Flaws Begin to Emerge in Branstad Campaign
- Monday, December 14, 2009, 4:20
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 2,391 views
- 102 comments
For most of this year, former Governor Terry Branstad has dominated political news stories across the state. The speculation that began this past summer about a run for a fifth term for Branstad came to fruition this fall when he retired from Des Moines University to focus on his campaign.
As a potential candidate, Branstad enjoys what one would expect from a former governor. Since June, Branstad has beaten current Governor Chet Culver in head-to-head polls conducted by TheIowaRepublican.com, the Iowa First Foundation, and The Des Moines Register. In each of those polls, Branstad doesn’t win by a narrow margin; he crushes Governor Culver by 20 points.
Much of the success that Branstad enjoyed in the early polls can be attributed to two things. First, Branstad has tremendous name recognition across the state, even after being out of the political spotlight for the last decade. Second, Iowans are frustrated with Governor Culver and have concluded that he is not up to the task of leading the state through these difficult economic times.
Yet, there is one thing that Branstad continues to struggle with – his own record.
The best example to date of how Branstad’s record as governor is hurting his campaign came late last week. The Branstad campaign issued a press release calling out Governor Culver for wanting to use $50 million from the Road Use Tax Fund to pay for the Iowa State Patrol. Branstad called it, “Road Raid.”
Branstad’s statement fit nicely with his previous statement about the Road Use Tax Fund. In an interview with Radio Iowa, Branstad told Kay Henderson, “I don’t think we need a gas tax increase, and I wouldn’t support a gas tax increase,” Branstad said. “In fact, I think what we need to do with the Department of Transportation — what we need to do with all state and local government — (is) look at how can we eliminate some of the administrative costs and some of the inefficiencies so more of the user fees, which is the gas tax (and) your vehicle registration, that that goes for what it’s supposed to go to: roads and bridges.”
The problem for Branstad is that he is guilty of the same “Road Raid” of which he is accusing Governor Culver. Chris Rants, one of Branstad’s primary opponents, claims that Branstad began the practice of using the Road Use tax Fund to pay for the Iowa State Patrol in 1985.
Rants said, “Candidate Terry Branstad is now criticizing Governor Terry Branstad’s record. The Branstad campaign is criticizing the Culver administration for considering a practice that the Branstad administration employed for more than a decade. It was a bad idea when Branstad did it, it was a bad idea when I had the showdown with Vilsack in the special session, and it’s still a bad idea now.”
Rants told TheIowaRepublican.com, “The practice didn’t come to an end until my first term in the legislature when people like myself made the tough decisions needed to get Iowa’s fiscal house in order.” From 1985-1995 Branstad diverted over $275 million from the fund to pay for the Iowa State Patrol.
The Branstad press release clearly states, “This is no savings. This is a diversion from the Road Use Tax Fund and a detour from pay-as-you-go budgeting. This is a bad budget practice that was used in the past, and as governor, I put an end to it. This is a step backward, and the governor should not play budgetary shell games with our roads and Iowa State Patrol.” While Branstad admits that he ended the practice, he forgets to mention that the practice began under his administration.
The question that this issue raises is, how well do the people running Branstad’s campaign know the former Governor’s 16 year record? Either they didn’t know that Branstad implemented the practice of using Road Use Funds to pay for the state patrol, or they did know and thought they could get away with the language in their press release. Neither option is good for the Branstad campaign.
The Branstad campaign should have expected Chris Rants to be waiting to call out Branstad for these types of mistakes. Rants has based his entire campaign on the notion that Republicans will not be able to defeat Governor Culver if they nominate a candidate who has employed the same accounting practices when he was governor. Rants was able to add credibility to his argument on Friday when he pointed out Branstad’s apparent hypocrisy.
Branstad’s 16 year record as governor will continue to be a major issue in the Republican primary and general election if he wins the nomination. With that being the case, the Branstad campaign needs to know and understand its candidate’s record better than its opponents do. That currently doesn’t seem to be the case.
This latest gaffe surrounding the Road Use Fund also begs the question, where is the input of Doug Gross, David Oman, and Dave Roederer on the Branstad campaign? All three served as Branstad’s Chief of Staff in the past, and all three are involved in his current campaign. With that amount of institutional knowledge just a phone call away, one has to wonder how a mistake like this was made.
