99 counties will follow suit. They have no executive authority. That belongs solely to the governor of Iowa. Third, they intended to amend the constitution by saying they’re holding up Iowa’s constitution to an evolving standard. And obviously they don’t have that ability. Only the people of Iowa have the ability to amend the constitution.”
The feature story on Vander Plaats comes at a good time for his campaign. With former Governor Terry Branstad’s emergence into the Republican primary, Vander Plaats is going to need to raise more money than ever before to keep his campaign viable. Having his picture on the cover of Focus of the Families magazine will help Vander Plaats create more credibility for his campaign, which will lead to more political contributions.
The November issue also features Iowa State Representative Kent Sorenson. The Sorenson article tells the story about how the marriage issue led him to seek office in 2008. In a phone call with Rep. Sorenson last night, he wanted to make sure that people understand that it’s not Republicans who are obsessed with gay marriage in Iowa. Sorenson said, “It’s people like Tim Gill who have brought the issue of gay marriage to the forefront in Iowa, not Republicans who continue to fight for traditional marriage.”
Rep. Sorenson has decided to not seek re-election to his house seat next fall. Instead, Sorenson will challenge State Senator Staci Appel, the wife of an Iowa Supreme court justice, next fall. The Sorenson race is bound to be ground zero for the fight to protect traditional marriage.
Focus on the Family distributes its Citizen magazine all across the county and it can also be purchased in Christian book stores.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
97 Comments on “Vander Plaats Grabs the Cover of Citizen Magazine”
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.
Looks like the first four commenters (actually ‘trackbackers’) is showing interest from the light-in-the-loafer crowd.
Geeze Mr Robinson, you might pick up a whole new batch of readers and commenters now from that part of the spectrum.
This carries about the same weight as an endorsement from deace, who else would they pick? I like how they support his “decisive commitment” to take action(and over-step his authority) as soon as he takes office. I wonder if they think the same of Obama’s “decisive commitment” to basically go around his Constitutional authority by dictating control of GM & Chrysler as well as appointing and installing a host of “Czars” without the approval fo Congress?
Could somebody call stylist Rachel Zoe! That shirt and tie combo makes me sick to my stomach. He doensnt need a red tie or anything that conservative but seriously.
Bruce,
Good to see you’re all about the issues.
I keep hearing that BVP is not a 1 issue candidate, but then he only seems to make headlines for his support of the marriage issue.
Hey BVP, it’s the economy stupid!!!!
So he should trade one issue for another? That would still make him a single-issue candidate. I want more in my governor.
Jeff,
If I could convince you that the legalization and eventual, resultant normalization of homosexuality will be bad for the economy, would you then start to care about the social issues?
> If I could convince you that the legalization and eventual, resultant normalization of homosexuality will be bad for the economy, would you then start to care about the social issues?
Peggy, I see your point, but my answer is no. If could convince you that segregation of schools caused children to perform better, would you help to fight this “dangerous” school integration? I certainly hope not. To me, homosexual marriage (or “sodomy” marriage as Deace likes to call it when talking about 2 dudes getting married) is a civil right to me.
I respectfully disagree with you, and BVP, on the marriage issue..
> So he should trade one issue for another? That would still make him a single-issue candidate. I want more in my governor.
No, but he currently only makes headlines for 1 thing. He is going to be *perceived* as a single issue candidate…which is almost as bad as actually being a 1 issue candidate. This is a bad thing for him if he wins the primary.
Because he can’t win as being the “anti-gay” candidate. That’s how the Democrats will paint him. And as much as that will get the conservative vote out, it also encourages many socially liberal independents, democrats, and socially liberal republicans to vote for the guy that isn’t the anti-gay candidate.
Peggy – everyone knows that you don’t wear horizontal stripes anymore. It’s all diagonal these days. I’m just trying to help!
Explain to me why you think it’s a civil right for two people of the same sex to ‘marry’ each other.
“No, but he currently only makes headlines for 1 thing. He is going to be *perceived* as a single issue candidate…which is almost as bad as actually being a 1 issue candidate.”-jeff
And, so far, TEB supporters are touting his ability to turn the state around financially. I’ve yet to hear one of his supporters talk about same sex marriage.
So, what’s the difference between the two? Are your pet issues more important that mine? Why can’t they have a conservative stance on all issues? Is that too much to ask?
