Iowa house passes anti-marriage constitutional amendment

Timothy Kincaid

February 1st, 2011

From OneIowa

The Iowa House today, by a vote of 62-37, passed an amendment (House Joint Resolution 6) that would deny any form of legal recognition for gay couples. The amendment seeks to prohibit not only the freedom to marry for gay couples, but also civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to fight attempts to pass the amendment. If passed through both legislative bodies in two consecutive General Assemblies, the issue could be on the ballot as soon as 2013.

As the Democrats hold a majority in the Senate and have already demonstrated their support for Gronstal on the issue, barring some bizarre turn of events, this amendment will not pass the Senate.

occono

February 1st, 2011

And it also would apparently forcibly divorce all existing same-sex marriages in Iowa. And the debate on the bill was apparently not very conclusive on how Iowa has been negatively affected in any way exactly. Aggravating.

Lindoro Almaviva

February 1st, 2011

And it also would apparently forcibly divorce all existing same-sex marriages in Iowa.

Well, the text to the resolution is here and i do not see how it would forcibly divorce people, but then again,i would not put that pass these people. After all, NOM and their allies said they were not interested in seeking tto forcibly divorce people in CA and we know how fast that facade crumbled.

The more I see events like this, the more I am reminded of how a dying animal will use their last ounce of strength to fight back, even when it knows its dying. At this point, it is obvious that the anti-marriage equality movement is fighting a looking battle, yet out of spite, they are creating an environment where hatred will be the only answer back.

How low humans will go is an amazing thing to watch.

occono

February 1st, 2011

Hmm, sorry then, I read it in JMG comments admittedly. I always enjoy reading Judicial opinions but not Bills, I will now. :/

Timothy Kincaid

February 1st, 2011

With all respect to JMG – which I enjoy and read regularly – the comments there are a bit, well, less exacting in content than at BTB.

occono

February 1st, 2011

Yeah, I don’t actually disagree :P

Lucrece

February 1st, 2011

All Republicans voted for this; only 3 Democrats voted for it.

So for all the news about how some young daughter of a Republican bastard supports same-sex marriage, let’s not forget how Republicans actually vote every time they’ve been tested.

Let’s just be thankful that this is the Iowa legislative process with so many safeguards for grinding down amendments. It could be like Wisconsin spitting on Matthew Sheppard’s grave if it weren’t Iowa.

Erin

February 1st, 2011

You know…ugh…How low can you go? Not only do they want to take away a right that has been granted without any valid legal argument, they want to take away DP’s and CU’s as well. There’s no motivation there but hatred.

Michael

February 1st, 2011

How can they not see that they are singling out a specific group that they deem worthy of discrimination? How do they rationalize that with the US Constitution — or have they never read it?

Mihangel apYrs

February 2nd, 2011

Michael
they..don’t..care.

They don’t care that they will destroy families, or ruin lives, or behave unconstitutionally.

They only care that they stop teh ghey from being legitmised as human beings with feelings and needs, as opposed to animals that will fcuk anything male (for male homos)…

They don’t care.. their prejudice gives them authority

Timothy Kincaid

February 2nd, 2011

Lucrece

So for all the news about how some young daughter of a Republican bastard supports same-sex marriage, let’s not forget how Republicans actually vote every time they’ve been tested.

I know that it can feel empowering to lash out in hate and entirely dismiss people based on who their father might be, but that is a luxury our community cannot afford.

I cannot think of a single significant advancement that our community has made that did not require at least a few Republican votes. Truly, had every Republican voted against us – as you say they do – we would have very few rights at all.

It would be foolish not to look at Republicans with caution and concern. History – and a whole lot of rhetoric – show us that on the whole that Republicans are not very supportive of our community and quite often are outright hostile and destructive.

But it would be equally foolish to throw away support because it comes from someone who is a Republican.

As I noted, I’m sure it feels good to hate Barbara Bush. More than a few comments were in that direction.

But the question you have to ask yourself is whether it is more important to hate Republicans or win marriage in New York. Because we simply cannot get marriage passed there this year without Republican support.

Lucrece

February 2nd, 2011

I don’t mean to dismiss her. I just grow tired of the rhetoric that there’s some new generation revolution happening in the Republican party.

Sure, we have the support of family members to known homophobes. That’s nice— but not as nice as having the support of the people actually in power.

For example, I have voted constantly for my Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who could be the textbook definition of “maverick” in her Republican party.

Nevertheless, there are the Chris Barrons and the GayPatriots and the Clarke Coopers who downright mislead people into seeing the Republican party more “open tent” than it really is and siphoning votes away from mebers who truly, when it comes down to votes, have supported us.

I’d dread the future in which the Republicans, with all their history of vile exploitation of our community, were successful in scrubbing people’s mind with “Oh, well, it’s not so politically popular to spit on you people for gain; so we’ve changed and now you can vote for us!”

Gay people should not forget who’s been at the forefront of their legislative crucifixion time and again.

L. Junius Brutus

February 2nd, 2011

Mihange: “They don’t care that they will destroy families, or ruin lives, or behave unconstitutionally.”

They do care – that’s why they do it.

Lucrece: “Nevertheless, there are the Chris Barrons and the GayPatriots and the Clarke Coopers who downright mislead people into seeing the Republican party more “open tent” than it really is and siphoning votes away from mebers who truly, when it comes down to votes, have supported us.”