While Branstad’s general elections polling numbers are stellar, winning the Republican primary will be no easy task. The last thing Branstad’s staff should do is take their Republican opponents for granted. Thus far, it seems as if the Branstad campaign is living off of the inevitability that they will win the nomination. That’s a strategy that invites failure. Instead, they need to use this latest episode to make their campaign better. Unlike any other campaign, Branstad has everything a candidate needs to run an outstanding campaign, but it’s obvious that his campaign is not yet running on all cylinders.
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 503 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.
102 Comments on “Flaws Begin to Emerge in Branstad Campaign”
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.
They probably thought they could get away with it because so far, the media coverage of Branstad’s campaign has said very little about his true record. Case in point: a Ft. Dodge Messenger editorial absurdly claiming that as governor he “rigorously adhered” to a pay-as-you-go approach in budgeting.
Hello, Grandy’s whole 1994 primary campaign was about Branstad’s messed-up budget practices. Why do people think so many Republican officials backed Grandy in that campaign? It’s extremely unusual for a primary challenger to an incumbent to get any support from that party’s elected officials (see Fallon, Ed).
I have very mixed feelings about this line of concern. Yes, Gov. Branstad has a record, but does that mean that we should elect BVP who tries to ignore his “record” in the non-profit sector? Or, should we blame the Legislator candidates for everything that happened while they were in their respective chambers? Frnakly, times were different in the mid-80s. Our taxes may have been below averages, we were in a farm crisis. We need to look a little more to the future. The Ds can call Terry a tax lover, but anyone who thinks that a second term for Chet Culver will be anything but a license to tax and spend needs to post somewhere else. Also, take a look at the WSJ editorial pages today.
Thanks, anon, and IIRC, Branstad also got some concessions in here that no one talks about.
Robinson and his zombies just can’t get over the fact that Branstad and Gross have the juice while BVP’s star (if that’s what you want to call it) continues to fade. The fact remains that Branstad will appeal to the vast middle because he is a problem solver and not beholden to ideology. Bully for him for taking on the road lobby.
MIE, Branstad is not “taking on the road lobby” here–he is echoing their talking points. For all we know, he has also told them he will raise the gas tax again.
Where does Branstad stand on civil righst for gays, lesbians and bisexuals? I know none of the other Republicans support equality. Does Branstad? Or is Chet Culver the only pro equality candidate running for governor?
“Or is Chet Culver the only pro equality candidate running for governor?”
- Chet Culver has publicly stated that he’s against gay marriage.
Amber: Is that the only issue you care about or do you care about saving the economy of the state of Iowa. That impacts all of us.
It’s not the only issue I care about, Deace Voted for Obama but it is very important to me. I believe in equality.
Mr. Hawk, Chet Culver had the courage to support the Iowa Supreme Court decision.
DVFO
When it’s an issue that affects the status of my civil rights as granted to me by both the state and federal constitutions I hold it as just as important as fixing the economy and state spending.
I thought Branstad had the best press guy in the state? Doesn’t he know not to send out something that will bite you in the ass far harder than what you might hope to get in good press providing nobody checks the facts? Phuck’n amateur hour! Call up Woolson and make him an offer he cant refuse fast! Speaking of offers you cant refuse, that reminds me of this one time over at Al’s Saloon where they started a punch card program where after your 25th patronage you get the 26th for half price. Signed up right away! Giggdy giggidy goo!
Amber and VV: I’m going to call you hypocrites if you do not also support polygamy.
Rants record can easily be called into question as well. If he keeps pushing this line of attack, it will come back to bite him.
At least this attack wasn’t nearly as pathetic as Vander Plaats’ hypocrisy.
http://www.examiner.com/x-22564-Des-Moines-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d14-Vander-Plaats-getting-desperate-in-bid-to-take-down-Branstad
DVFO, is that like how pro-lifers are hypocrites for opposing abortion but not fertility clinics?
Its an interesting dilemna. I support legalizing polygamy, but I don’t care very much about it, but I would love to have multiple wives. I support gay marriage, I care about it more than polygamy, but I want nothing to do with homosexual acts (except for two women).
