Branstad Issues Statement on Gay Marriage
- Thursday, November 12, 2009, 14:23
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 2,405 views
- 145 comments
The Branstad 2010 campaign has issued a statement to TheIowaRepublican.com earlier today to clarify his position on same-sex marriage. Branstad’s position on the issue has become an issue after the Des Moines Register reported that Joy Corning, Branstad’s former Lt. Governor, has recorded an automated phone call for the gay marriage group One Iowa. Corning’s message was sent to thousands of Republican households in Black Hawk County earlier this week.
This past Saturday, Branstad said that he will work to break the legislative roadblock that prevents Iowans from having an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. However, fellow Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bob Vander Plaats has questioned whether or not Branstad would actually vote in favor of traditional marriage.
The Branstad campaign provided TheIowaRepublican.com the following response.
“Governor Branstad supports the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and is the only Iowa Governor to have signed the Defense of Marriage Act. He will work to break the legislative roadblock that prevents Iowans from having an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Should such a constitutional amendment ever be placed on the ballot, Governor Branstad will vote yes on its passage.”
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 454 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.
145 Comments on “Branstad Issues Statement on Gay 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.
What about the militant gay lobby’s indoctrination of Iowa school children? What are we going to do to stop that between now and amendment time?
There’s way more to this issue than same sex ‘marriage.’
Good statement. I agree. Do you?
why bother ? it will not hold up under the supreme court or the constitution. I’m sure a lot of the nutty right are happy to see Terry get on board with burning queers but the rest of us could care less. bad law is bad law if it be prohibition or this ban. get the government out of the marriage business.
Peggy. For goodness sake, come on. What gay lobby? What school children indoctrination?
Lobo,
When voted on by the people, same sex ‘marriage’ is 0 -31.
I thought you’d never ask!
I am glad the Branstad campaign issued this statement today and glad to know his position on this matter. If I was a betting person, I would bet that Krusty will put Joy Corning in his “you must be an idiot” hall of fame, but I don’t want to preempt him and steal his thunder. But I will be watching.
Peggy, regardless of how the public vote has gone on same-sex marriage doesn’t mean it’s right.
The rights of a minority group should never be allowed to be put to a vote by the majority. If we did, Slavery would still be legal, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote, and interracial marriage would still be illegal in the south.
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. -Thomas Jefferson
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. -Thomas Jefferson
Just keeping you honest –
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus” -Thomas Jefferson
> What about the militant gay lobby’s indoctrination of Iowa school children?
“Militant” lobby? Do they have guns? Or are you just being sensational again? (or should I say “fabulous” ?)
> “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus” -Thomas Jefferson
@Conservative Thinker
You are cherry picking Jefferson. I also wouldn’t pick him to defend Christianity…he didn’t think much of it…:
” And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
- Thomas Jefferson, to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823
=============================================
“..our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry” [Thomas Jefferson]
=============================================
“The authors of the gospels were unlettered and ignorant men and the teachings of Jesus have come to us mutilated, misstated and unintelligible.”
[Thomas Jefferson, in "Toward The Mystery"]
=============================================
“…a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticism, and fabrications”
[Thomas Jefferson, on the gospel history of Jesus (Works, Vol. iv, p. 325)]
Vast – Homosexuals don’t have a right to redefine marriage.
Jeff — look up the definition of militant.
Is it fiscally conservative to allow the homosexual lobby into the AEA to put on workshops for teachers and students about how to look out for LGBT kids? Who’s paying for that and why are our education tax dollars being used for social engineering? If you spout the slogan that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, you should espouse that same line of thinking with agenda-driven “education.”
Do you suppose after having free rein in the schools for 4-8 years, the state of Iowa might have tens of thousands more pro-SSM voters?
This battle has to be fought on all fronts. We got here by taking our eye off the ball several years ago (thank you, clueless “nice guy” Republican legislators).
> Vast – Homosexuals don’t have a right to redefine marriage.
Peggy, the point is that they have a civil right TO marriage, which has been denied to them. Your statement is a bit like saying that Hindu’s don’t have a right to redefine faith, simply because they want to worship a different God than you.
> Jeff — look up the definition of militant.
I did and it means “Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause”. I imagine you chose the word “militant” instead of “aggressive” because of its pejorative understanding.
Similarly, I would say that makes you part of the militant anti-gay lobby. Or even worse, the anti- “keep government the hell out of my relationship lobby”.
He needs to come out and actually address the Joy Corning issues and distance himself from her. He probably needs to admit his mistake in picking her for Lt. Gov. in the first place.
Right now, it looks like he either didn’t vet her properly, or he didn’t care about social issues at all.
And yes, I believe fiscal issues are important too, but I don’t think either should be ignored as both are winning issues.
> Is it fiscally conservative to allow the homosexual lobby into the AEA to put on workshops for teachers and students about how to look out for LGBT kids?
It is neither fiscally conservative nor fiscally liberal. The are instructing teachers and students on how to follow the “2007 Safe Schools Law”. The law *requires* schools to have anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies that protect all students including those that are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT).
I’d also say that when…
* 80% of Lesbian and Gay Iowa HS students been verbally harassed
* 37% have been physically abused
* 20% have been physically assaulted
… then it is a good F’ing idea to allow the AEA to instruct teachers and students to be inclusive and how to recognize when a student is being bullied and harassed.
source: http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=176575
> If you spout the slogan that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, you should espouse that same line of thinking with agenda-driven “education.”
No, not at all. As I mentioned above, they are instructing teachers on how to protect their students and to comply with the “2007 Safe Schools Law”. It also is important to do this because this is a new law, and there is data that shows that students are being PHYSICALLY harmed for being gay.
If those statistics were about Catholic students, and not gay students, you’d be sounding the alarm and crying out for the national guard to step in. But because they are children that you find “icky”, you don’t care about them.
Jeff,
Homosexuals are not prevented from marrying. They can marry – as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex.