There are more than enough gay people who vote for Republicans anyway. People like the LCR leverage that into political power.

“I’d dread the future in which the Republicans, with all their history of vile exploitation of our community, were successful in scrubbing people’s mind with “Oh, well, it’s not so politically popular to spit on you people for gain; so we’ve changed and now you can vote for us!””

You dread a future in which the Republicans have changed and no longer are a lackey to the religious right? One should welcome such a development. Political parties are never permanently held “accountable” for what they do. For example, do you think that Democrats still pay a price for their actions before and during the Civil War through the Civil Rights era? Similarly, winning the soul of the nominal party of Lincoln will be more than enough.

Blame the religious right, not the people who reflect the will of their (ignorant) constituents.

Timothy Kincaid

February 2nd, 2011

Lucrece,

I agree that it would be better to have the support of people in power. For example, I wish that Barack Obama’s position on marriage were that of Barbara Bush. I wish that Hilary Clinton shared the views of her husband.

But nevertheless, Barbara Bush and Bill Clinton do change the culture when they publicly support us and we should encourage it. And believe me, having a Bush twin further to the left of him on marriage certainly does put pressure on Obama.

And I know that you too encourage supportive Republicans – for example, Ileana. (Ironically, I was going to list you a few “good Republicans” and here you already have one for your representative)

I agree with you to some extent about GOProud, but I see them differently than you. They are, in my opinion, the last of a dying breed: those who are unable to see themselves as truly equal.

And while it might seem like a partisan thing, consider that the very existence of GOProud is because they broke off of Log Cabin when LCR became too mainstream, too pro-gay and, frankly, a bit too accepted within the community and the Party.

I see Cooper entirely differently from Barron. Cooper works with the Party leadership when possible, and fights for our issues, but doesn’t rail against “the Gay Left” or pretend that the extreme right in the party are our friends.

I know that you dread the idea that Republicans might come out of this with a squeaky clean image. But for me, that is less important.

In order for the Republicans to get that image, they would have to change to supporting equality. And what’s more, they would have to be bragging about it and insisting that it’s the only way to be.

And I would happily trade any image issue for that. I would throw a party and say “Oh the Republicans have always been our friends and Democrats are evil skunks” if it would result in our full equality.

And don’t worry, there will always be someone there to bring down anyone’s image. That’s a part of politics.

tristram

February 2nd, 2011

Interesting juxtaposition at the moment – this discussion is going on right next to the btb post about Allan Kittleman, a state senator in Maryland who relinquished his Republican leadership post so that he could follow his conscience on certain issues. And on this issue, his conscience has led him to COME OUT in support of marriage equality. Props to Mr. Kittleman – and to Barbara Bush, too.

It’s time for lgbts to stop generalizing about and demonizing Republicans (and right-leaning Christians as well). Many of these people are working with a set of beliefs that were ingrained from a young age and are constantly reinforced by their communities. Those who have the intellectual courage to question and then change their received beliefs and the personal courage to come out and publicly support fairness and equality should be welcomed and thanked. Not greeted with a barrage of snark.

And the rest of them should be viewed as individuals, treated respectfully and engaged on a good faith basis unless and until they demonstrate, as individuals, that they cannot reciprocate in respect and good faith.

Just my take on things.

John

February 3rd, 2011

I see Cooper entirely differently from Barron. Cooper works with the Party leadership when possible, and fights for our issues, but doesn’t rail against “the Gay Left” or pretend that the extreme right in the party are our friends.

I met Cooper recently at a celebration for the repeal of DADT. I found him to be quite impressive and although I cannot say I agree with him on all things, I will say that more Republicans like him could make me reconsider the GOP again. I cannot say the same about Barron, although in fairness I’ve never met him in person.

Throbert McGee

February 3rd, 2011

And while it might seem like a partisan thing, consider that the very existence of GOProud is because they broke off of Log Cabin when LCR became too mainstream, too pro-gay and, frankly, a bit too accepted within the community and the Party.

Really? My impression is that GOProud split off primarily because LCR had refused to endorse Bush over Kerry in the 2004 election (which, let us remember, was predicted to be nail-bitingly close, and this prediction turned out to be correct) as fallout from Bush’s support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In other words, the GOProud faction thought that LCR had announced themselves as RINOs by not endorsing the (R) candidate in a very tight Presidential race.

A secondary factor in the GOProud split-off, from what I can tell, was the whole Tea Party phenomenon — the GOProud guys put their finger in the wind, realized that “we’re all about fiscal issues, not social ones” was the trendy new thing on the American Right, and decided it would be a perfect time to attempt launching a second “brand” of Gay Republicanism.

Timothy Kincaid

February 4th, 2011

Okay, then let me rephrase it:

And while it might seem like a partisan thing, consider that the very existence of GOProud is because they broke off of Log Cabin when LCR showed too much integrity.

better?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Orlando-Area Republicans Back LGBT Protections

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Emphasis Mine

This Month In History, 1958: "My Daughter Is a Lesbian!"

Born On This Day, 1953: Tim Gunn

Because Fox News Cut Away From Khizr Khan

Federal Appeals Court Reluctantly Rejects Expanding Existing Civil Rights Law To Cover Sexual Orientation

Report: Florida Gov. Scott May Support Gay Rights, Post-Pulse

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.