What’s more important: Senate Tradition or the Institution of Marriage?
- Friday, October 23, 2009, 4:30
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 2,063 views
- 83 comments
Groups like IFPC Action and LUV Iowa have been partnering with Iowans all across the state for almost seven months now to network people and to work a strategy for passage of the Iowa Marriage Amendment. At each stop along the way, in every town meeting, and at every marriage event, people are outraged that the Iowa Supreme Court would take upon themselves the role of Legislative, Judicial and Executive authority to create homosexual “marriage” out of thin air. People always want to know why one branch of government has been allowed to grow so powerful in relation to the other two. They also want to know what, if anything, can withstand the tyrannical arm of an out of control judicial branch.
I think I have finally found the answer: Senate Tradition.
Last Thursday, I ran into Senator Dennis Black at a central Iowa coffee shop. Senator Black is my State Senator, but we weren’t in his district or at the Capitol, so neither of us had any reason to expect that we might cross paths, and we didn’t immediately recognize each other. While the meeting was a chance encounter, it had all the markings of a Divine appointment. Thanks to the Senator’s transparency in the conversation that ensued, I received a unique insight into a discussion that has been playing itself out all across the state since last April.
Upon learning that I work at IFPC Action, Senator Black immediately began to assure me that he is a supporter of marriage between one man and one woman. I thanked him for his support for marriage, and then asked him to explain what that means to him.
He replied with what had all the markings of a well rehearsed speech that had been delivered to constituents on countless occasions. He said, “I’m probably stronger in my support of marriage than you! I believe that marriage ought to be one man and one woman, one time.”
Again, I was extremely encouraged to hear this from a member of the Iowa Senate, and especially encouraged to hear it from a member of the Democrat caucus. I assured him that we were on the same page in our understanding of what marriage is, and so I asked him what he intended to do about it.
The Senator told me that he had spoken to Senator Gronstal, and encouraged him to allow the Iowa Marriage Amendment to come to the floor for a vote, but that he was fairly certain the leadership would never allow that to happen. As before, it seemed that his answers to my questions were well rehearsed. He appeared to anticipate each one, and had his talking points all ready to go. His message: “I support marriage as much as you, but there is just nothing I can do about it.”
I thanked him for talking to Senator Gronstal, and for asking him to bring the Iowa Marriage Amendment to the floor for a vote. I then asked him what he intended to do about Gronstal’s unacceptable answer. That seemed to be a question he was unprepared to answer.
“I’m not sure what you mean. Unless Senator Gronstal decides to change his mind, the amendment is not going to come to the floor for a vote,” he said.
At that point, I asked him if he would join me in standing up to those members of the Iowa Senate who refuse to allow the people of Iowa to vote, and if he would truly take a stand for marriage. I explained that Senate rules permit him to bring the amendment to the floor over the objection of Senator Gronstal.
He looked surprised and said, “Evidently you have read the rules more carefully than I have.”
I replied by explaining that the Senate Rules allow for a suspension of the rules, and that just as legislators did in the Iowa House last spring, he could force a vote through a suspension of the rules to bring the Iowa Marriage Amendment to the floor for a vote.
The Senator visibly bristled at the very suggestion that he ought to suspend the rules to force a vote. He said, “That has never been done in the entire history of the Iowa Senate! Do you have any idea what type of chaos would ensue on the floor of the Senate if I were to do that?”
My reply was to remind him that the Iowa Supreme Court has never so blatantly violated the Iowa Constitution before either, and that their unprecedented actions demand an unprecedented response from the other branches of government. I also asked, “Do you have any idea what type of overwhelming support you would receive from the people of Iowa if you were to stand up to your leadership and defend marriage like that?”
At that point, the Senator said, “A vote on a procedural maneuver is not perceived by most people as a real vote on the marriage amendment.” He motioned to the other people sitting in the coffee shop as he explained how the general ignorance of the voting public permits politicians to say one thing to their constituents and then behave differently when in Des Moines.
He then challenged me by saying, “You can’t with any integrity look me in the eye and say that a no vote on a motion to suspend the rules is actually a no vote on the marriage amendment.”
After that comment, I made a point of looking him in the eye as I said, “Senator, I will look you in the eye right now,” which seemed to come as a surprise to him.
I continued with, “I will tell you that there are options available to you as a Senator that would help to defend marriage in this state, and you are evidently unwilling to exercise them. You sir are not really a supporter of marriage.”
His shocked expression made it obvious that the conversation was rapidly coming to a close, so I offered to e-mail him with a step by step process for using Senate Rules to defend marriage over the objections of his party leadership. He assured me that my e-mail would not be necessary.