Jeff,
Those cute little stats you cite are based on surveys returned by 88 homosexual Iowa students, funded by the likes of Rich Eychaner, faux Republican member of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.
You forgot to finish the story and tell the good folks that the Iowa Pride Network is now going to have a “Safe Schools Certification Program” – based on 88 surveys. That means if your school doesn’t sit through their taxpayer funded brainwashing sessions, it will be labeled an UNSAFE school.
You also failed to mention the governor’s conference dealing solely with LGBT students. Where’s the governor’s conference on childhood obesity? Isn’t that a bigger problem for the state?
Equal rights or exclusive rights, Jeff?
No harrassment and bullying should be allowed ever. Do we really need the AEA to train teachers about this?
BTW, other than being told, how would anyone know that a student is LGBT? What physical characteristics point to this?
Trust me, Jeff, these 88 kids who filled out these surveys have probably already been trained in the fine art of victimhood. They’re likely members of GSA’s at their schools and they are being USED by groups like One Iowa and the Iowa Pride Network.
> BTW, other than being told, how would anyone know that a student is LGBT? What physical characteristics point to this?
Well, let’s say they are not gay, but they just tell people they are. And let’s say they get their ass kicked for saying that. Don’t we still have a problem? If I got my ass kicked for being Catholic, I would hope my fellow students and people in my community would support me and help to put an end to it.
I know I would be there and offer my support if I heard Catholic, Jewish, Asian, Hmong, German, etc students were being harassed for simply breathing.
> They’re likely members of GSA’s at their schools and they are being USED by groups like One Iowa and the Iowa Pride Network.
Why do you think that? If they were Catholic kids, would you say the same thing? I really would like to know. Pretend it isn’t about Gay H.S. children, but Catholic H.S. children. Would you make the same statements? I think not.
> They can marry – as long as it’s someone of the opposite sex.
Then I’d like to outlaw Christianity, and specifically Catholicism. I can point to many church leaders that have broken laws and raped children. The church covered it up on American soil. They should not exist because of this (note, I don’t believe this, just making a point — stay with me for a moment).
Now, I’m not saying you can’t be religious, you just can’t be a Christian. Feel free to become a Hindu though, and join one of the largest religions in the world. And if the “activist” courts allow Christianity again, I’ll put it to a vote of the people to see if they really want it.
> You also failed to mention the governor’s conference dealing solely with LGBT students. Where’s the governor’s conference on childhood obesity? Isn’t that a bigger problem for the state?
NO! Are you kidding? The physical abuse and harassment of H.S. students that are Catholic, err wait I mean Gay, is not the same as obese children.
You know what the difference between religion and homosexuality is? You can *choose* your religion.
“You know what the difference between religion and homosexuality is? You can *choose* your religion.” — Jeff
There is no gay gene, Jeff. That’s not to say some people with same sex attraction didn’t have that from a young age but the cause is not genetic. It’s a combination of things, mostly environmental.
No matter the cause, engaging in gay sex is, in general, a very unhealthy practice and not what the human body is designed for. Human beings do have free will and can be expected by society to rise to a certain level of behavior.
I didn’t choose to be gay Peggy, God made me gay and I only choose to accept that.
For Jeff’s argument above to make sense, homosexuality would be criminalized and nobody is calling for that.
Not that it matters but I do not fault anyone who has a legitimate same sex attraction; I have empathy for them. When you say you “choose to accept” it, Vast, I assume you have never attempted therapy to come out of it, which is okay, but there are many who debunk therapy and ignore the hard evidence that it has worked for some. It’s wrong to deny others, who don’t want to accept their SSA, the opportunity and hope that therapy can bring.
And, again, if God made you homosexual, there would be a gay gene. There isn’t.
> Not that it matters but I do not fault anyone who has a legitimate same sex attraction; I have empathy for them.
That’s refreshing, and I’m happy to hear you say that. I’m starting to finally believe you really are a Christian and really do love they neighbor as yourself. Even if they “sin” in your eyes. Keep up the love!
> And, again, if God made you homosexual, there would be a gay gene. There isn’t.
Does that mean there is a “left-handed” gene?
Peggy, I think that the fundamental difference between you and I (as far as this discussion is concerned) is that you believe homosexuality is a choice. I don’t.
If it isn’t a choice then it is despicable to deny homosexuals rights equal to those of heterosexuals and tantamount to a violation of civil rights…which is my position.
But, you’ve demonstrated you believe that people make a choice (whether conscious or not) to be gay. I think that’s where we are stuck. I won’t ever believe it’s a choice, and I doubt I’ll convince you that it isn’t.
I remember when I was in HS (it was in this century), the 2 kids that came out as openly gay (no, they weren’t dating each other — or even dating anyone), certainly didn’t make a wise “choice” because they were seriously harassed for it by certain groups of students.
Nothing like watching someone be called a “Fag” with full-on disgust and clear disdain by a table of guys in the lunch room, or during science lab, or just while passing in the halls. I saw it with my own eyes, it’s real, and it made me the way I am now.
I’m not gay, but I cannot tolerate the intolerance of homosexuals, or blacks, or asians, or Germans, or Jews, or Catholics, etc. I wish I would’ve had the nerve and not been a coward when I was in HS and I saw those students being harassed. I certainly wouldn’t sit by and let it happen today. I hope you won’t either.
This one’s for you, MIE:
http://www.nwaea.k12.ia.us/index.cfm?nodeID=13393&action=detail&eventid=23201
Let me connect some dots for you. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is behind a lot of this, including the anti-bullying laws.
There are seven commissioners who are appointed by the governor and I believe no more than four can be from one political party. The current ICRC is made up of mostly Democrats, a couple Independents (one of whom is an openly homosexual school teacher from DM), another who switched from Dem to Repub to be on the ICRC although he still gives tens of thousands of dollars to the IDP. His name is Rich Eychaner and he is also openly homosexual. The Eychaner Foundation gives bucks to the pro-LGBT groups in Iowa and has taken it upon itself to track the anti-bullying policies of EVERY school district in the state and post them online.