Don’t ask me to give up what you’re not also willing to give up.
> Explain to me why you think it’s a civil right for two people of the same sex to ‘marry’ each other.
Ok, I’ll do my best. What business does government have in determining which consenting adults can get married? Why does the state care at all? We are talking about 2 adults, that *choose* to form a legal contract with one another.
Religion can have it’s own say, but they state should not.
I’ll leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson when talking about freedom of religion…it applies (in my opinion) to 2 consenting adults forming a legal marriage.
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” — Thomas Jefferson
> Are your pet issues more important that mine? Why can’t they have a conservative stance on all issues? Is that too much to ask?
I would disagree that the economy is a pet issue. What affects you more? When you can’t get a job, or when 2 chicks you don’t know get married?
Obviously, your answer to my last question is, “Yes, my pet issues ARE more important than yours.”
> Obviously, your answer to my last question is, “Yes, my pet issues ARE more important than yours.”
No, obviously I disagreed with your premise. The economy is not a pet issue.
Peggy..
BVP has already made himself a single issue candidate…no matter what you try to say otherwise.
He’s already given media interviews saying..and I quote “I’m betting my entire campaign around this issue” (gay marriage)
Not exactly smart strategy there Pegster. Lets just say BVP gets through the primary…think the Democrats are going to talk about the economy when dealing with BVP? Of course not!
They’ll savage him over and over again that he’s a bigot, homophobe..yadda yadda yadda.
Culver won’t even have to defend his record on anything else! Peggy..you do realize that Mike Kiernan and the gang over at IDP are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of a BVP vs Culver race right now…
When Branstad officially gets in the race….he’ll make his position clear on the issue..but he’s not going to make it the singular issue that his campaign is based upon.
We’ve all seen what happens to single issue candidates, Peggy…..and BVP has done that to himself.
Lets see I remember another single issue candidate by the name of John McCain. All he was good at talking about was the war. I seem to remember the economy crashing and seeing it become apparent that Johnny Mac didn’t know jack about the economy.
Johnny talked about a lot of issues, kinda like Bob does. But at the end of the day there is just one thing he’s really good talking about, marriage. Like it or not, BVP is the marriage candidate. That means if thats your biggest issue, and it is to some, he will be your candidate. If you don’t wake up thinking about our culture every morning them he’s not going to be your candidate.
Jeff,
Two consenting adults can enter into a legal contract to seal practially anything without attempting to equate what they do with heterosexual marriage.
There is no gay gene so you can’t equate the homosexual state with gender or race.
Simply saying that one is born with an inclination and desires to act on it does not make it a “civil right.” If that were true, alcoholics could make the same claim and the state supreme court would have to rule that OWI’s, public intox charges and open container violations are discrimination of a protected class.
HawkCR1,
Where did you come from? I asked you a pointed question several times yesterday and you didn’t answer.
Will you support BVP if he wins the primary?
“They’ll savage him over and over again that he’s a bigot, homophobe..yadda yadda yadda.” HCR1
And you’ll be all over the blogs to denounce their charges, right?
You TEB supporters expect the socons to have your back but you’re not willing to do the same for us.
“What affects you more? When you can’t get a job, or when 2 chicks you don’t know get married?” — Jeff
Jeff, the radical homosexual lobby couldn’t have accomplished anything were it not for the naivete of people like yourself.
Are you a father? What’s more important to you, how big your paycheck is or your child’s daycare being required by law to hire a transsexual who turned in an application?
What would you wake up thinking about every day, Jeff? How about your wife?
If BVP is our nominee…Yes..I’d work to support him. However, we won’t be able to run the type of campaign that would have the best amount of success to defeat Culver AND help our legislative candidates win.
We would constantly be fighting accusations that we’re all a bunch of bigoted homophobes…that all the Republican Party is about is gay marriage. Why? Because BVP has already publicly said he’s “betting his entire campaign” around the gay marriage issue.
Whomever our nominee is..they become the standard bearer for our party’s efforts in 2010…and next year is critical for Republicans to take back at least the Iowa House next year and make some gains back in the Senate. That job becomes that much more difficult if our nominee has an albatross hanging the neck that makes that job much more difficult.