This conversation was another example of how comfortable politicians have become in telling voters what they want to hear without any expectation that we will require them to back up their words with actions. Too many politicians have become convinced that they are smarter than us common folk. Our ignorance often provides political cover for politicians who are too frequently hesitant to take a bold stand. That has got to change.
The conversation also revealed once again that if there is any singularly unshakable force in Iowa government it is senate tradition. It is increasingly evident that in the minds of many senators, the Iowa Constitution may as well be written on an Etch-A-Sketch, and the definition of an institution that predates civil government – marriage — is as pliable as Silly Putty, but Iowa Senate Tradition was evidently etched in granite on Mt. Sinai and can not be changed or challenged.
I wish that I could say this type of conversation was a reflection of the partisan nature of the current debate over marriage in Iowa. Unfortunately, this is the same discussion that many Iowans had with Republican senate leadership in April and May. It is the same discussion that constituents continue to have with Senators from both parties who claim to support marriage.
The idea that there were no options available to Iowa Senators for forcing a vote in the Senate, like the one that House Republicans forced on their side of the rotunda, is completely without a foundation in fact. They just believe that it is easier to confuse their constituents with legislative jargon, and to point fingers at Mike Gronstal, than it is to take a stand for one of the foundational pillars of any healthy society. Marriage is not a partisan issue. Senators on both sides of the aisle say that they support marriage. There IS something they can do about it!
As was clearly stated to several members of the Iowa Senate last spring, Iowa Senate rules allow for any senator to do the following:
1) Move to suspend the rules (rule 25) for the purpose of introducing the Iowa Marriage Amendment and bringing it to the floor for immediate consideration.
2) Get a recorded vote under rule 22. This way Iowans can know who supports real marriage and the Iowa Constitution, and who supports the homosexual agenda and courts that try to make law.
3) If the President rules you out of order at step 1 above, appeal the ruling to the Senate as a whole under rule 52.
4) Then get the record vote on the appeal under rule 22. This way Iowans can know who supports real marriage and the Iowa Constitution, and who supports the homosexual agenda and courts that try to make law.
(Reading the Iowa Senate Rules is tedious, but verification of the 4 step process for forcing a vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment is available on the state legislative web site: http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&menu=text&hbill=SR8 )
This is not a difficult process. Any senator who has been entrusted with writing laws can certainly understand how to use the above mentioned rules. The consistent hang-up is not their inability to understand the rules but rather their dedication to “senate tradition” above all else.
Even with this insight into the unwillingness of “pro-marriage” senators to take action to defend the definition of marriage, it’s hard to comprehend why they are willing to take the political risk of having their constituents discover that they have options available but refuse to use them. Maybe instead of trying to pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment, we ought to look for a way to tie the definition of marriage to long standing senate tradition. Then, every Senator in the chamber would gladly risk their political career to preserve it.
Written by Bryan M. English
Director of Public Relations and Outreach
Iowa Family Policy Center
About the Author
The Iowa Republican has written 548 stories on this site.
83 Comments on “What’s more important: Senate Tradition or the Institution of Marriage?”
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.
Great article. I hope every senator reads this.
This conversation, almost verbatim was had with Senator Paul McKinley also, and he is supposed to be the Republican Senate Minority LEADER. Great leadership Senator McKinley!
This article seemingly has more than one point and while I can’t dispute the point about legislators being duplicitous in their dealings with the folks at home, I would dispute the importance of the _marriage issue_ to _ALL_ Iowans. Not everybody feels threatened by the light-in-the-loafer set. And another of the assumptions of the article is that the Iowa Supreme Court acted somehow wrongly. Not everybody agrees with that either, so I would posit that Senate Tradition in this instance is just fine as it is. The writer sounds like he might have been rather rude and confrontational in that cafe or restaurant.
Quite frankly, a boor.
CD – You correctly identified the underlying assumptions in this article. I am proud of you. Of course your positions are accurate. Of course there are those who feel that same gender marriage is not threatening, and there are those who feel that the SSC did not act wrongly. If nothing else the SSC feels this way. What is your point?
There are always multiple views to every political position. That is why we live in a democratic republic, Rule of Law as determined by The People. This is also a Federal Republic where the States self govern. This issue is one of those issues where The People will have to self interpret the Law and will instruct their leaders on how the Law should be written and executed.
The author has one view of how to interpret and execute the Law. He and his like-minded friends will be pressuring Senator Dennis Black to represent their interpretation. You and your like-minded friends can pressure him to support a different view. It is up to each Representative\Senator to decide who to represent, and it will ultimately be up to the people to decide which interpretation will win by electing representatives who represent the vocal majority.