The one, true registered Republican on the ICRC is quoted online as saying he didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Party left him, so in essence there are no Republicans serving on the ICRC.
One or two Dem governors tried twice to appoint Rich Eychaner to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission before his nomination finally passed.
No, Jeff! People with legitimate SSA DO NOT choose it! I thought I made that clear.
I do believe, though, that there are some people who choose to engage in homosexual relationships for attention, or for it’s shock value.
There’s a difference between having SSA and acting on it.
If you’re implying that I’m all for gay kids getting beat up, you’re wrong. Trust me, though, that’s not what this anti-bullying movement is about.
I’ll leave you with this and then I’ve got to run:
“The issues is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights. If you have a right to someone else’s approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what “consenting adults” do in private is nobody else’s business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.” — Thomas Sowell
Peggy, just because science has yet to discover the genetic reasons for homosexuality doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 100 years ago there was evidence that planets existed outside of our solar solar system but today we know of the existence of many.
I’m not asking for your approval Peggy, I simply want the government to recognize my civil contract of marriage the same as it recognizes yours.
> If you’re implying that I’m all for gay kids getting beat up, you’re wrong. Trust me, though, that’s not what this anti-bullying movement is about.
No, I don’t think you want to see any kids be harmed. I don’t think you’re a bad person.
I’ll also analyze Thomas Sowell’s quote here:
> “The issues is not individual rights.”
Yes it is. What anti-gay lobbyists want to say is “You can marry anyone you want, as long as they aren’t gay”.
> “What the activists are seeking is social approval of their lifestyle.”
Yes, I agree. Just as you don’t want society to disapprove of your Catholic faith. But that’s more of a “nice to have”, not a requirement.
> But this is the antithesis of equal rights. If you have a right to someone else’s approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values.
They don’t have a right to require someone else’s approval. But this argument of Thomas Sowell’s only works if you believe marriage isn’t a human right.
> You cannot say that what “consenting adults” do in private is nobody else’s business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.”
This is pure BS. They are asking for the same rights as heterosexuals. Does that mean the state approves of the KKK and other hate groups because they allow them to demonstrate and organize? No, it doesn’t.
Mr. Sowell missed the mark on this one. Of course, he is an 80 year old man. When he was my age, it was the 1950’s…..he probably didn’t know any gay people and thought they were pretty “icky” too.
Peggy: Thanks for the cite but what you have cited does not support your contention. I differ with you on the nature/choice issue with respect to homosexuality. My observations lead me to believe that being gay is immutable. I note most of those observations come from dealing with Catholic priests that serve the Archdiosese of Dubuque and seminarians at St. Thomas in St. Paul. Nonetheless, I applaud the ICRC for their work on antibullying. To equate that initiative to what you contend is a stretch to say the least.
The budget is awash in red ink, people are losing their jobs but some of you folks would rather continue your obsession with “gay marriage”? We need to move forward with practical solutions, but you want to keep dragging us into this same old pi$$ing match. Congratulations, you will only succeed in marginalizing the GOP and turning away the voters that we ALL need in order to defeat Culver and the dems! The house(economy) is going up in flames and people of Iowa want us to concentrate on putting out the fire instead of dealing with a leaky faucet(gay marriage)!!!
“Does that mean there is a “left-handed” gene?” – Jeff
“The gene most closely linked to left-handedness has been found, experts announced this week. ” – National Geographic News – August 1, 2007
I’m just sayin…
I also just want to remind everyone on the preamble to the Iowa Constitution:
“WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows“
> “The gene most closely linked to left-handedness has been found, experts announced this week. ” – National Geographic News – August 1, 2007
Touché.
@CV
I did not know that was in the state constitution. Well, I certainly don’t feel and dependence on any “God”, but that’s me, I’m not religious.
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin probably would have left that out, or worded it more ambiguously, but I take comfort in knowing that my federal government respects my right to believe, or not believe in any religion.
And that’s why I’m proud to live in this country. Because you can be Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Atheist, or anything else and still live a free and comfortable life. I think we forget how important and incredible this is, especially when our founders laid this “radical” idea out in the 1700’s!
Timmy,
You cannot control what issues other people feel passionate about so give it a rest. My focus on same sex ‘marriage’ doesn’t mean I also don’t want my governor to be a fiscal conservative.
I’m a comprehensive voter looking for a comprehensive governor.
Mod,
You can get on the Iowa Civil Rights Commission’s website and read their meeting minutes from the last several years. Their fixation on granting special rights to homosexuals is quite apparent in those minutes as issues dealing with racism and sexism were rarely addressed.
How do you explain TWO openly homosexual commissioners out of seven? That’s not even representative of the population!
How do you explain Eychaner being nominated twice and changing his party affiliation but still giving to the IDP?
Can’t you see they’ve stacked the deck to advance their own, self-serving agenda?
More for MIE:
****”The Faithful Voices Statewide Conference on Marriage Equality is fast approaching. We want to make sure that everyone knows to register and register early.
Some of you faithful (pun intended) readers may think that you have nothing to gain from this conference. Perhaps your congregation has already become an open, affirming, and welcoming congregation. Maybe you are already involved as an advocate. Possibly, you just think you are beyond the need for further knowledge or skills relating to Marriage Equality.
To you we say: what makes you think that should stop you from coming to the conference? Has your entire community, town or city become open and affirming? Are you the most effective advocate you possibly could be? Have you already heard Harry Knox from the Human Rights Campaign, Rev. Dr. Weldon C. Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance and Anita Bradshaw, Ph.D. from the Institute of Welcoming Resources all speak on the very same day? No? Well then we think you definitely still have something to gain from coming to the conference.
If nothing else, come to meet some new faces and make connections with other progressive people of faith from all over Iowa.” ****
“Faithful Voices” is the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa which was started in 1995 by current Iowa Civil Rights Commission commissioner Alicia Claypool.