> Simply saying that one is born with an inclination and desires to act on it does not make it a “civil right.” If that were true, alcoholics could make the same claim and the state supreme court would have to rule that OWI’s, public intox charges and open container violations are discrimination of a protected class.
Ok, then let’s compare homosexuality to religion. Because according to you, both of those are *choices* (I completely disagree that homosexuality is a choice, but for the sake of argument lets pretend).
Should the government have an interest in what religion you choose? Should it say that a mentally sound adult can’t be a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or Hindu, or a Catholic? No, of course not, because it doesn’t matter to the state.
I’ll reprint my Jefferson quote with a few tweaks (see my post above for the original TJ quote):
“But it does me no injury for my adult female neighbor to marry another woman. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”
> Are you a father? What’s more important to you, how big your paycheck is or your child’s daycare being required by law to hire a transsexual who turned in an application?
My children don’t go to daycare. I am fortunate because my wife is able to raise our children…not someone I don’t know. My wife has 2 advanced degrees…she could make lots of money but we believe raising our children ourselves is best for them, and for us.
> What would you wake up thinking about every day, Jeff? How about your wife?
Gay people. All day, everyday I think about dudes having sodomy. It makes me so angry. I just want to get back at them for being so gross. Oh WAIT, that’s *not* what I think about at all.
I wake up thinking about what I need to do that day. Then on the way to work I listen to the radio and I occasionally start thinking about how Culver has really done a horrible job and is really demonstrating incompetence. I worry about him pushing Union legislation through in our state. I worry about how his terrible performance is costing Iowans jobs, and damaging our educational system.
I worry that BVP will get elected and he will only focus on gay marriage and will do just as bad a job as Culver. BVP hasn’t demonstrated any ability to turn a company or political entity around…quite the opposite.
We are in the midst of the worst economic crisis in our country since the 20’s….we need someone that understands the economy and can fix it…we don’t need someone to define marriage…..religion does a good job of that for people.
Jeff,
I gave you a hypothetical which means you’re supposed to mentally place yourself in that situation. IF your child were in daycare (or, if you can bring yourself to, think of someone else who might be stuck in this nightmare) how would you like it if your child were being babysat five days a week by a cross-dressing transsexual? Sure, you could take your child to another daycare but what of the single mother who might not have any other options, i.e., can’t afford to go elsewhere, location doesn’t work, etc.?
“I worry about how his terrible performance is costing Iowans jobs, and damaging our educational system.” — Jeff
So, you’re worried about our educational system? How’s that?
I agree that BVP has made himself a single issue candidate, but Gay Marriage is not the issue. The issue is Judicial Activism. The State Supreme Court Violated the State Constitution in 3 different ways (all of which are outlined in the above article) and BVP is fighting tooth and nail to get people to understand THIS IS NOT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE! It is about Freedom vs Tyranny! The Rule of Law vs the Rule of the Lawyers! The State Supreme Court does not interpret law. They issue Judicial Rulings on specific individual cases brought before them, and they issue Judicial Opinions on law. The Opinions are what they base their Individual Case Rulings on, but they do NOT have any bearing on the law itself. Only the State Legislature can write, rewrite, amend, or repeal law. Only the State Governor can issue statements to the County Recorders instructing them to execute their duties in a specific way. Only The People can redefine, reinterpret, or amend the State Constitution. THE STATE SUPREME COURT in their handling of Varnum vs Brien trampled all over the State Constitution, the State Legislature, the State Governor, and The People.
The Single issue is not the case Varnum vs Brien. It is the Courts Actions in ruling on that case.
I can’t post anything – it’s calling it spam. Later.
“BVP hasn’t demonstrated any ability to turn a company or political entity around…quite the opposite. ” — Jeff
The only reason you’re saying that is because of what Chris Rants released about BVP’s business history. Have you forgotten that he blasted Branstad for shoddy bookkeeping, too?
Why do you believe Rants in one instance but not the other?
You can quit with your “I’m a fiscal conservative” charade anytime now.
> So, you’re worried about our educational system? How’s that?
Iowa’s Board of Regents obtains money for our 3 major state universities (Iowa, ISU, and UNI) from tuition fees and from the state of Iowa. It is important that tuition is low enough for our children to obtain a high-quality education. All 3 of these state schools are very well recognized institutions.