BTW it is bore, unless you are referring to the author himself.
How refreshing this is! Bryan English, you are my hero. Thank you!
There actually is another method Democrat state senators who say they support traditional marriage could use.
The could vote obstructionist Mike Gronstal out of his leadership position.
Now that would be be gutsy! And the poor senators wouldn’t even have to (God forbid) suspend the rules.
Everybody wins!
The could vote = They could vote. Sorry.
“Boor” is the word I intended.
The article by Mr. English is very good but he forgot to tell you why the Senate did not use this nuclear option.
The Senate has the unwritten rule where you can defer on any amendment or bill. As Republicans, we use this option quite often when we get a bill sprung on us that we don’t like. It allows us to rally our base and get some sunlight on the issue. We might be dealing with a social bill, right to work, or federal deductibility.
If we would use the nuclear option addressed in this piece, first, the Democrat Senate Leader (Gronstal) would differ on all the requests and the vote would never take place. Second, as it was clearly noted by the Democrat leadership, they would forever take away our deferral option and would demand that we vote on every bill that hits the floor at any given time.
So, pick your poison! Do you try a procedural vote that very likely won’t work or do you look at other options that might be on the table. Not as easy as the broad brush that Mr. English paints with.
Senator Randy Feenstra
In all sincerity, Senator Feenstra, what are the “other options”?
Feenstra is a complete wimp. Doesn’t want to fight for marriage and wants, exactly as Mr. English’s column makes clear, the hoi-poloi to shut up and accept what he says.
When the voters in his district find out that he’s too chicken (ooh, they might make us vote on stuff we don’t like — heh, yeah sir, like what? and so what? the day theDems have the votes to pass it and want to, they will), is a day he’ll get a primary and general election challenger. And I hope he loses to one or the other.
And that day cannot occur too soon, in my opinion.
If Republicans really don’t want to stand for marriage in the Senate because the Big G-man will do something they don’t like, their constituents should be furious.
Marriage is that important to a LOT of people, sir. And so is the right to vote on it, and see if Iowans agree or not. If you will not fight FOR MARRIAGE, you are, whether you wish to admit it or not, in fact fighting AGAINST MARRIAGE. And you should be treated that way.
Ciao
I hate to break it to you, but Sen. Feenstra is right about this. We cannot win on this issue by being childish and petty. If there was any way possible, the GOP leadership would have done something. Like it or not, there is a right way to go about this but it requires patience and tact, something which obviously seems to be lost on many of you here!!!
I hate to break it to you, Timmy, but you’re all wet. We can not win this issue by playing according to our opponents’ rules. We will not win by negotiating for our own surrender. We ought not accept excuses any more. There were options available that Senators decided not to use. If they want to make the case to their constituents that they didn’t think defending the Constitution and/or marriage was worth that fight, they ought to just come out and say it. To say that they did everything possible just isn’t true. Their excuse – Tradition.
Randy is a weak noodle that needs to go back to his pencil pushing job and leave being an elected official to those who will stand for what is right. I thank God that our country had men that would stand up and be Statesmen or we would still be drinking tea and crumpets and have bad teeth. RANDY GET A SPINE!!!
I thought this started out because of an encounter with Dim, Dennis Black.
Recently, I was at an event for IFPC where Feenstra was a guest. Now this. What has happened? Are we all on the same page, or not? Why this hostility toward Feenstra? Isn’t he entitled to his own opinion without name calling.
What is this really about? The legislative session was over months ago. Why bring this up now?
Vanita,
You proved the other day that you don’t give a rip about the same sex ‘marriage’ issue by your refusal to discuss strategy. In fact, you have no strategy other than voting for Republicans.
If the Republican minority’s “strategy” is to wait around until they’ve got the majority, we’re looking at another Roe v Wade here. Time is not on our side – if anything can be done now, it MUST be done now.
Go ahead and try it, just see how far you get with the majority party. Sorry, but you are going to lose again. Most importantly, you are going to marginalize the issue even further. Then what exactly will you have accomplished?
DVFO~ It doesn’t matter if it is a democrat or republican who is choosing senate tradition over standing for marriage. If you are unwilling to do so, you need to be replaced. Enough with the excuses on any side of the aisle. We the people are tired of the status quo. We have seen a reply to the Supreme court first ignored by the Governor and Legislature, then it was “explained” to us by democrat leadership as civil rights, now it is being “explained” to us by republicans as a violation of senate tradition! I have news for you Mr. Feenstra…Marriage is a traditional institution that was established by the one you claim as your creator and Savior…who are you accountable to…Your Senate Tradition or the one in whose image you were made????????