If this were a Bible-believing church organization putting on this seminar, leftists and the ACLU would be all over this like white on rice.
ANY Republican voter, candidate or campaign worker who says we need to ignore this issue is either incredibly ignorant or isn’t looking after the best interests of Iowans.
http://www.FaithfulVoices.org
Peggy: This deserves a great big “Barf Alert”. This is disgusting. I looked through the Interfaith Alliance website looking for members but could not find it but I know who pretty much makes up this alliance.
It consists of most of the same ones who belong to the National Council of Churches. In Iowa, the most common “churches’ are the United Methodist Church, United Churches of Christ, Presbyterian Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church, The Reformed Church, the Church of the Bretheran, the Christian Church.
There are others but these are just the ones off the top of my head. These “churches’ are in various stages of completely abandoning all core principles of real Christianity. Once you’ve made your alliance with the NCC, you’re on your way of dying.
There is nothing surprising about this alliance and the promotion of homosexuality.
Deace: The problem with interjecting religion into politics is that religious beliefs are deeply held and the differences between religions and even between denominations within a faith create great conflict. Witness the religious wars of the sixteen and seventeen centuries. I can tell you one thing, your definition of “real Christianity” differs greatly from mine. In fact, I consider your denomination an abomination. You might as well be worhipping at the alter of Baal if you are not a Roman Catholic. Remember, it is “Tu es Petrus” not “Tu es Jimmy Swaggert.” Get it? Your ravings about whether BVP’s church is open and affirming or not make no sense politically. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself.
Peggy: I know Alicia Claypool personally. She is a woman who lives her deeply held faith every day. She is generous and loving. Just like the Jesus of Matthew. We are lucky to have her as a member of the Commission.
Mod: You don’t get it, do you? I’m not the one injecting religion into this. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are. I am using their very own yardsticks of measurement to show them no one can measure up.
Am I a religious person? You darned bet and I also can say I wouldn’t be caught dead attending one of the “churches” I listed earlier. I also would not be Catholic but I don’t see how that is relevant.
This is politics and it is not the responsiblity of the Republican party to lead any souls into heaven, contrary to what some people want it to do.
I believe we are happier when ruled by moral and good people which excludes these Democrats we have ruling us now. My goal is to remove them from office.
Mod,
Why doesn’t that surprise me?!
I’m sure Alicia Claypool is sincere but on the issue of same sex ‘marriage,’ she’s sincerely wrong.
She felt sorry for a homosexual kid who got beat up, let her emotions take over, decided with her ICRC cronies that same sex ‘marriage’ is a “civil right,” and that’s how we got where we are.
Nobody elected these people and they’re accountable to no one.
If you don’t think religion and politics mix, ask your friend, Mrs. Claypool, why the Interfaith Alliance is trying to indoctrinate church pastors to be “affirming.”
Peggy: The member of the ICRC are no different than any other members of commissions where commissioners are appointed by the governor with many positions requiring Senate approval. Really Peggy, what is it about homosexuals that repulse you? If you are repulsed by anal sex then advocate outlawing anal sex practiced by straights. If you are fixated on Leviticus then apply the law of Moses to you which in your case being a woman you are nothing but chattel subject to stoning for being uppity. Come clean with me.
Deace–so let me get this straight. It is your contention that only Republicans are good and moral people. Unbelievable.
Peggy: Oh those sinister sneaky omipotent homosexuals. Quite frankly, if they were as powerful as you imply I am quite convinced this world would be a better place.
Mod,
A testament to Alicia Claypool’s personal character coming from you is really quite meaningless and maybe even embarrassing to the woman. Didn’t you refer to belikebunce as “Dunce” most of this week?
Your “gay affirming” liberal friends have merely been caught in the web that is radical homosexual activism. They’re being used as pawns and haven’t figured it out yet.
Peggy: It is Alicia’s judgment to make as to whether knowing me is an embarrassment to her. Sorry, belike ranks right up there as one of the great minds that frequent this site. I should be more respectful. I find it ironic that that as a professedly devout HRC you would refer to radical homosexual activism when the very Church we both love so dearly is governed and tended to by homosexuals. Oh my!
Peggy: One more thing. You ask why the Interfaith Alliance advocates churches being affirming. The answer is quite simple. That’s what Jesus would do.
How can you brag about being a Catholic and then spout off stances that are contrary to what the Church teaches? “Petrus” says homosexuality is disordered.
Here’s another gem for you. I wonder if 50 fat kids could get the Lt. Gov, a state senator and a powerful Polk County attorney at their conference:
http://roemermanreport.blogspot.com/2005/05/lt-governor-pederson-keynotes-iowas.html
Peggy: I don’t need to brag about being a Catholic. I am secure enough in my beliefs that I don’t need to witness my faith through the political process. I am not aware of Peter saying anything about homosexuality being disordered. Edifiy me if I’m wrong. BTW, read your cite. The conference was about safety and respect. Again, Peggy. The next time you take Communion look into the eyes of the Priest before you. There is over a 65% chance that the Priest is homosexual. Get over sexual orientation and focus on Jesus of Matthew, the kind of people he hung with and the unconditional love he gave them.
You might as well be worhipping at the alter of Baal if you are not a Roman Catholic. Remember, it is “Tu es Petrus” not “Tu es Jimmy Swaggert.” ” — Moderation in Everything
That is definitely bragging.
For such a great Catholic, you obviously don’t know anything about the primacy of Peter, papal infallability, and apostolic succession (the Pope!). To hell with you for saying that 65% of Catholic priests are homosexuals. You’ve been reading too many books by lefty authors with a political agenda. What an ass you are for continuing to destroy the reputations of many holy men who have devoted their lives to the service of God and others.
My advice for you is to not receive Holy Communion until you go to confession.
Peggy — as a protestant Christian I do not believe in the primacy of Peter, nor is their any biblical basis for papal infallability or apostolic succession. And I think a majority of Iowans would agree with me.