When we have to cut budgets, this has a direct effect on the number of teachers on staff, their salaries (which is the bulk of the university’s cost), and classroom sizes. So, Chet Culver’s mis-management affects the quality of education our state universities can provide.
This will be extra fun because Deace has been telling us for years what a bunch of sellouts Focus on the Family is.
I wonder if he’ll do the same today?
What if your kids won’t be getting a high-quality education because the curriculum has been hijacked by radial social activists? Money doesn’t matter then, does it?
The quote from Kent Sorenson in Robinson’s article is great. He is correct in noting that the radical gay lobby is the aggressor in Iowa, financed by multi-millionaires who don’t even reside in our state.
Mr. Hawk,
Steve Deace isn’t running for governor.
Peggy,
He’s trying hard to influence who does.
“He is correct in noting that the radical gay lobby is the aggressor in Iowa‘
- Peggy, the radical gay lobby is not running for governor.
> Why do you believe Rants in one instance but not the other?
I never said that.
> You can quit with your “I’m a fiscal conservative” charade anytime now.
Ok, I guess I’m just for personal responsibility. Call me a Thomas Jefferson Republican. I believe in liberty and freedom. That means for Gay people, for Christians, for Muslims, for Atheists, for members of the KKK, and anyone else that wants to exercise their right to liberty without harming another soul.
Thank you belikebunce! People just can’t grasp what Bob VP is trying to do because they have no Constitutional knowledge. It’s the courts stupid!
“Peggy, the radical gay lobby is not running for governor.” — Mr. Hawk
No, but they convinced seven supreme court justices that there’s nothing wrong with same sex marriage and that it will be wonderful for Iowa while we weren’t paying attention. How much more damage are you going to allow them to do before you wake up? Don’t you want to vote on it?
“…and anyone else that wants to exercise their right to liberty without harming another soul.”
Jeff, Did you not read just last month that the CDC says HIV/AIDS is on the decline in every demographic except gay and bisexual men? You’re still operating from the erroneous position that homosexual sex is perfectly safe. Far from it!
If a smoker has to pay higher health insurance premiums so, too, should two men who are legally ‘married’?
For heaven’s sake Peggy, what damage? Wake up to what? Nobody in my community gives a whit about the gay marriage issue because 1) the issue has not affected them in any way, 2) gay unions are nobody’s business and 3) there are other more pressing issues that are a cause for worry.
“For heaven’s sake Peggy, what damage? Wake up to what? Nobody in my community gives a whit about the gay marriage issue…” – MIE
ITS NOT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE!!! IT IS ABOUT THE COURTS STUPID!!!!
““Peggy, the radical gay lobby is not running for governor.” — Mr. Hawk
No, but they convinced seven supreme court justices that there’s nothing wrong with same sex marriage and that it will be wonderful for Iowa while we weren’t paying attention. How much more damage are you going to allow them to do before you wake up? Don’t you want to vote on it?”
——————————-
- Do you even understand my point? Are you reading carefully? You made a comment about Steve Deace not running for governor, implying that it’s not relevant to discuss him because he’s not running, and then you turned around and made some comment about a group which is also not running for governor. Are you thinking your posts through before you hit “submit”?
Yes, Mr. Hawk.
Let me write it in crayon for you. Steve Deace is a radio personality. If you don’t like what he does, get your own radio show.
The radical gay lobby, on the other hand, is actually affecting our state’s laws and legislation (with the help of milquetoast, inattentive Republicans) which, in turn, effects you, me and, most importantly, children.
Steve Deace does not receive tens of thousands of dollars from out-of-state activists nor does he have a field of minions who travel across the state foisting his beliefs on children, usually in taxpayer funded schools without parents’ knowledge.
Can you see the difference now???
“Nobody in my community gives a whit about the gay marriage issue because 1) the issue has not affected them in any way,” — MIE
Lots of people weren’t personally effected by the Holocaust, either. Does that make it okay?
Get some new arguments.
Peggy: Great logic Peggy. The Holocaust =gay marriage. Belikebunce–no yore the idiot. Not a person who has a basic understanding of civics or how our courts operate buys your dimwitted arguments. Guess what Belike–gays can get married in Iowa. You lose.
“Guess what Belike–gays can get married in Iowa. You lose.” – MIE
595.2 GENDER — AGE.
1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.
