Yesterday I attended a rally at the Iowa Statehouse (it made the front page of the Washington Times as well) that was coordinated by the Iowa Family Policy Center.  Approximately 600 people attended for those who were in support of the amendment, and there was a group from OneIowa who were against a vote.

Chuck Hurley, the president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, Rev. Keith Ratliff, pastor of Maple Street Baptist Church, and Danny Carroll, chairman of the Iowa Family Policy Center Action Committee spoke.  Here is a slideshow/video of the event.

Chuck Hurley encouraged us to remember in November (of 2010) this decision, as three of the Supreme Court justices are up for retention vote.  He said remember in November, Governor Chet Culver’s backtracking on this issue, as he is up for re-election.  He forgot his pledge, even though he said he’s keeping it.

In January 2008, Culver told reporters he would "do whatever it takes" to seek a quick response in the Legislature if the Iowa Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage.

So doing whatever it takes is agreeing with the the Iowa Supreme Court decision?  Hmmmm…. ok, we’ll remember in November.  Governor Culver is on shaky ground with this, as well as, other issues that could land him the distinction of being the first one-term governor that Iowa has had in many years.  Congratulations!

He did say he would address residency requirements and would be “open” to a Constitutional Convention to address this issue.  Talking with some friends up at the Statehouse, a convention could be very risky since the Legislature appoints the delegates.  The whole thing could end up being a big crap sandwich.  It also looks like the Legislature will have to also look at the language of the current incest laws – see what a mess this is making?

Then we’ll remember in November, the House members who prevented the first step toward a public vote.  In the morning, while I was there, Speaker Pat Murphy, ruled the Republican attempt to bring House Joint Resolution 6 out of committee as out-of-order, and then announced a break for Democrats and Republicans to go to caucus.  The crowd in the gallery started to chant, “Let us vote.”  To which Speaker Murphy compared that to “mob rule.”  How classy of him, apparently he has compared those who oppose gay marriage to the Ku Klux Klan as well.

In the afternoon’s second attempt there was a vote pushed by Representative Christopher Rants (R-Sioux City) on a motion to suspend the rules in order to allow debate.  It failed when all of the Democratic caucus, minus two, voted no.  I would like to commend Representative Dolores Mertz (D-Ottosen) and Representative Geri Huser (D-Altoona) who voted yes.  Don’t let those who voted no on this measure fool you.  This wasn’t just a procedural vote – it was a vote to not allow the citizens of Iowa a chance to decide this issue.

Even if the legislators are in favor of the ruling, they should be in favor of a democratic solution to this issue.  There’s no guarantee the Iowa Marriage Amendment would pass by popular vote, but at least we’d get to vote.

This debate can and should be looked at this way – either you are in favor of democracy or you are in favor of a judicial oligarchy.  That’s what is at stake here.

Update: Iowa Family Policy Center linked this post on their blog.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. Read through it, and I don't oppose homosexual equality. I oppose the definition of marriage being changed.

    Also regarding your arguments with nature – just because there has always been homosexuals doesn't mean it's what is normal. Also no one is saying they can't contribute to society.

    Regarding your arguments with it and religion – the fact the earthly consequences have changed make it no less a sin, and you didn't even address what the New Testament says. Now again, this doesn't mean hate those who struggle with that sin or any other sin for that matter.

    I suppose you may see it as being discriminatory not allowing those who are actively involved in homosexual activity into leadership within the church. That is a biblical standard for an pastor, elder or deacon or other leader – not to be engaged in an ongoing, unrepentant lifestyle – whether it is having an affair, abusing alcohol or drugs, pornography addiction, stealing, or homosexuality, etc. There are number of things that would disqualify one from being in leadership within a church (for a season until they repent), so it isn't just homosexuality.

    My main problem with the homosexual agenda is that many of you want to go beyond passive tolerance and are pushing for active acceptance. I can tolerate you as a person, even though I disagree with your belief about homosexuality and your lifestyle. I can't accept it as being ok, not sinful, and normal.

  2. Please tell me if you can, how two, and I mean two, adult men or women, who want to commit to each other emotionally and legally, does harm or diminishes y anyones marraige?
    Marraige is already in trouble from only str8s involved. If you want to save marraige, make sure your son and daughter do not marry before they know their partner, and have gone thru some real councelling about the ups and downs.
    That will save marraige.