“So I think it is high time we vote on this and we need a constitutional amendment to protect biblical Christianity, not this belief of the supremecy of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism is a viariant form of Christianity that should not be recognized and has no right to exist in Iowa.”
Of course I am not serious, but trying to make a point that once we go down this road of allowing a simple majority vote of a fickle electorate to determine constitutional restrictions on liberties, we will begin to find all our rights at risk. Never before in the history of our state have we gone down that road — nor should we. Reasons for denial of one’s rights should be part of the Code of Iowa, which can be changed if necessary — not the state consitituion that is there to protect us from government and protect EVERYONE’S individual liberities — including me the protestant, you the Catholic and the guy down the street whoever he may be.
Peggy: Girl. I think I hit a nerve with you. Read my posts before you blow a gasket. My purpose of quoting the gospels “tu es Petrus” went to my point of Catholic primacy. As far a homosexuals serving as priests, open your eyes. Look at Andrew Greeley’s work on the percentage of priests who are gay. I am not detroying reputations of devoted holy men. I rejoice at the notion that our Church is governed by holy pious men the majority of whom happen to be gay. In other words, I am pleased as punch that most of our clergy are gay and recognize them for the good work they do despite the hateful rants of people like you. Moreover I am well aware of the history of Papal infallibility and its history stemming from the papacy of that unfortunate kook Pius IX as he wilted in the face of modernity, especially empiricism. Finally, I will be at Mass tomorrow morning and will pray for you as I receive Holy Communion.
Mod: You’ve lost it.
” ..as a protestant Christian I do not believe in the primacy of Peter, nor is their any biblical basis for papal infallability or apostolic succession.” – nwiowaguy
Is this supposed to be news to someone?
Mod,
I don’t look to any dissenter from Church teaching, ordained priest or otherwise, to instruct me on the finer points of Catholicism. Greeley is a master at bringing scandal to the Church, and asserting that 65% of his fellow priests are homosexual is nothing new coming from him.
How many times do I have to say that merely having SSA is not sinful; acting on it is.
I know exactly what you meant when you said “Tu es Petrus” but you cherry pick what Peter’s successors, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, have handed down to us in the deposit of Faith.
You learned about the primacy of Peter but then you turned your back on it.
Seriously, quit bragging about being a Catholic ’cause you’re not much of one.
“Finally, I will be at Mass tomorrow morning and will pray for you as I receive Holy Communion.” — MIE
Get there early and make a stop in the confessional first. Don’t forget to tell the good padre you’ve said repeatedly in a public forum that over 65% of Catholic priests are homosexuals.
Don’t forget, it’s a mortal sin to receive Holy Communion when not in the state of grace.
Peggy–you know as well as I do that the Holy Spirit works from the bottom up these days. That’s why the vast majority of American Catholics use contraceptive devices. No matter however. The bottom line is what I have contended from the first time I posted on this site. Politics is not the place to witness one’s faith. God bless.
More false doctrine according to you. Great.
Politics is also not the place to check your faith at the door simply for the sake of not offending anyone. If one’s faith happens to square with good public policy, then so be it. You can’t continue to assume that the two can’t co-exist.
Peggy: Faith and public policy often overlap. The problem with witnessing your faith via politics is that others of good faith and good conscience feel differently. As evidenced by your posts and most others on this site, your litmus test to participate begins church ideology. Again, I want nothing to do with Deace’s faith or your brand of Catholicism. The both of you feel the same about my brand. I respect that. The common ground we share revolves around issues pertaining to the economy, taxes, infrastructure and other non hot botton issues. Take an example of Bob McDonnell’s victory in Virginia. A great example of a moderate problem solver winning. He is the wave of the Repub future. Not some flame throwing nut like Palin. Capiche?
MIE,
You must have been watching some other race because McDonnell is no moderate. He is conservative, both fiscally and socially. It would be a good idea to do a little research before making claims.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083103045.html
http://agenda.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGY4YTg2M2FiYzA3NTA4NDRmZjg2YzFhMWNkZjJjNTk
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/69001517.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
There are no “brand(s) of Catholicism.” You’re either Catholic or you’re not. You are a dissenter pure and simple, my friend.
Should an Iowa teacher be fired for teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman?
Al–get your head out. McDonnell race was run on a campaign of moderation. He made a consious effort to dampen down the hot button issues that polarize people. Contrast that with that idiot Hoffman and his wingnut backer Palin.
Peggy: We can debate all day long about who is more representative of today’s Catholic. My point still stands. That debate is not the stuff of helpful politicial debate. Keep religion out of politics.
MIE,
I would contend that it is you that needs to extricate his head. Did you even read the articles that I linked. They demonstrate that McDonnell did indeed talk about social issues, especially during the primary. If you would only open that mind of yours perhaps you would see the truth.
MIE,
It is impossible for me to keep my religion out of politics. My faith is the basis for my moral convictions. Attempting to separate the two is impossible.
Al-go have it. Mix religion and politics and see where it gets you. My democatic friends are praying that the wingnuts win the primary. I don’t know what McDonnell did during the primary but I did know what he did during the general. My point still stands. His win was a win for moderation, not fanaticism.
MIE,
You are obviously blind to reality. Have you even read the articles that I linked above. They demonstrate that McDonnell did talk about the social issues as well as the fiscal issues. I pray that you will open your mind and see the truth.
Al–did you read your own cites. The WP article talks about McDonnell rebranding himself as a moderate. Either you’re a blithering idiot or your not taking your meds. Read your articles before you cite them.
MIE,
He attempted to rebrand himself, and failed. He had authored far too many documents for him to be successful in hiding his true beliefs. He is lucky that his attempts to hide his true beliefs didn’t backfire on him. In the end Virginia ended up with a Governor that is both fiscally and socially conservative.
MIE,
Yes I did read the articles before I posted them. But apparently you are a slow reader otherwise you would have known that. Once again extricate your head.