The reason for the inconsistency is because gay marriage really is about equality and polygamy is not.
robpo, do you think you should legally be allowed to marry a goat? I
If it’s all about equality, goat lovers should be included.
Robo: Gay marriage is about equality and polygamy is not? If you want the right to marry whomever you want, why shouldn’t the polygamist be afforded the same right, or even the goat lover?
Why do you think you should be the one who gets to define marriage?
Do you want to put an age limit on when same-sex partners can marry? What about relatives?
How about answering your own question DVFO, Why do you think you should be the one who gets to define marriage?
For the record, While I think it’s wrong and disgusting, as long as everyone is a consenting adult in the relationship then I’d don’t have a big hang up in regards to Polygamy, and I think I’ve mentioned that here in the comments on this site before. government has no business in dictating what consenting adults can and can’t do when it comes to marriage. The only business that government has in dealing with marriage is enforcing the terms of the civil contract that marriage creates.
As for the next thing you’ll throw at me with age, Minors can not be expected to totally understand what they are getting into in regards to marriage (most adults even have trouble with that) and limiting marriage by age is no different than limiting by age things like alcohol usage, smoking, and driving.
The other ridiculous argument about animals or inanimate objects that marriage equality opponents often like to trow out… Animals and inanimate objects do not have the mental capacity required to enter into a legally binding and mutually consensual civil contract.
Vast,
Marriage was defined by God. Neither you nor the Iowa State Supreme Court are God, and you don’t get to redefine it.
Peggy
Man defined what marriage was before the scriptures that comprise the bible were ever written.
VV: Then what do you think about NAMBLA? They believe they are doing young boys a favor by educating them about homosexual sex at a young age.
It was God who defined marriage and man can change it any which way they want but it will not change the true definition of marriage.
You can call it a cow and it won’t change anything. It’s too late. God beat you to it.
I second VV to answer questions posed of me, VV said it better than I could have.. Goat lovers can’t marry goats because goats aren’t capable of saying yes or no to a marriage proposal. The same age limits should apply to same-sex partners as applies to hetero partners.
You have a strong point DVFO about polygamy. I don’t have a good argument why equal rights wouldn’t apply to polygamists also, as long as everyone consents.
I’m not defining marriage. The only definition of marriage I accept is that proferred by the government. That is the only entity that has any bearing on the construct of the legal contract that is marriage. I recognize many people also intertwine religious constructs in defining their marriage, and thats fine for them. Those religious constructs don’t apply to anyone outside that given couple’s contract, whereas government constructs apply to every single legal marriage that exists.
Vast,
Who said anything about the Scriptures?
Human anatomy defines marriage. The human body existed long before people were literate. Even the caveman could figure it out.
NAMBLA is a disgusting perversion and has nothing to do with same sex marriage.
Marriage existed long before recorded history .
One of the earliest examples of marriage in actual legal code comes from Hammurabi’s Code which dates to to somewhere around 1790 BC.
Marriage exists because humans, like almost all other primates tend to form mated pairs with. Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Native Americans, and countless others get married every day on this planet without any involvement what so ever from the Christian God. God simply isn’t that petty.
Sorry DVFO, the only person for whom your “true definition of marriage” applies, is to you and your spouse. The only true, true definition of marriage is that made by the government. You can create a marriage contract including God’s will or definition, but it only applies to your union. You’re right we can call it whatever we want, it doesn’t change the reality that only the government defines it for all of us. Anything beyond the legal application is applicable to only the specific union being defined. You have to accept your true definition is only true to you (and anyone who shares the same view). It doesn’t apply to me, so how true can it really be?
You’re finally starting to get it, Vast.
Peggy
Human anatomy has nothing to with marriage and cavemen are probably not an example you want to use.
In April of 2007, Fox News did a story on research that was being conducted on Stone Age humans that had evidence that for the most part they had sex for fun as opposed to simply for reproduction. There is also evidence that they participated in activities such as group sex and transvestism.
You can google “The Origins of Human Sexual Culture Sex, Gender and Social Control” in the Journal of Psychology.
Also Peggy, Almost every animal species on Earth that operates within a social group structure, especially mammals, which Humans are, form homosexual mated pairs right along side heterosexual mated pairs.