I guess I shoudn’t be surprised so many of you are clueless about how the Senate works given that most of you were the same folks willing to accept populist socialism as long as it was cloaked in fundamentalist “christianity”!!!
Timmy – you’re right. It was so much better to vote for the foul mouthed bailout promoting, gang of 14 organizing, free speech infringing, grumpy old man who skipped Iowa four years earlier. Pragmatism at its finest.
@Timmy- “I guess I shoudn’t be surprised so many of you are clueless about how the Senate works”….Mr English clearly articulated the Senate rules for getting a recorded vote on marriage. Evidently you are the clueless one! Confucious say…”read the rules o’ bright one”
Let Bryan run for the Senate then! Once again I ask you, how many electoral did the Huckster get in ‘08? Obama would’ve still won and you would still be on the outside looking in.
This bunch had better figure out who is the enemy and who are allies. These Dims are taking this state and country down the tubes and some of you are ignoring it. We’re fiddling while the country is burning.
This is not the way Christians behave.
DVFO, unfortunately this IS how many so-called “christians” behave and it’s the very reason that these issues are being margianlized politically!
I’ve just about had it with these so-called “Christian” groups. They seem more interested in fighting Republicans than Dims.
And they would rather lose on principle. Only problem with that is we ALL end up losing just so they can thump their self-righteous chests!!!
Obammy’s Regulatory Czar want to abolish marriage. This will render this issue moot here in Iowa.
Let’s elect more Dimocrats!!
But, Vanita and Timmy, you have yet to offer up a strategy for overturning Varnum v. Brien once we’ve elected a Republican majority. You are both so shortsighted it’s pathetic.
The Democratic legislators need to be pressured to pressure their leadership. Until then, Deace’s moniker for Mike Gronstal is a perfect fit. Notice how Governor Gronstal isn’t afraid to throw his weight around and act like a leader no matter how wrong he is?
Peglet sez: “The Democratic legislators need to be pressured to pressure their leadership”
Sorry Peg, but we who elected those Democrats didn’t elect them to go trying to overturn Varnum v Brien.
You also elected representatives from YOUR districts, not Mike Gronstal.
So far, my marriage is surviving the burden of sharing rights with gays and lesbians.
So is mine. And I’ve never heard a heterosexual claim that their marriage would be threatened by same sex ‘marriage.’ That is a lame argument of the Left.
Peggy..
Get real!! Do you really think those Dems are going to do ANYTHING about Varnum? They know where their bread is buttered…Especially since many of those Democrats in the leadership of the House and Senate are far left wing ideologues.
If we want to get something done on the issue..we need to start taking seats BACK in the House and Senate. Period. No executive order….no working of Senate rules is going to change what is the reality on the ground.
If you want to LEAD..you must first win….I’ll bet you don’t know what Iowa GOP gubernatorial candidate has said that over and over, Pegster.
I know their leadership is loaded with radical leftists. I’m talking about the moderate Dems who aren’t personally in favor of same sex ‘marriage’ but are too afraid to stand up to Gronstal et al.
Their constituents need to hound them to no end.
Peggy..
Again..those so called “moderate” Dems…know where their bread is buttered. If they want the donations for their campaigns..and also not be primaried..they’ll know their role, shut their mouth and do what Gronstal, Murphy and McCarthy tell them to do.
And you didn’t answer my question Pegster… What Iowa GOP gov candidate has said over and over that “If you want to lead, you first must WIN”….
In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations held a convention in Chicago and developed the first-ever Gay Rights Platform. Its demands included, among other things:
- “Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, HEALTHY preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.” [emphasis added]
- “Repeal of all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.”
continued…..
- “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”
- “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.”
HawkCR1,
If you can’t bring yourself to stand up to the gay lobby, how about a push to draft legislation allowing out-and-proud heterosexuals to go into public schools via the AEA to put on seminars about the wonders of tradtional marriage and heterosexuality? The Dems won’t be able to say no – that would be discrimination. Let’s fight fire with fire!
Pegster..
If you want to stand up to the gay lobby…then elect people who will do so. I know that seems like a novel idea….but i know its hard for you guys to realize that you just can’t snap your fingers and make the problem go away
Telling some of these Democrats to “stand up to the gay lobby” is basically an exercise in futility…if you want to defeat them in the arena of ideas…then you will need to defeat them at the ballot box.
HawkCR1,
Give me SOME sign that you’re really against same sex ‘marriage…that you care at all. I honestly don’t think you do. So, if you want people like me to vote for people who think like you, no thanks.