Al–read the articles. He characterized his thesis as an “academic exercise.” He ran as a moderate because Virginia is a moderate state. Had he run as a Palin/BVP nutjob he would have been roundly beaten. Lesson to the wacked out zealots like yourself: keep religion to yourself and focus on economic and management issues.
MIE,
Are you delusional or something. Please open your mind and see the truth of what happened in Virginia. I have followed that race. He talked about the social issues whether you want to believe that or not.
And I will continue to vote based on my moral convictions which are based on my faith. The two are inseparable and always will be. I will vote to end abortion, I will vote to get the governments hands off the religious institution of marriage. I will vote for fiscal responsibility.
Al, Mixing religion and politics works great for Iran. We should change the name of our country to the Theocratic States of America.
“We can debate all day long about who is more representative of today’s Catholic.” — MIE
First, It’s not your duty to represent “today’s Catholic,” you’re supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus.
Second, I don’t consider this exchange with you political at all. We are two Catholics discussing Church teaching, albeit on a political forum.
Now, back to politics….should an Iowa teacher be fired for teaching that marriage is between one man and woman?
Peggy: Maybe this is not the forum to be discussing church matters. No, a teacher should not be fired for teaching that marriage, as a matter of religion, is between one man and one woman.
“Maybe this is not the forum to be discussing church matters.” — MIE
I agree but when someone who claims to be a Catholic says something in opposition to Church teaching, I’m going to respond.
FYI, the chair of One Iowa, Des Moines attorney and LGBT activist Sharon Malheiro, has already hinted that any teacher who teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman could be terminated under Iowa’s anti-bullying law.
What about the teacher that teaches that a marriage can be between any two people? Is that bullying? That discriminate against those who want to practice polygamy.
What about a teacher promoting NAMBA ideas? Is that bullying against children?
Great questions, DVFO
Here’s another anecdote showing us what Iowans are in for:
“At Arcata High School in Arcata, CA, during a sex education lesson led by a representative of Planned Parenthood, students were asked if they believed homosexuality was a sin. Those who said yes had to remain alone in the center of the room. The goal of the exercise was to make religious children identify with gay students by making them experience alienation and humiliation.” — Peter LaBarbera, “When Silence Would Have Been Golden,” http://www.cwa.org, April 10, 2002
Peggy
Using quotes from Peter LaBarbera, who has been discredited extensively by both sides of the marriage equality debate is not something I would recommend.
Teachers in Iowa have no reason to be teaching what marriage is and isn’t.
If you want your children to learn their lessons from a religious foundation then send them to a religious school. Publicly funded schools must uphold the principles of the constitution just like every other government organization.
Vast,
Says who? Concerned Women for America obviously hasn’t discredited him if his article appeared on their website. You’re not seriously going to tell us he fabricated this story? That wouldn’t be hard to prove – go for it.
Here’s another telling anecdote for you:
“One such product in which the NEA had a hand was the 1997 pro-gay video “It’s Elementary.” Simply put, its aim was to teach schoolchildren that homosexuality was normal, and that to think otherwise was wrong. As then-president of the NEA Bob Chase explained that this was not about tolerance but acceptance.”
“One portion of the video showcased a sixteen-year-old boy named Noe Gutierrez, who talked about his experience as a gay teenager. Now twenty-four, Gutierrez says he is no longer “gay” – but that didn’t stop educators from the Montgomery County, Maryland, school district from using the video as a resource. When Gutierrez wrote a letter to the school committee asking the students watching the video be informed he was no longer “gay,” he was rebuffed.”
VastVariety wrote on 16 November, 2009, 12:33
Teachers in Iowa have no reason to be teaching what marriage is and isn’t.
VV – How narrow minded are you? Anytime that a teacher talks about family, reads a book about home life, discusses homework with her or his students, he or she is teaching what a family, or what marriage is. DUH! Marriage is the most central unit of our civilization. If you are talking about life here on earth, with someone that respects you as an authority, ie students and teachers, you are teaching them what is or is not appropriate in your eyes.
“As Kevin Jennings, cofounder and executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), put it: [E]x-gay message have no place in our nation’s public schools. A line has been drawn. There is no “other side” when you’re talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students.”
So much for tolerance and affirmation!
Vast,
Are you saying that it is wrong for me vote by the principles that guide me in life. That I should abandon them all on the hopes of winning. Well in my mind abandoning those principles would make me no better than the opposition. You see I have rock solid values that I will not abandon regardless of what you or MIE say. I value honest, integrity, morality, and justice. I want our government to govern as it did when this great nation was founded, for the people, not for the government. And I don’t really care what the letter behind their name is.
Al, in a way, none of our posts mean much here as there is such a narrow focus and we are not at all representative of the general population.
I love what you say but at the same time, I do not understand it. It sounds a big like Obama’s speeches. They sound great but had no substance behind them.
Do you have a vision as to how to get where you want to go? What vehicle are you going to use to get there?
Does this mean that a candidate must fit your litmus test 100 percent? Do you know that everyone of us probably have certain issues that may be deal breakers?
I remember when I had to choose between Ganske and Harkin. I hated my choices but there it was in front of me in black and white and there was no other choice. I held my nose and voted for Ganske. I’d do the same thing over again. As much as I had come to dislike Ganske, he was still far superior to Harkin.
I’ll be honest with you, VP is my last choice for our Republican candidate and I have my reasons why but by golly, if he’s our nominee, I’m there. It will be easy to mark my great big X for BVP considering my alternative is four more years of Culver.
Marriage is far from the central unit of our civilization. Our civilization would exist and do so resoundingly well without the existence of marriage.
Strap them blinders on, Vast!
VV: Strongly disagree. Are you glad your mom and dad were married? Did you provide you with stability?
However, since we’re in the age of co-habitation and many folks do not want to get married, it obviously is not necessary in order to shack up.