And as long as the human body has existed, so has homosexuality. How much you want to bet there were homosexual cavemen?
Yes, yes and yes.
Doesn’t make it right or advantageous.
It also doesn’t make it wrong.
But then that is not what the argument is really about. It’s about whether Civil American Government should base it’s definition of marriage on a Christian tradition dating back to 325 AD or should it base it’s definition on the secular principles of individual liberty.
Vast, There are lots of things wrong about homosexual sex.
Why do you keep bringing up Christianity?
“Mr. Hawk, Chet Culver had the courage to support the Iowa Supreme Court decision.”
- And again, has stated explicitly (as have Obama and Harkin) that they do not favor gay marriage. You can continue ignoring this, but I’ll continue pointing it out.
At least this thread hasnt been hijacked by a subject which is truly rediculous. That reminds me of this one time Trixie agreed to do what most would call unconventional happy time and a few would even call rediculous by letting me dress up as a motivational speaker in the cutest little sweater vests and OH NEVERMIND. Giggidy giggidy goo!
Peggy, there are lots of things wrong with football too.
Why do you keep bringing up homosexual sex?
robpo–the commenters on this site are preoccupied with homosexual sex, to their electorate peril. Why, in light of the pressing problems such as the budget crisis, skyrocketing foreclosures, unemployment, health care etc. we have people stuck on this issue truly escapes me.
rob,
I didn’t bring up homosexual sex, Amber Baum did. And she’s for it, BTW.
Because Peggy when you take God and/or Christianity out of the argument about homosexuality being wrong, then there is nothing wrong with it.
I’d love to see any scientifically proven evidence you have to the contrary, and preferably something that comes from a credible source and not one the widly discredited scources such as Dr. Cameron or NARTH.
Mr. Hawk
Harkin has, since the April court ruling stated that he is in favor of marriage equality, I believe he did this in a May appearance on Iowa Press. Also, while Culver and Obama may be personally against the idea of same sex marriage, I know that at least Obama is on the record stating that he is not in favor of laws and constitutional amendments such as California’s Prop 8 and is in favor of repealing DOMA, even if he is being really slow about it.
Here are some facts about the ‘healthy’ nature of homosexuality:
“Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases.…Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually transmitted diseases (std) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe hiv is no longer a life-threatening illness.”
- New York Blade News, (December 15, 2000)
This is a quote from a letter I received from Harkin in June of this year.
“n 1996, I supported the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which established the federal definition of marriage as only the legal union between one man and one woman. Since that time, however, I have given the issue a great deal of thought and my views have evolved. While I always believed that committed same-sex couples should have all the basic legal protections and benefits of marriage through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to guarantee these rights is through marriage equality. At the same time, I believe that questions regarding marriage as a religious sacrament are best left to individual religious denominations.”
““In a large CDC study, conducted in sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics in five major U.S. cities, researchers found the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) to be nine times higher than among women and heterosexual men. According to other CDC research, a number of factors contribute to high rates of infection among MSM, including psychosocial problems like depression and illicit drug use, age of sexual partners, and low rates of HIV testing among young MSM, particularly African Americans.”
- CDC Press Release (July 9, 2002)
“The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 660,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 2001, “men who have sex with men” and “men who have sex with men and inject drugs” together accounted for 63 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.”
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
homosexual men with HIV have “a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5-fold increase in lip cancer.”
- The Washington Blade (June 2, 2000)
CT, that isn’t evidence that homosexuality is wrong, it’s simply proof that we need to be smarter about practicing safe sex.
Its proof that by and large, homosexual behavior is much…much more dangerous than heterosexual behavior. Furthermore, this type of dangerous behavior should not be promoted by the State
“The probability of HIV transmission associated with unprotected receptive anal intercourse…ranges from..between 1 in 125 and 1 in 31. Meanwhile, the probability of HIV transmission for unprotected vaginal intercourse ranges from between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 666.This suggests that anal intercourse is at least five times more dangerous, and possibly as much as 64 times more dangerous, with a mid-range estimate of 16 to 21 times more dangerous than vaginal intercourse.”