Pegster….I absolutely support traditional marriage. ..and I know that it isn’t as simple as issuing an Executive Order that will simply be tossed out by the same court that ruled on Varnum….and then you’d likely see a Governor who tries this route be immediately impeached by a Democratic Party controlled Legislature. You do realize that the Democrats have a 2/3rd majority in the Iowa Senate right now, correct?
Lets just say BVP gets elected..and we don’t regain the House back..and we dont gain a single seat back in the Iowa Senate….
BVP issues his Executive Order…. Murphy and McCarthy would have impeachment articles drawn up against BVP and his Lt. Gov in the House that same day…..and with a Democrat controlled House..and a 2/3rd Dem Senate…….BVP would likely have the shortest term as Governor in Iowa history.
And guess what..we’d be right back where we started..but with a difference…how’s Governor Jack Kibbie sound? Because that’s who your Governor would be when BVP and his Lt. Gov are impeached.
If you we want to protect traditional marriage in this state…then we need to WIN at the ballot box..elect legislators who will do that…we need to elect legislators who will pledge to put the Marriage Amendment up for a vote…
“we need to elect legislators who will pledge to put the Marriage Amendment up for a vote…”
Uh, yeah. Where are they? And, like I’ve said, the more time that elapses, the more likely the amendment will fail at the polls.
But I’m sure you and like-minded Republicans will do with the marriage issue what you’ve done so well with the abortion issue, i.e. only talk about it at election time.
What about my idea of getting heteros into the schools? Any thoughts?
Peggy…LMAO….You seriously base your view of us “dangerous homosexuals” on a group of radicals getting together…..in 1972….lol…wow you’re special. I just want all the same rights as everyone else (spare me the “you do have the same rights–you can marry a woman”)…..I’m good now, no more agenda besides keeping what we’ve got.
Now to the topic. I hate to tell you, but even if you did get a vote in the Senate (which you won’t this session, Sen. Feenstra is right), it would lose. Hawk is right for once, most Dems know who writes there checks and how to not get primaried. The only hope for it to pass is if you take back the majority. That is not going to happen in 2010, you have maybe 3-4 pickup opportunities (including Sen.Black coincidentally). If through some miracle and a helpful redistricting you take back the Senate in 2012 (not likely at all with Obama on the ticket again), then the EARLIEST it could be put on the ballot would be 2016. Equal marriage will have been in place for 7 years by then. Thats 7 years of people getting used to it, 7 years of old bigots dying and young open minded people taking their place. Long story short….you lose the vote. I highly doubt it will ever be put to a vote at all. Game. Set. Match. Learn to live with it.
“BVP issues his Executive Order…. Murphy and McCarthy would have impeachment articles drawn up against BVP and his Lt. Gov in the House that same day…..and with a Democrat controlled House..and a 2/3rd Dem Senate…….BVP would likely have the shortest term as Governor in Iowa history.” — HawkCR1
Okay, you’ve presented the most far-out scenario you could possibly come up with. What you’re not taking into consideration is how the moderate Dems’ constituents would raise hell if their rep were to vote to impeach a governor who declared a moratorium on homosexual ‘marriage’ so that the people can vote on it, as it should be.
No Democrat could survive that kind of publicity.
Radicals, GayDem? The National Coalition of Gay Organizations doesn’t sound too radical to me. It was a result of the Stonewall Riots and the movement has been on the march ever since.
What about the Coalition’s goal to present homosexuality as a “valid, healthy preference”? Were they talking simply about same sex attraction or homosexual sex acts?
Peggy~ You have a valid point. The Homosexuals have noted their point in the democrat platform many of the planks you cited above…just read it. @ Gaydem…”Old biggots” will be dying??? The homosexual “lifestyle” produces nothing but death. Gay males don’t have that long of a life expectancy. Gays cannot reproduce either…therefore it is not a lifestyle but a deathstyle. The conservatives are taking procreation to the extreme with big CONSERVATIVE families reproducing at a phenomal rate. How do you plan to combat that with your great strategy of “wait for the old biggots to die?” You cannot reproduce…that means you are dying out. Your strategy seems to favor opponents of Gay Marriage.
Gay Dem (and others),
Look at this more recent list of activists who march in loyal lockstep with the agenda set forth by the National Coalition of Gay Organizations.
http://www.beyondmarriage.org/signatories.html
Notice that Obama’s pick to head the EEOC, Chai Feldblum is a signer. Then – if you can handle the truth – click on the link at the top of the page for the vision statement.