Why wouldn’t there be a certain segment that would not care about the legality of marriage but may want the Lord’s blessing on their union. Is it possible some may opt to ignore the legal aspect and go to the minister of their choice and ask for a religious ceremony?
All this talk about marriage has brought up all sorts of scenarios.
How many child’s books can you name that discuss family\parents\marriage… Might as well throw them all out, because if you talk about Mr. and Mrs. Quimby, Ma and Pa Ingalls, Tango the Penguin, Dear Mr Henshaw, Mercer Meyers Just me series, Snow White, The Bernstein Bears, etc… you are ” teaching what marriage is and isn’t.”
Was I glad my mom and dad were married? No, all that matters to me when it comes to my parents is that they are happy. The fact that there were married when I was born is irrelevant to my upbringing.
Who would be OK with the idea of pulling government completely out of the marriage business? If someone wants to get married they go to a church. You don’t get any tax breaks for being married or any other government sanctioned benefits? However, any two adults could go to a court or judge and create a civil contract that establishes them as a family unit under the law.
Why would you care about creating a family unit? How is that different than getting married?
What would be the purpose of having a court or judge establish you as a “family unit under the law” if government is pulled completely our of marriage?
Belike–property and insurance rights.
MIE,
That can be done without calling a same sex relationship a marriage.
Who doesn’t remember the mock weddings as part of Home Ec in high school? Can Home Ec teachers expect to be arrested for conducting these with the traditional male/female model?
DVFO,
I understand what you are saying. I too have voted for the lesser of two evils far too many times to count. I however will not do that anymore. I will select my chosen candidate by how well they understand the constitution. I can assure you that there are no Democrats that understand that document well enough for me to vote for them.
Vast,
You had me until you mentioned allowing courts to join people in civil contracts. That I disagree with. It is not the governments place to join individuals in any sort of relationship.
Peggy: I agree. I think the better term is “Civil Union.” Home Ec teachers being arrested. Are you out of your mind?
Al, it is the business of government to enforce a contract between parties. If two people of the same sex want to enter into a contract, what’s to stop them? Once they do it, it’s up to the government to enforce it.
In regards to property and insurance rights involving contracts…
If two people, whether they be opposite sex or same sex, enter into a contract of ownership or usage of a property and one of them dies, the surviving family members of the deceased can and often do challenge that contract and get it voided. The only way around that is generally through the civil contract of marriage, which I am suggesting should simply be known as a civil contract and not as a marriage. Having a will giving all of your property to a same sex partner also means that they have to pay an inheritance tax of as much as 50% of the value of the property while a couple that is married and has a partner die does not usually have to pay inheritance taxes.
I don’t remember Chariton ever doing mock weddings in Home Ec. We did have to do the Egg Baby thing though.
My high school had a mock (heterosexual) wedding every year.
If marriage has all these economic advantages, why do we have so many who live together without marriage?
Well, if same-sex partners want to have the economic advantages of “marriage” then they can have the economic disadvantages of paying lawyers for “divorces”. From what I understand, homosexuals have far more partners than heterosexuals.
This is a lawyer’s dream scenario.
“the surviving family members of the deceased can and often do challenge that contract and get it voided.” – VastVariety
If that is true, then we have some extremely idiotic judges. But we already knew that so why be surprised.
VV – I have absolutely no interest in depriving you of your inalienable rights, life, liberty, property, speech, self defense, security of personal effects, etc. I do however, have a problem with the government legitimizing your behavior by recognizing a homosexual partnership as equal to marriage. It is not. If the state gets completely out of the marriage business, I would be thrilled. I almost vomit every time I hear a Pastor say “By the power invested in my by the State of …” I made my vows before “God and These Witnesses” and I expect them to hold me accountable for those vows, not the State.
We have civil contracts that govern almost every aspect of our lives. Joint Property ownership, Last Will and Testament, Living Wills, Power of Attorney, Bill of Sale, for crying out loud, we have legal Pet Custody Agreements. There is no reason that we need a special set of laws to govern marriages.
I got married because I chose not to remain single, and according to my Bible, those are the only two options. I didn’t get married for tax breaks, or for employee benefits, or to get around any other civil contracts, and I am personally disgusted that our culture has allowed the institution of marriage to deteriorate to the point that people consider those valid reasons to get married. I believe that marriage is 1Man + 1Woman + Forever. That is not something that can be granted, or enforced by the State. It can only be enforced by individuals in ongoing relationship with intimate accountability.
DVFO – I am more than willing to accept the responsibilities of marriage right along with it’s benefits.
belikebunce – Unfortunately those types of cases do happen a lot, especially when same sex couples are involved. An unmarried couple just doesn’t have the same standing within a court as blood relations do regardless of the contract.
Oh and DVFO – In my entire life I have only had 2 partners, 1 male, and 1 female.
Vast: One too many–dump the male. How many partners has that male had?
Vast: Homosexuality is WRONG but I’m not going to beat you over the head with that. You know it as well as the rest of us. What I am totally disgusted at is the militants who believe they are entitled to get in the faces of the rest of us with their disgusting behavior in public.
I also object strongly that they have taken their perversion to our schools and use them as a place of recruitment for impressionable youngsters.
If you want to do it, fine, go ahead and do it but stay away from the kids and don’t think it is the responsibility of the rest of us to pay for your medical bills.
“Home Ec teachers being arrested. Are you out of your mind?” MIE
Did you not read what I posted earlier about DM attorney Sharon Malheiro, the First Lady of the SSM push in Iowa, saying that any teacher who says marriage is between one man and one woman has job performance issues?
Does this mean the Home Ec/Family Sciences curriculum has to be turned upside down to appease a few homosexual activists in Des Moines?
DVFO
So your telling me I should have stayed with the woman who I later found out was a drug addict and was stealing from me to support her habit, and who had so many partners her son was 7 years old before she could finally figure out who his dad was, while I should have left the man that I have been with in a stable monogamous relationship with for more than 11 years. Yeah, that makes sense… somewhere.
No, she’s telling you that you were made to be with a woman. Maybe not THAT woman.