- The New England Journal of Medicine, April 10, 1997
CT–the problem with your argument is that you are applying statistics involving groups to individuals. If we were accept your premise we sterilize evangelical adolescents because according to the National Longitudenal Study of Adolescent Health white evangelical adolescents lose their virginity on average, at age 16 (Sarah Palin please note) earlier than any other group execept for black protestants.
A gay man that engages in monogamous relationships is no more likely to get AIDS or any other STD than a straight man.
Gay men are much less likely to be monogamous due to the detrimental stigma placed on them by society.
Remove the stigma and the incidents of STD’s among the gay population would be no worse than those of the straight population.
Well Mod,
The problem with your argument is that you are making an equivalency between losing virginity and spreading deadly disease. The facts clearly indicate that one kind of act is much, MUCH more likely spread disease than another. Additionaly, the latter activity has the added benefit of being more likely to producing children.
CT, all you have done is proven that promiscuous sex (both gay and straight) is risky. You have NOT proven that it is wrong.
Smoking a cigarette is risky. Driving a car is risky. Chugging a bottle beer is risky, and stupid, none of them are wrong, or illegal.
CT: Let me put it to you in a different way. If you are concerned about STDs, address STDs and the behavior that leads to its spread. Why focus on one group? I’m sure that poor inner city minorities have higher rates of STDs than other groups. Are you proposing to discriminate against them as you propose to do with homosexuals? If your thinking is correct why not ban poor inner city minorities from marrying?
Actually Mod, banning minority groups from marriage would actually increase their rates of getting STD’s as they would then tend to be less monogamous with their relationships.
Peggy, to correct the record, Amber Baum brought up equality. She is for equality, BTW. Unless I missed something, nowhere in her comments did she use the words “homosexual sex”, or even directly refer to it.
You indeed brought it up Peggy – “Vast, There are lots of things wrong about homosexual sex.” Vast didn’t bring it up either, Vast also never used those words.
You bring it up often Peggy, you focus on it. I think its the shield you use to hide from your prejudice. Its not that your points on the subject aren’t important, they just don’t equate to your premise, its very disingenuous.
Thanks, robpo. I didn’t bring up “homosexual sex.” All I am interested in is equality and just asked a simple question about where Governor Branstad stands on equality.
“Because Peggy when you take God and/or Christianity out of the argument about homosexuality being wrong, then there is nothing wrong with it.” – Vast Variety
OMG, Vast. You are truly grasping now. Here, try this one on for size. It appears he was monogamous and all.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.towleroad.com/2009/12/former-nyc-commissioner-and-aids-activist-dennis-deleon-dies.html&ct=ga&cd=7yRBLAhDt2I&usg=AFQjCNGSTOIBoGWUfah96M7veuSr3dmsUw
Amber, robpo – in the present context, “equality” means legalized homosexual sex. What are you smoking?
Peggy, there are many, many ways to become HIV Positive and not all of them include sex. And I still stand by my statement that when you take God out of the argument against homosexuality there is nothing wrong with it.
Peggy, equality means equal treatment under the law, including the right to marry.
VV: There was equality under the law before. The same laws regarding marriage applied to EVERYONE. That’s equality.
DVFO, after Iowa passed the DOMA law, the marriage laws of the state didn’t apply to everyone equally, and thus they were struck down by the state Supreme Court. Do we really need to go around this circle again? The idea that a law that states marriage is only between a man and woman treats gay people equally with straight people is complete fiction.
If you want to use your argument, then we also have to include all sorts of deviant behavior. The issue is that YOU want to change the definition of marriage to suit YOU. Well, there are probably all kinds of others who want to change it to suit them. What makes homosexuals any more special than those who want to practice polygamy? When everyone gets done putting THEIR desired definition to what was formerly called marriage–we have no marriage and maybe that’s what we’ll have to deal with.
If churches are not FORCED to go along with everyone’s personal definition of marriage, maybe we can still have the traditional definition of marriage laid down by God. Man can tinker with it all they want but it still doesn’t change God’s definition.
“Thanks, robpo. I didn’t bring up “homosexual sex.” All I am interested in is equality and just asked a simple question about where Governor Branstad stands on equality.”
- Well, we know where Culver, Harkin and Obama are on the issue. They’re AGAINST equality.