(http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&ga=83)
Please explain to me how gays can get married in Iowa?
Stick with me here, MIE. As you well know, I was not equating same sex ‘marriage’ to the murder of Jews but merely pointing out the flaw of your argument, i.e., “I’m not personally effected by it so it’s okay.”
We all lose if you don’t wake up and get with the program.
MIE – Again… “Gay Marriage is not the issue. The issue is Judicial Activism. The State Supreme Court Violated the State Constitution in 3 different ways (all of which are outlined in the above article) and BVP is fighting tooth and nail to get people to understand THIS IS NOT ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE!”
Belike–are your kidding? You say the Supreme Court does not interpret law. I wanna let you in on a big secret. Don’t tell anybody. Just between you and me. That’s all the Supreme Court does all day every day–interpret laws. Can you believe it? What’s this world coming to?
Did the Iowa Soupream Court legalize same sex ‘marriage’ or criminalize heterosexual marriage?
MIE – not really interested in arguing… I stand by my statement, and it is defensible in court. Provided BVP wins the governorship we will see just how defensible.
belike–if all of BVP’s followers are like you there is no hope. Next time the Court rules favorably on an issue close to your heart such as AK-47’s in every pot or stockades for gays, I’ll make sure the Governor overturns the decisions with an executive order. Pol Pot and Mao were great with ruling with executive fiat. Good grief, I can’t believe there are crackpots out there that actually believe your rubbish.
OK belike–I won’t hold my breath. Hope we can hold out til 2012 when it will all be over anyhow.
Peggy–gay marriage hurts no one. The Holocaust killed 6 million people last I heard. Big difference.
MIE – I am completely opposed to all judicial activism. I have written letters to those suing the state about right to keep and bear arms. I have refused to assist them monetarily. The way to change the law is through the Legislature, not the Courts! I will never support rule through Judicial Fiat, nor through Executive Fiat. However since as I referenced above the Iowa Code still has DOMA 1998 IN PLACE an Executive Order advising County Recorders to continue following it would not be Executive Fiat, would it?
If the Legislature succeeds in passing unconstitutional legislation, the governor should veto (refuse to sign in some states) it. If the legislature can override the veto (almost guaranteed not to happen with unconstitutional legislation) then The People should vote them out of office, and the new legislature should repeal the law. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
“gay marriage hurts no one” – MIE
Yeah, sort of like not wearing a seatbelt hurts no one, but the State of Iowa has laws AGAINST that.
But let’s back up a little bit. Gay marriage? No, it doesn’t physically hurt anyone as it is merely a contract. Gay sex, however, is another thing. It’s a physically detrimental behavior, sort of like smoking, which the State of Iowa ALSO has restrictions on and over-taxes in hopes of curtailing it.
MIE, you can’t just make assumptions that you have no evidence to back up. Do some reading, look into the matter. It’s not harmless and you really have no business saying that it is.
“MIE, you can’t just make assumptions that you have no evidence to back up. ” – Peggy
Most people do that all the time. That is a fact of life in our society. While I agree with you that people shouldn’t, they still do. It is obvious to me that MIE is no different from the majority of our society in this aspect.
No Peggy. Not wearing seat belts hurts those that don’t wear them and the taxpayers that pay for injuries sustained by those that don’t wear them. Gay sex does not hurt anyone anymore that the sexual acts between a married man and woman. Concerns about unhealthy sex apply equally to gays and heterosexuals. Are you advocating that anal intercourse between a married man and woman be outlawed as unhealthy? Who is going to police such behavior? Peggy, your arguments simply don’t wash (sorry for the pun).
MIE – Not wearing seat belts does not hurt anyone. however, getting into accidents when not wearing seat belts does tend to cause more damage than getting into accidents when wearing one. Gay sex likewise might not necessarily hurt anyone (debatable), however, it is almost always more promiscuous than straight sex, and promiscuity does hurt people (that has been proven). Peggy’s arguments are incomplete, but most arguments are. They do hold water very well though.