I believe DVFO said “Vast: One too many–dump the male.”
Nothing about staying with the woman. Just that you shouldn’t have picked up the male partner. Maybe STAY SINGLE? As has been said, there is nothing inherently sinful in SSA, the sin is acting on that attraction. Remaining celibate will easily prevent you from committing that sin.
V V wrote: “the surviving family members of the deceased can and often do challenge that contract and get it voided.”
And the always highly righteous Bb wrote: “If that is true, then we have some extremely idiotic judges. But we already knew that so why be surprised.”
Doggone it Man, you know as well as we all do that you judge-haters “shop” for activist judges attempting to get judgements that fit your moral convictions. You (collectively) have even tried to find a judge that would abrogate an actual male/female marriage contract in the infamous Schaivo case.
Moral indignation can only hold water when the indignant Party is squeeky-clean.
Vast: Sounds like so far, you’ve made a mess of your life. I wish you well.
CD – Please provide a quote, or at least a paraphrase w/ context of a time when I have made an argument for any kind of judicial activism. If you cannot, then kindly stop putting words in my mouth, and stereotyping me.
My line: “You (collectively) have even tried to find a judge that would abrogate an actual male/female marriage contract in the infamous Schaivo case.” clarifies the _you_ as being _Republican_ collectively. No further breakdown needed or offered.
By choosing to call yourself a Repub and arguing so dynamically for the positions of that Party, you ought expect to be personally gauged by the collective actions of that Party.
I don’t believe those actions were taken by the “Party” but they might have been. If they were the “Party” was wrong. The “Party” is quite regularly wrong. I am a member of the Republican Party to reform the party, and to restore the principles of limited government through it.
Conservative Demo wrote on 17 November, 2009, 9:42My line: “You (collectively) have even tried to find a judge that would abrogate an actual male/female marriage contract in the infamous Schaivo case.” clarifies the _you_ as being _Republican_ collectively. No further breakdown needed or offered.
That is complete horse hockey.
Conservative Demo wrote on 17 November, 2009, 9:15
And the always highly righteous Bb wrote: “If that is true, then we have some extremely idiotic judges. But we already knew that so why be surprised.”
Doggone it Man, you know as well as we all do that you judge-haters “shop” for activist judges attempting to get judgements that fit your moral convictions.
I think that was a direct attack that requires “further breakdown” or an apology.
Bb sez: “The “Party” is quite regularly wrong. I am a member of the Republican Party to reform the party, and to restore the principles of limited government through it.”
And for that I will grant you credit, in your postings here on TIR you do eloquently stand for pure adherence to the published Party positions.
If I do “eloquently stand for pure adherence to the published Party positions” that is incidental. As I have said, I stand for “individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy.”
I thank you for the compliment though.
Thanks accepted graciously. And I’ll buy the coffee.
“Apology” ???
Get a life man, this is a blog.
Modern American Society is already way too overloaded with feigned or imagined offense and demands for apology.
That’s the stuff of demos and liberals.
That’s the kind of stuff we don’t understand about mid-eastern cultures, their taking of offense at the drop of a hat or pun.
BB, your creds ain’t gonna be damaged one tad over a guy who calls himself a conservative democrat saying something about you which you thought was mean.
DVFO – Ever since I accepted the fact I was born gay my life has been going pretty well. I have a great job, I own my home, I’m in a stable and happy relationship and thank you for the well wishes.
belikebunce – Why on earth would anyone want to stay single? Just because I don’t fall in love within the narrow parameters of some book doesn’t mean I should live my life without love.
I agree my credibility has not been damaged, however, you did at best infer what was untrue. I feel that requires either justification or an apology. I do my best to apologize for misrepresenting, or falsely accusing someone, and I expect the same. It’s just who I am.
“Why on earth would anyone want to stay single?” – Vast
People do it all the time.
Why on earth would anyone “accept” a psychosexual developmental disorder and then jump into the dangerous lifestyle that goes along with it? You are putting yourself at risk, Vast.
I promise to treat you with soft white gloves when we meet for coffee.
LOL. That is very decent of you. Unnecessary, but again, Thank You.
Yo Peggy. What Mass like at the Basilica these days? I’ll be there for the 4:00 p.m. service on the Saturday after Thanksgiving?
I have no idea. Visiting family for Thanksgiving?
Peggy–big family reunion.
MIE, will I see you this year at the Culver holiday party?
Peggy
Homosexuality is not a psychological disorder and I’m not going to go around the tree with you on that topic again. There are years of research that back that up.
Here is a good reason why tolerance of LGBT students needs to be taught in schools and anti-bullying programs.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/21631567/detail.html
A Georgia teacher is under arrest for allegedly putting a “hit” out on one of his students and harassing the student, asking him if he was gay.
Amber–maybe. I haven’t seen my invitation yet. Have you received one?
The Republican Party is defeating itself in the long run when it adopts a fundamentalist religious position. If we’re truly a party of limited government, we have to support equality and the bill of rights. Sorry – I know this won’t be popular – but gay marriage is the right and fair thing in a constitutional republic like ours. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to accept it in your religion, but our limted government does need to make it accessible to everyone equally.
Vast: Why are gays and lesbians entitled to any more protections than others? What make you so special?
There are laws against these kinds of things and they should pertain to everyone equally. It does not matter how you do sex, what color you are or anything else. We are all equal under the law.
I’m not asking for special laws or to be treated different;y. But if tolerance was taught in schools then this abuse by a teacher may have been prevented. And yes tolerance education should go for not just for LGBT students but for treating all equally.
Thank you. I was just reading about a pro-amnesty group that attacked and injured a group that is against illegal immigration and I thought of you.
Our Lord, many years ago gave us the answer for these kinds of issues. It’s called The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But of course, we can’t use this as it comes from the Bible and we have to make it more complicated by trying to do the same thing man’s way.
No, Vast, I said “psychosexual developmental disorder.”