Oh Peggy, newsflash for you, homosexual sex is already legal. Only in your own mental context does equality equate to homosexual sex. That doesn’t come easy, you must really have your head twisted like a pretzel to protect that self righteous ego from reality. Just the thought of all those icky gays out there must make your skin crawl.
Mr. Hawk, are you turning blue over there? You’re finding common ground with Culver, Harkin and Obama? But to correct you a bit, Harkin has evolved and now supports equality. And you really should think twice before you vote for Culver again.
DVFO, what deviant behavior do you have in mind? More than polygamy? Polygymy has a long historical precedent in Christianity, many of the prophets and Patriarchs had multiple wives. The tradition only changed because society in general was disgusted by the practice. It is a very tough concept to live in given humans’ weak emotional abilities, let alone during a time of puritans.
The government defines marriage. You’re free to adopt a definition you believe is laid down by God, nothing wrong with that, just don’t fool yourself that your Godly definition applies to anyone else, unless they so choose to also adopt it. The only definition that applies to all of us equally is what comes from the government. BTW, churches are not forced to adopt anyone else’s definition of marriage either, any church can accept or refuse to marry anyone they want, as it should be.
Mr. Hawk – Your wrong about Harkin and I’ve already posted that evidence.
DFVO – I’m not trying to redefine marriage because marriage has had many different meanings in various cultures through out all of human history and I have no issue with your church or any other church being allowed to continue to not recognize same sex marriage under your God’s definition. It’s only the state that must recognize it as per the equality clauses of the State and US Constitutions.
robpo: The list of possible different types of deviant behavior is so long there’s no point in getting started and that’s the point. How do we keep everyone happy? You’re no more special than any one else who wants to define marriage to their liking.
You claim that churches are not forced to adopt others’ definition of marriage and you also state that that is the way it should be. That WILL change. Churches WILL be forced to marry anyone who shows up on the door steps or be charged with hate crimes.
That comes next.
robpo: Will you fight for the right of churches to marry only those they want?
DVFO, to answer your question- YES, I will fight for the right of churches to marry only those they want. Thats how it should be and it will continue to be that way. That does not come next, it will not change.
The point of this issue is not to keep everyone happy. The point is to follow the Constitution. Honestly, making a list of deviant behaviors doesn’t matter, thats a red herring anyway. I get that you’re scared of the unknown, but think about it, we have some precedent now, has the inclusion of gay marriage in Iowa had any effect on you whatsoever?
DVFO, Speech can be hateful but rarely a crime. In order to qualify as a hate crime an action would first have to be deemed a crime under other laws.
A Church can preach all it wants about the sins of homosexuality and it’s not a crime. A Church can choose not to perform same sex marriages if it wants to and that is not a hate crime. It’s religious freedom and freedom of speech.
Now if a partitioner in that church goes out and beats or kills a homosexual then that person has potentially committed a hate crime. Unless the church as said, “you must go out and kill all homosexuals” then the church isn’t responsible for that persons actions.
Church’s all ready can deny to provide services to any couple (straight or gay) that does not fit within that church’s religious doctrines. You can’t force a Christian church to perform a Jewish wedding ceremony if it doesn’t want to as an example.
Any individual or organization that attempts to force a church to perform any marriage, straight or gay, against the religious tenants of that church is violating that church’s freedom of religion.
Only the state is required to recognize same sex marriages under the constitution because government is required to treat everyone equally.
74 comments on fags and the church? A suggestion if I may. All you bible thumping, queer hating, Mormon trashing, abortion clinic protesting, home schooled, Vander Plaats worshipping dolts need to stop clouding the blogosphere with your dribble that nobody gives a rats ass about. If we did, Bob would have been elected governor ten years ago when he began his never-ending pipe dream that you all share. Now then, if you are going to hijack a thread at least let it be crude and about sex. It works for me. Giggidy giggidy goo!
“Mr. Hawk – Your wrong about Harkin and I’ve already posted that evidence.”
- Assuming that’s true you’re admitting then that Obama and Culver don’t support equality?
Mr. Q, that’s really uncalled for.
Mr. Hawk – Yes, Obama is on record stating that he is not in favor of same sex marriage but he is in favor of equal treatment, the repeal of DOMA, and the end of DADT. I am not as familiar with Culver’s opinion on the subject but I believe that his opinion is similar to that of Obama’s.