OK Belike–are you advocating that we should outlaw promiscuous sexual behavior? What counts as promiscuous? Can I be a sargeant on the sex police squad, fullly equiped with night vision goggles (”damn, they pulled the shades”)? Will those hetero three-ways occuring in Iowa City, Ames and Stacyville all of a sudden come to a halt? Who sets the quota for one night stands? In fact what is the quota–1, 2 or 3 before you’re arrested? If it is shown that Black Americans are more promiscuous than whites can we arrest blacks just for being black?
No, fellas. Take the two most pristine gay men in the universe who are totally disease free and cut them loose for a lifetime of monogamous anal sex and even then there is damage done. It’s all about anatomy, my dear friends.
It’s well documented that the majority of homosexuals, male or female, are not monogamous nor do a good majority of them use condoms. Don’t forget the STD’s that are transmitted by genital contact alone, not necessarily bodily fluids; condoms can’t fix that.
MIE,
Tell us again how not wearing a seatbelt is harmful.
Maybe you can help me with this since you’re older. There must be a literary term to describe your debating skills, i.e. projecting absurd arguments onto your opponent….what’s the name for that? Anybody?
“Let me write it in crayon for you. Steve Deace is a radio personality. If you don’t like what he does, get your own radio show.
The radical gay lobby, on the other hand, is actually affecting our state’s laws and legislation (with the help of milquetoast, inattentive Republicans) which, in turn, effects you, me and, most importantly, children.
Steve Deace does not receive tens of thousands of dollars from out-of-state activists nor does he have a field of minions who travel across the state foisting his beliefs on children, usually in taxpayer funded schools without parents’ knowledge.
Can you see the difference now???“=
———————
Again, you’re just not paying attention and/or not thinking this through. To assert that Steve Deace is not having an impact on Iowa politics is beyond ridiculous. I’d posit that he has a far more direct impact on Iowa politics than out of state gay lobbies.
Your point is ridiculous, and so I’m going to keep mocking you for it.
” nor does he have a field of minions who travel across the state foisting his beliefs on children”
- I’d also suggest that he very much does. Either way, your point remains ridiculous.
Peggy: The term you are struggling with I’m sure is “reductio ad absurdam.” I thought of it as I was finishing a compedium of Yeats, sipping on decalf latte, and comfortable in my red silk robe before a well-tended fire. By the way, my arguments are not absurd. I am asking legitimate questions that flow straight from your twisted logic. The Jesuits would have pulled your ears off with such lazy thinking, Peggy.
HAH!
Back in my young adult days that kind of image was attributed to the leading-men in Doris Day movies and Hugh Heffner.
Mr. Hawk, Jeff, Mod – thanks for trying to point out what should be obvious. Alas, there are none so blind as those that refuse to see!
Peggy, IIRC it was deace who has promoted the “scorched earth policy” if he and his followers don’t get their way. I will re-iterate yet again, if the GOP stays hung up on “gay marriage”, BVP’s E.O., etc., Culver will get re-elected!!! Please tell me just how in the hell does that help advance ANY socon agenda???
MIE,
LOL!
“I’d posit that he has a far more direct impact on Iowa politics than out of state gay lobbies.” – MHawk
You’d posit or you fear? And what proof do you have?
I think he is influential but those are the benefits of being well-read and well-spoken – and having 50,000 watts to back it up. And who are these minions of Deace’s? Are they paid a salary like One Iowa or Iowa Pride Network employees? Seriously, where are you getting this stuff?
And, Timmy, after the social conservatives have been dropped, there IS NO SOCON AGENDA. That’s my whole point and several of you have proven it quite nicely here today.
> Yeah, sort of like not wearing a seatbelt hurts no one, but the State of Iowa has laws AGAINST that.
So you have beef with seat belt laws then? Me too, but this is a separate issue. It is possible to be *for* gay marriage and *against* seat belt laws and for drinking iced tea and against drinking orange juice…why? because these are all *separate* issues.
> Gay sex, however, is another thing. It’s a physically detrimental behavior, sort of like smoking, which the State of Iowa ALSO has restrictions on and over-taxes in hopes of curtailing it.
But smoking is not illegal. When I smoke, if you stand next to me and breath my smoke, it *IS* proven to be detrimental to your health. It *can* kill you, even if you don’t partake. If you stand next to 2 chicks getting on, it definitely won’t kill you.
So, taking your argument literally for humorous purposes, should we tax sexual acts? And how much? What if it wasn’t that *good*, should the tax be less? These will be issues I’m sure BVP can tackle.