No..its not a far out scenario, Pegster…
Its a very real one if BVP is elected..and we make no gains in the House or Senate. If you don’t think that the Democrats would love to throw BVP out on his ear….I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you…
There are very VERY few “moderate” Democrats in the Iowa Legislature…and on something such as this..you can rest assured that the Democrat leadership would force their members to vote in lockstep…
If you want something done about gay marriage, abortion, etc..guess what..the ONLY way something will happen productive on EITHER front for the conservative movement is to regain the majority in the House and Senate…period.
There is no way in God’s green earth that the Democrat leadership in the House and Senate, would allow a gay marriage amendment or abortion bill to even come out of committee…and if they tried forcing it to the floor…it again..would die a very slow death.
Oh..and to answer my question I posed to you Pegster..guess who said “If you want to lead…you FIRST must win”… Bob Vander Plaats-2006 campaign. That was BVP’s line at every stop he made during the primary campaign..
You want to advance an agenda…great…then first..you had better win elections so more people support that agenda….
Doulos and Peggy,
I like how you focused on the “gayness” part of my comment and didn’t address the reality of the second part. I’m not going to change your mind that being gay is wrong, I’m not gonna try. The point was the politics of it. But since you brought it up, yes homosexuality is a valid, healthy lifestyle. I’m proud to be gay, but it is just one part of me. Doulos, I hate to tell you but we can have kids–and I plan to. My sister just had her third and they will be raised knowing and loving their gay uncle and God parent. It’s not just gays that accept gay marriage, it is all people with a sense of fairness and compassion. Plus, those huge conservative families you mentioned– either never leave there home school bubble to have an affect on anything or their nutjob parents smother and otherwise alienate the children and they become open minded. I’ve got several friends that were children of hard-core Mormons and evangelicals as examples.
cont…The plain fact is that every year polls show a pretty consistent rate of growth in public acceptance of gay marriage, about 1-2% a year. In states that have legalized equal marriage, it has gone up faster. I don’t know if this is from my dying bigots theory or from people changing there mind, probably a little of both….but its happening none the less. There is simply no way that in 7 years time Iowans will vote to overturn equal marriage. It is here to stay. Maine will approve it….through referendum….soon. Other states are coming in short order, legislatively, judicially and through referendum. California will reverse Prop 8 in 2012. Its only a matter of time until it is national policy.
P.S. My “deathstyle” is treating me fine so far with my monogamous long-term boyfriend. We will probably marry in the next couple years when we are ready. We are *shock* HIV free (btw, gay people no longer have the highest rates of infection, the 80s were a while ago). We have several degrees between us and are generally healthy, happy and successful. But thanks for your concern.
P.P.S. If you run BVP, you won’t have to worry about us impeaching him…..he won’t win a county east of 35.
Peggy: I want to point out to you that you believe that everyone on here OWES you an answer to your questions but you conveniently sidestep the questions of others.
Frankly, I’m sick of the rudeness of posters on this forum.
Sounds like the Dennis Black versus Bryan English Senate Race is going to be feisty and expensive.
Anybody know when Bryan is announcing his campaign committee? I heard that is coming up soon.
I hope I see more stories on this site about Bryan English’s upcoming run for the Iowa Senate. Maybe Craig or someone else would want to profile and handicap that race soon.
“(btw, gay people no longer have the highest rates of infection, the 80s were a while ago).” – GayDem
Wrong! The CDC just last month said that the only at-risk group in which infection rates are going up is men who have sex with men (MSM).
Deace Voted for Obama (VANITA), You are ripping on Peggy saying nobody owes her an answer to her questions…well nobody owes you an answer either. Who cares if you are tired of the “rudeness” of this forum? We have a thing here for a while longer called free speech. We can say what we want and disagree because we live in America. I would encourage you to try the democrat forums, they are much friendlier to your logic and philosophy. @ Gaydem: You truly are confused about what “successful” is. It doesn’t matter how many degrees you have, you will never be married (at least to your long term boyfriend). Marriage is an institution that was established by God and you cannot change His definition.
GayDem,
I find it odd that HIV/AIDS is still running rampant through the MSM community even though every homosexual man claims to be in a monogamous, committed relationship.
Check out the great information at the following link, paying particular attention to the exceprts from the book by Dr. Stephen Goldstone, a practicing homosexual MD in NYC who specializes in anorectal disorders.
My point is we can start with the two most pristine males on the planet and put them in a monogamous sexual relationship involving regular anal sex and there will STILL be health problems.
http://americansfortruth.com/news/truly-scaaary-%E2%80%98gay%E2%80%99-health-quotes-2nd-annual-halloween-edition.html#
EVERYBODY needs to read this, voters and candidates alike:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/truly-scaaary-%E2%80%98gay%E2%80%99-health-quotes-2nd-annual-halloween-edition.html#
doulos: I did not rip Peggy. I was making a point.