The difference is, that Obama and Culver are much less likely to support any sort of constitutional amendment on the state level or on the federal level, prohibiting same sex marriage and that ways very heavily into who I will vote for, along with economic issues, and ending the wars responsibly.
But Glen, this thread is about sex! Peggy brought it up many posts ago!
“Church’s all ready can deny to provide services to any couple (straight or gay) that does not fit within that church’s religious doctrines. You can’t force a Christian church to perform a Jewish wedding ceremony if it doesn’t want to as an example.
Any individual or organization that attempts to force a church to perform any marriage, straight or gay, against the religious tenants of that church is violating that church’s freedom of religion. ”
So, that Methodist church camp that rufused to host a gay wedding and got sued by a gay couple and lost was in the right?
Scott M, depends on if their camp was open to use by the public or not. I’m not familiar with the incident your talking about.
If it’s the one in New Jersey, then the Church was in the wrong on the grounds that the church was receiving a tax break in exchange for the pavilion being open to the public. All the church had to do in order to prevent gay couples from being able to use the pavilion was to close it public use and treat it as private property. They could have probably worked something out in order to keep their tax breaks.
An example of this in play is the plaza in front of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City. It is considered private property and thus they have every right to prevent gay couples from standing in the plaza and kissing. Of course it would help if the church would clearly identify the plaza as being private property.
Another example I have seen thrown around sometimes is the Catholic Charities adoption service. As long as they were accepting taxpayer dollars to help fund the program then they were required to follow the non-discrimination laws that apply to government money. They could have easily chosen to continue to provide adoption services had they been willing to forgo receiving the taxpayer money. As a taxpayer I don’t want my tax dollars going to organizations that don’t want to provide services to same sex couples any more than you want your tax dollars going to fund abortions.
“Mr. Hawk – Yes, Obama is on record stating that he is not in favor of same sex marriage but he is in favor of equal treatment, the repeal of DOMA, and the end of DADT. I am not as familiar with Culver’s opinion on the subject but I believe that his opinion is similar to that of Obama’s.
The difference is, that Obama and Culver are much less likely to support any sort of constitutional amendment on the state level or on the federal level, prohibiting same sex marriage and that ways very heavily into who I will vote for, along with economic issues, and ending the wars responsibly.”
- This exemplifies the most ridiculous form of political rationalization imaginable. It’s okay that Obama doesn’t “support equality.” He gets a pass.
I thought this story was about Branstad and his campaign? VastVariety you should change your name to VastlyOfftopic. Speaking of off topic, I’m reminded of this one time I got the clap so bad over at Al’s Saloon that when I got home the lights kept turning off and on. Get it? I was a clapper? Giggidy giggidy goo!
Mr. Hawk, I understand that there is no way to have complete purity within a political party.
Mod,
I see that you may have failed to read the data, so i’ll post the relevant part again…
“The probability of HIV transmission associated with unprotected receptive anal intercourse…ranges from..between 1 in 125 and 1 in 31. Meanwhile, the probability of HIV transmission for unprotected vaginal intercourse ranges from between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 666.This suggests that anal intercourse is at least five times more dangerous, and possibly as much as 64 times more dangerous, with a mid-range estimate of 16 to 21 times more dangerous than vaginal intercourse.”
- The New England Journal of Medicine, April 10, 1997
So again, homosexual unprotected intercourse can be 64 TIMES more dangerous than unprotected heterosexual intercourse. This is NOT just about STDs, it is about the most dangerous way to behave and the most likely way to catch these diseases. Vast mentioned that smoking too is known to be bad for your health. I wonder why the State isn’t in the business of promoting that particular behavior?
Of course unprotected sex is dangerous and so is being promiscuous. Gay men are more likely to be promiscuous due to the stigma that is attached to being born a homosexual and the fact that they are less likely to form monogamous relationships. If you remove the stigma around homosexuality then gay men are more likely to form monogamous relationships and the rates of HIV (and other STD’s) transmission decline. Of course it would also help if more gay men would get the head’s out of the butts and use a condom. Being a homosexual isn’t a behavior, it is an identity trait just like red hair or blue eyes, and has an influence on behavior.