  3. Please tell me why I should be satisfied or content with your “passive tolerance”? We do not deserve to be tolerated as second class people…but, your biblical “studies” might have led you there. Sinful and not normal you claim? Literal reading will lead you there.
    The passages that are always used to condemn homosexuality are written for a particular purpose in a specific time and place. some are from priests codes: directives meant to save seed (which they thought erroneously was contained in semen) and save their population. It was meant for then and there. Not a forever rule. But you don't get that take. You can't tolerate it,i imagine. Sad. And certainly not Christian.
    By the way, Christ said not one word about homosexual interaction. So you may actually be more of a biblical literalist, than Christ-like.
    Perhaps that is because you believe the traditional interpretation of some scripture is absolute and not to be questioned. Although there are many sincere and deeply studied biblical scholars that do not come to the same conclusions.
    The Bible is a magnificent book. Many important lessons. Love being a primary one.
    But is it to be taken literally? Does it address all topics of relevance today and in every age? Simplistic thinking might say yes. Easy answers are often too easy.
    Consider reading Peter Gomes: “The Good Book”. And please resist the temptation that anyone of us knows it all.

  4. Because demanding more than that is intolerance on your part David. You don't want tolerance, you want me to agree with you. If I agree with you then what would be to tolerate?

    Your dismissing every passage related to homosexuality shows me you know little about biblical interpretation and homosexuality is not brought up in that context in the OT or in the NT. Jesus may not have spoke directly to homosexuality, but he did speak about sexual immorality (pornea) which includes homosexuality. The NT speaks a lot on sexual immorality, and Romans 1 directly addresses it.

    Then there is the biblical design for marriage in Genesis 1, which is affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 5 & 19, and then again affirmed in Ephesians 5.

    Just curious, would I be a loving father if I never disciplined my kids or taught them right from wrong?

    I don't know it all David, but I am pretty clear on what the Bible has to say about this subject.

  5. Don't disagree with you that there are problems with traditional marriage. And there are many efforts inside the Church and out to address this problem. How exactly does this make your argument? So what?

  6. I'm not aware what disciplining your kids has to do with biblical passages concerning homosexuality.
    More to the point, I'm not demanding anything. I'm trying to open a door that sheds more light, but that is not demanding.

    Marraige is not being redefined, it is being widened to be inclusive of others left out. Man and woman will still wed, procreate, and hopefully stay together through good times and bad, although you have major work to do in that area.
    God is love, and if two are in love and care to commit themselves, God is present. Its the restrictions of man narrowing
    the growth of love.
    In any case, its a legal action unless a couple plans a cvhurch or religious element to it. No church is being forced to wed anyone.
    Many are expert on what the bible reads, but knowing an absolute meaning is presumptuous and at times idolatrous.

  7. My point is if I didn't discipline, if I didn't share truth, I would be unloving.

    You say, “marriage is not being redefined, it is being widened.” That's just parsing words. Widening is redefining.

    Yes God is love. God is also holy. God is also just. God is a consuming fire. You are flat wrong at this. God will not bless sin of any type. It is why He sent His Son to die on a cross.

    There is mystery in the Bible for sure, but to suggest none of it can be known with certainty is ridiculous. You seem to be absolutely sure about God being love, but squishy on the sin part. Pretty convenient for you.

  8. We can agree that God is love and love is God. If two adult people, fall in love an care to commit to one another, passionately and legally, and with or without a religious ceremony, that is allowing marraige (the union of two) to include them regardless of gender.
    Now for many, marraige is not really begun until a consumation act has occured. Obviously two males cannot perform this act exactly as a man/woman, but the act of making love, which is ultimately why a man/woman would do this, can be an act by any two, if love truly is present. I'm not talking a free for all f**k fest, which by the way, happens just as often in hetero circles as in homo ones.
    Love rules for love is God.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Steve King is Wrong on DACA

Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) wrongly believes that those whose parents brought them into the United States illegally are criminals as well.

“Classy” Wonkette Smears Trig Palin

William Jacobson yesterday wonders why some adults (probably using the word loosely)…

Joni Ernst Discusses Trump’s Cabinet, the United Nations and Life

U.S. Senator Joni Ernst discussed Trump’s cabinet picks, United Nations funding after anti-Israel vote and whether there will be progress on the life issue.

CPAC Review: Rick Perry–Gives a Wake Up Call to Candidates

The race to define a vision for a new administration is on.…