> MIE, you can’t just make assumptions that you have no evidence to back up.
That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
Peggy, you know damn good and well you are willfully mis-representing what I and others here are saying. None of us said dump the socon issues, but to lead on them in the face of an economic disaster is folly at best and if the liberal socialists stay in power things will only get worse. One more time: If the GOP loses, CONSERVATISM loses!!! Again, just how exactly does the socon agenda benefit by that?
Where do I start?
Yes, I think seatbelt laws are overreaching but I weat my seatbelt. My point, though, is to point out the hypocrisy in our state’s laws. Why are homosexuals getting special treatment and their risky behaviors being not just ignored but glorified? Anyone should be able to see that this is clearly the case.
No, smoking is not illegal but the state still taxes the hell out of cigarettes to discourage their consumption, a tax which falls mostly on the shoulders of the poor, BTW. Are you okay with that? Where does that fit into the Republican platform?
You’ll have to point out where I’ve said that two homosexuals having sex will directly effect me. This is a bogus argument that the Left and now, apparently, Republicans who have not thought the issue through, use repeatedly but it’s without merit.
“Peggy, you know damn good and well you are willfully mis-representing what I and others here are saying.” — Timmy
No, Timmy, I think you’ve made yourself perfectly clear: you don’t have a problem with same sex ‘marriage’ at all, and that’s a problem – for everyone in Iowa.
“One more time: If the GOP loses, CONSERVATISM loses!!!” — Timmy
Timmy, if your brand of conservatism loses, the social issues will be kicked to the curb regardless. Sorry, but I just can’t get fired up about voting for a half-assed Republican, no matter who it is.
correction: wins, not loses
Peggy, you have no clue about my position on “gay marriage” and you are being deceitful insinuating I support it!!! What I do oppose is this disingenuous assumption that BVP is the only one opposing it because he SAYS he will issue an executive order. It will NOT stop “gay marriage”, nor will it overturn Varnum. It WILL end up dragging the state back thru the courts at a time when the Chief Executive needs to focus his attention on getting the budget back in the black. Trust me, that ain’t gonna play well with the voters. Also, it will go before the same court the issued the Varnum decision in the first place.
Like it or not, it was “Game Over” when Dist Atty. Sarcone refused to appeal it. It was “game over” when Gov. Culver could have issued an injunction while the case was on appeal. It was “game over” when Gronstal refused to let ANY opposition come to the Senate floor(IIRC it was after the “funnel date”). It was “game over” when guys like deace dumped on Nussle and the GOP in 2006, thus helping Tim Gill and the dems take over the Capitol and Terrace Hill.
Face it, the other side won because they knew how to play the game waaaaay better than us. If there is any hope in hell that this can be overturned we first must get Republicans back in the majority so that a decent bill can be brought out and signed by the Governor. In order to do that we need support from independents, libertarians, etc. Nominating “One-Note Bob” will NOT bring these people on board!!! Like it or not, there are not enough Republicans alone statewide to win. We can’t afford to be pandering to one segment of the base and risk alienating these others by staying mired on “gay marriage”!!!
“Peggy, you have no clue about my position on “gay marriage” and you are being deceitful insinuating I support it!!!” — Timmy
Well, Timmy, when I hear you articulate something that resembles disapproval of same sex ‘marriage,’ I’ll believe you’re truly against it and not just blowing smoke. The same goes for Terry Branstad and the other candidates, too.
I’ve got to have more than lip service before I support anybody. I’m not a blind follower with a blank check.
If you really want to go there, so far all BVP has offered is lip service. Rants is the only one who actually has done something. As far as myself, you have no room to talk. Let me know when you decide to quit being a self-righteous b***h!!!
Well, yeah, BVP can ONLY offer lip service because he’s not in office.
Let me know when you want to discuss issues rationally.
Peggy, I can only have a rational discussion with RATIONAL people!!!
“BVP can only offer lip service because he’s not in office.” Thank God for that!!!
Timmy,
Give me three reasons why same sex ‘marriage’ is bad for Iowa and, more importantly, for the people who enter into one. Say SOMETHING to convince me you’re against it.
> No, smoking is not illegal but the state still taxes the hell out of cigarettes to discourage their consumption, a tax which falls mostly on the shoulders of the poor, BTW. Are you okay with that?