CT–you’ve mistagged yourself. You are a reactor not a thinker. Read my posts. The problem I identify is the application of group statistics to individuals. Deal with the condition not the group. If it’s STDs you are worried about then prevent those with STDs from marrying. If divorce is a problem deal with the conditions that cause divorce. In other words don’t ban evangelicals from getting married just because they have the highest divorce rates among religious groups.
Whoa, wait a minute.
Nobody is stopping gay men from engaging in monogamous relationships but themselves. You don’t have to be married to be monogamous. Let’s not pretend that the general promiscuity and lack of condom use of many gay men is anyone’s fault but themselves.
I love how no liberal wants to take responsibility for his own behavior.
Vast,
I will address your comments in two parts. First, your supposition that unprotected intercourse is equally dangerous for all people just isn’t supported by the facts. My earlier post points out that one kind of unprotected intercourse is up to 64 times more dangerous than another.
Oh, and as to your abortion funding comment, the difference between your position and mine is that you, in denying funding to Catholic Charities and (I’m presuming) being okay with tax dollars funding abortions, are perfectly content with two instances of promoting childrens’ suffering. I am not.
Secondly, you state that homosexuality is determined soley by genetics, this too is just not supported by the facts. As Dora B. Goldstein, professor emeritus at Stanford University points out, “Research into the biological basis of sexual orientation presents a clear double message. Yes, genetics plays a part. No, it is not all genetics“. I think the best we can do is to say that some can be predisposed to homosexual behavior, much like alcoholism or heart disease.
Mod –
I read your posts, but you make your statement on a false premise, that no one should apply group statistics to individuals. But I would ask you, how do we determine insurance rates for an individual? Why do we as a county make laws against minors drinking alcohol? Could it be that by looking a group statistics when such behavior was legal, we find that bad things happen?
Mod –
In the vain of the application of alcohol to this premise, you might make the case that because on group of people abuse alcohol at a much higher statistical rate than others, we should ignore that group and address the population as a whole.
CT–to equate actuarial data to political rights isn’t even close. Let’s ban men from driving given that they tend to drive drunk more than women. I much rather deal witht he condition of drinking and driving rather than who as a group drinks and drives.
Then CT, maybe you can tell me when I filled out my “Gay Men’s Club” Application form because I don’t remember ever being allowed to make a choice in who I was attracted to.
And Scott M must have missed my comment about Gay men taking their head’s out of their butts and using a condom.
When an activity within society is shunned and stigmatized as bad that activity is forced into the shadows and thus is not allowed to form naturally.
Mod –
You completely avoided the subject of drinking in general, not drinking and driving. I believe that it has been shown that 18 – 20 year olds abuse alcohol at a significantly higher rate than those of older ages. Given that group statistic, we made laws accordingly. Maybe you could address that?
Vast –
Again, unfortunately, you have no data to back you up. Its simply not there. There is no ‘Gay’ gene. There are genetic factors and there are environmental factors that when combined, contribute to higher probability of homosexuality. The same can be said for heart disease. Just because an individual has a family history of heart disease, does not mean that it is an inevitability that the said individual will also have heart disease.
You didn’t answer my question. When did I supposedly get to choose to be a homosexual?
Vast -
If we, for a moment, accept your premise, what mechanism makes you that way? What genes specifically? I am certainly open to new reseach, but thus far, I haven’t seen any.
CT: wrong again. It isn’t about discriminating between those of legal age and not of legal age. A more apt example of what I’m talking about would be women legally drinking at 18 while men must wait until 21.
Mod -
I think I’m beginning to see your point now. I would agree that on its face, it would appear that while one group of people can do something while another is barred would be a case of discrimination. I think the question comes down to whether or not you believe homosexual activity is entirely determined at birth. This ties into the discussion with Vast as well. Being gay, is simply not the same as being female, or black. The science just simply is not there, not that I have found.
CT–Based on what I have observed in this life but without the benefit of reviewing the research I believe that homosexuality is inate. I think with time the genetic mechanism for homosexuality will be discovered.
The fact that homosexuality occurs in not just humans, but pretty much every other mammalian species on the planet, proves that being gay is both a natural occurrence and not a choice of lifestyle.