If you really are a servant of God’s, you don’t act much like it. I’m referring to the way we are treating each other here on this website.
I never asked anyone for an answer to my questions. I know I’m not entitled to it. I am entitled to be treated respectfully.
You are distorting what I have said and are bearing false witness.
The other day someone accused me of having my head up my ass–twice!!
You mention having free speech and the freedom to disagree. I agree. I’m not talking about disagreeing. I’m talking about downright incivility and name calling.
I think I may know who you are and frankly, I’m shocked.
You have been just plain ugly. Does that make you feel superior?
I thought we were allies.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
DVFO, it’s funny that the most annoying folks on this site are the so-called “christians”! I think the “christian taliban” monniker definitely fits them. However I don’t care who I pi$$ off, I’m still gonna call it as I see it and let the chips fall where they may.
Hawk CR1, thanks for trying to bring a bit of common sense to this thread, unfortunately it’s lost on most of these folks.
Gay Dem you do have a point, even though I dissagree with your lifestyle(and you don’t hafta like mine either, ain’t free will great?) the culture is changing and BVP isn’t going to resonate in the larger population areas statewide as he does in his little corner of the 5th District.
Peggy & Mark, flame away!
“I think I may know who you are and frankly, I’m shocked.” – DVFO
What are you shocked about???
Shocked that someone who claims they are a servant of God would bear false witness and be mean spirited and at the same time think they can make a valid point.
I would expect something better from someone who is behaving in the name of God.
Bearing false witness? How so?
All you have to do is go back and reread the posts. Frankly, I’m tired of it.
We’re supposed to be Republicans and many of us even claim we’re Christians but we don’t act like it.
Our behavior is not very Christlike.
DVFO,
I’m pretty sure you just accused DTT of bearing false witness somewhere within this thread. Can you be more specific?
You must be referring to GayDem saying homosexual sex is “healthy.” Now that IS bearing false witness!
I read back through my posts and have come to the conclusion that I have been a bit harsh. I am frankly tired of the attacks on Christians and was fighting fire with fire. I rarely get caught up in that. I will definately work on that. Thanks for pointing that out. However, DVFO, I am not a big fan of the republican party but believe in the platform. I think it is the party that closest lines up with our values in word only. I wish elected republicans reflected the platform with their deeds. Some of them do but very few. That was the original intent of this article. I totally agree with the writer.
dtt, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word. However, you must understand that there are many of us that have been supporting the conservative cause for a long time and I for one take issue and offense with the folks(deace in particular) that have decided anyone that disagrees with their tactics, is the enemy of the cause. I have had a hand in the platform process at the district level for some time, I haven’t found much of anything I don’t agree with but when I do I have made my point known. Now for some reason the so-called “socons” have declared war on the rest of the party.
I happen to agree with Sen. Feenstra and especially Leader McKinley in dealing with the majority party. The ONLY way this issue is going to be resolved is by first getting control back in the Statehouse and Terrace Hill. I don’t think BVP’s focus on the E.O. will do anything beneficial and in the end may actually hurt any chance there is for changing the situation. The court fight that will ensue will ultimately end up before the same judges that ruled on Varnum in the first place. There is only one way to go about this and that is by amending the Iowa Constitution. It is a very difficult process as well it should be!!!
Also, in this time of economic chaos and the budget disaster, are you really sure the majority of Iowa voters will support a GOP candidate that wants to make “gay marriage” his first priority?
“However, you must understand that there are many of us that have been supporting the conservative cause for a long time and I for one take issue and offense with the folks…. that have decided anyone that disagrees with their tactics, is the enemy of the cause.” — Timmy
Timmy, the feeling’s mutual.
I don’t think anybody’s asking any candidate to LEAD with the same sex ‘marriage’ issue but we also don’t want them ignoring it altogether, nor are we satisfied with sizable numbers on ‘our side’ refusing to debate the issue or give us some sign that they, one, truly believe the ruling should be overturned and, two, they will have the drive and capability to educate the electorate before an amendment vote.
When you refuse to engage us in a discussion about the issue, your promises are not believable. If we’re on the same side, act like it.