I’m OK with that. It’s Economics 101. If they raise the tax on booze (which is already really high), I’ll probably still buy beer once in a while (or at least as often as I do now).
Oh, and the point of raising the cost is to force people into a hard decision and hopefully decide to not smoke because it is proven to kill you, and more importantly kill those around you that never made a choice to smoke.
Jeff,
And why doesn’t the state tax same sex ‘marriage’ licenses to the excess?
How ’bout you, Jeff…can you name just one reason why the state shouldn’t be glorifying homosexuality through the legalization of same sex ‘marriage’?
Why doesn’t the state just get the hell out of the marriage business in the first place? I thought marriage was a private covenant relationship consecrated by the Church, what business is that of goverment? Maybe we would all be better off if government stayed out of EVERYONES personal lives!!!
Or….the State of Iowa could exempt homosexuals from public smoking and seatbelt laws. They’re obviously special people with super powers that protect them from being harmed by dangerous behaviors.
Timmy sez: “Why doesn’t the state just get the hell out of the marriage business in the first place? I thought marriage was a private covenant relationship consecrated by the Church, what business is that of goverment”
Aww geeze Timmy, you are so clueless sometimes.
Think ‘legalities’ m’boy.
Con Dem, I was just tryin’ to “provoke” some folks just a bit. However, it would pretty much end the arguement if the state no longer held any jurisdiction over this.
OK timmy, I thought you knew better; scared me there for a sec.
Whatever, Timmy. More likely, you can’t give even one reason why same sex ‘marriage’ should be illegal so you’re taking the easy way out by saying the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.
So the fiscally conservative Republicans in Iowa are against same sex ‘marriage’ but they can’t explain why? Shouldn’t we remedy this situation?
so, peggy, will you support the Branstad candidacy if he’s the nominee?
It depends on if he’s truly socially conservative. All I’ve heard about so far is the economy.
Given his poll numbers are good, I hope TB DOES come out strong on the social issues and not just SAY he’s against abortion and same sex ‘marriage,’ like everyone else seems to be doing.
Would Iowans vote for a candidate who repeated that he’s for a stronger economy if they never heard him articulate how he would bring one to fruition? I would hope the electorate wouldn’t be that dumb but I’m beginning to wonder.
Peggy….When Branstad was Governor..he was accused of being this draconian, hard core conservative….and now people like you are saying he’s a mushy moderate??
Peggy , when Branstad first took office as Governor…Iowa was already in the midst of the Farm Crisis….and through Branstad’s steady leadership..Iowa became a stronger and economically prosperous state.
Fact: When Branstad left office in 1998, Iowa had a 2 BILLION dollar budget surplus. Fact: in 1998, Iowa had the 3rd lowest unemployment rate in the country of 2.8%….compare that to the near 7% unemployment we have now.
Since 2000, Iowa’s lost 34,000 manufacturing jobs…Good companies like Maytag and Blue Bird Bus and others have closed entirely or have cut thousands of jobs…
We have areas of Iowa that aren’t just in a economic recession..but in a downright DEPRESSION. For example, you’ve got areas of SE Iowa that have 9 and 10% unemployment….
So when you say “Would Iowans vote for a candidate who’s repeated that he’s for a stronger economy if they never head him articulate how he would bring one to fruition”….you forget that Branstad is the ONLY candidate in the bunch that has actually brought this state back from hard economic times…
“…you forget that Branstad is the ONLY candidate in the bunch that has actually brought this state back from hard economic times…” — HawkCR1
While that may be true, it doesn’t prove that the other Republican candidates are incapable of turning this ship around.
Have you ever heard Terry Branstad say ANYTHING about same sex ‘marriage’?
I know the other candidates are all fiscal conservatives and some of them are willing to talk about social issues, too. So far, the Branstad camp is showcasing a candidate who is avoiding some very important issues.
I’m back from Wisconsin! Go Hawks!!! I love this quote, “Mr. Vander Plaats, you’re no Abe Lincoln”
Peggy, glad you found time in your busy day to try to bait me! However, why is it so damn important I have to prove to you my personal opposition to “gay marriage” but yet have you ever once considered that your obsession with it only draws more attention to the issue which plays right into the hands of it’s supporters???