Timmy~ Where were you when we had the majority and things were peachy? WE had a chance to amend the constitution in 2005 when Danny Carroll ran the amendment in the House and it passed but failed in the Senate by one vote? This is why we do not wait until we have the majority and we have people who are Democrats in districts that are seeing fallout. There are two D’s that have retired suddenly and I think it is directly related witht he pressure that they are getting from the grassroots and leadership on this issue as well as others. Whoever is “for marriage” must be willing to do whatever they can to protect it. Just having a republican majority is a failed strategy.
dtt sez: “. Whoever is “for marriage” must be willing to do whatever they can to protect it.”
Folks, those terminology buzz words there still escape me; “for marriage” and “protect marriage” truly are meaningless to me, a person who reads you guys every day – just imagine how those phrases come across to people out there who aren’t politically well read. Palin’s ‘Joe Six-pack’ if you will.
“For marriage”? Geeze, I like marriage, I’d wish everybody would marry . . . . and stay married to their first spouse.
“Protect marriage”? Protect it? I don’t see anything out there that marriage needs protecting _from_.
Con Dem – just because you “don’t see” something doesn’t make it any less important. I’m willing to bet that you “don’t see” a lot of things.
The point of all this is that there are options available to those Senators who say they understand marriage can only refer to the union of one man and one woman. If they refuse to step up and use those options, they have to expect their constituents will want to know why.
Like the title says: what’s more important, senate tradition or the institution of marriage?
IACon says: “Like the title says: what’s more important, senate tradition or the institution of marriage?”
Which is more important, an apple or a table lamp?
“Which is more important, an apple or a table lamp?” — Con Dem
Profound.
really, stil on the gay marriage issue??? Why??? You will find that this issue will become less and less important come election time, candidates should concern themselves with the economy, job growth, the housing market, education, etc. Gay marriage, and fighting to end it, is a red herring issue for the weak minded lemmings who need others to think for them. Get over it and start to focus on real issues.
Silence
“Gay marriage, and fighting to end it, is a red herring issue for the weak minded lemmings who need others to think for them.” — SD
Good one, SD. I’d be happy to pummel you with arguments against same sex ‘marriage’ but I know you’d run off like a little girl, just like everyone else does.
In the spirit of the green movement and getting back to nature (both landmark, pet issues for the Left), traditional, heterosexual marriage, human conception and parenting should not only be defended by the State but heartily PROMOTED.
It’s physically and mentally healthier, it’s CHEAPER, it’s advantageous to children, it’s far more beneficial to society and it is as NATURE intended. Go green!!
Con dem, the real answer is neither, especially with a 50% divorce rate, and that is with heterosexual couples, can’t blame gay people for that now can we. What is important is the issues I addressed before, the economy, education, job growth. but let the lemmings keep reciting their fox news talking points and miss once again what is really important.
Silence
Silence,
All the money in the world can’t prevent mental illness, substance abuse and suicides that result from screwed up personal lives.
You keep talking about job creation and the economy while ignoring social issues – there won’t be any stable people left to do the job.
The question remains: Why is senate tradition standing in the way of allowing the people of Iowa to vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment? Peggy is correct; the destruction of the family has tremendous costs – many of them passed on to the taxpayers. So, promoting healthy marriages and stable families helps address the economy, the housing market, education, etc.
This debate is about so much more than so-called gay “marriage.” It is also about an out of control court issuing an unconstitutional opinion. It is about an officer of that court – the Attorney General – threatening county auditors to make them treat that opinion as if it were law. It is about a Governor who refused to honor his word or to act like a governor when marriage came under attack. It is about a legislative response that ought to occur, but hasn’t yet. It is about the right of the people to demand action from the lawmakers they elect. It is a crossroads that will determine if we are ruled by a constitution and a set of laws or by the tyranny of seven unelected, unaccountable, out of control justices.
The people of Iowa deserve to have an opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage. Our employees in the legislature are going to have to come up with a better argument than “tradition” to defend their unwillingness to bring the Iowa Marriage Amendment to the floor.
We’ve all seen or heard the news reports about various pols are saying they will not enforce certain illegal immigration laws. Where is the outrage from the Left?
Bryan,
I propose the question should be, “Why would you break Senate tradition when there is a Discharge Petition that all 18 Republicans have already signed and are in need of only 8 Democrats to sign to force the vote on the Senate floor?” Why aren’t you working to get Senator Black to sign that document? Then we would need only 7 Democrats. Better yet, you live in Senator Black’s district, I think it is your responsibility to run against him.
RC sez: “Better yet, you live in Senator Black’s district, I think it is your responsibility to run against him.”
Oh that’s good; another single-issue rethug running for an office.
Con Dem,
You v. Bryan on ANY issue….my money’s on Bryan.
Bryan vs. Dennis Black, good money says the dems will keep that seat.