Tuesday, March 04, 2008

A bright line-Democrats now officially endorse homosexual marriage!

The Iowa House of Representatives today made a very bold vote. Every single Democrat, even the few usually sensible ones, today voted against 10,000 generations of human experience and social morality.

Today, the Democrats voted to leave the Defense of Marriage Bill in committee, effectively killing the bill and all debate on it. Six Democrats changed their vote from 2005 to now support Iowa‘s recognition of same sex marriages.

Ms. Dandekar of Linn County
Mr. Ford--Polk County
Ms. Mertz--Kossuth County (a CO-SPONSOR of this Protect Marriage bill)
Mr. Quirk-Chickasaw County ( a CO-SPONSOR of this Protect Marriage bill)
Mr. Reasoner-Union County
Mr. Shomshor-Pottawattamie County
Mr. Swaim--Appanoose County ( a CO-SPONSOR of this Protect Marriage bill).

Today’s Democrat vote blocked even the discussion of homosexual marriage on the floor of the House. There are indeed few way in which one can express greater approval of anything than by silencing even a discussion of it.

The Democrat response, that the vote would derail the “judicial process”, is silly. In fact, just one word defeats the argument “how”. A discussion wouldn’t stop the Supreme Court’s review of the pending case law on homosexual marriage. Even allowing the amendment to get on the ballot in 2010 wouldn’t stop the pending appeal.

Don’t buy a word of it and remember that every single Democrat voted to sustain homosexual marriage. That’s what Democrats do-accelerate the trip to Gomorrah from a slouch to a sprint.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Demofascists are at it again.

This wouldn't be a problem if we hadn't lost our majority in both houses and the governorship and our congressional majority.

Anonymous said...

I for one want to go on record as not only having a penis, but having one that is beyond the norm (when erect) in length. I am proud to be a man, I am proud to be a racist Democrat, and I am proud to be a Lesbian! I can't help myself. I've wanted to score with broads ever since Junior High. I also think John McCain is a whiny white Liberal wannabe who don't know shit from his ass and a hole in the ground. That idiot will give it all away to the damn illegals and the blacks as much as this Saddamn Obama clown. Lets go third party on this scene and elect Hillary and Colon Powell. You finks can't help but admit it makes sense.

Anonymous said...

The Demofascists are at it again, again under the guise of "it's all about the children".

It's really about the fines and fees and all the new government (democrat AFSCME) staff required to implement this. Lots of new staff needed for all this liberal government they are giving us.

"Teen drivers under age 18 would not be able to transport passengers other than siblings under a bill lawmakers are considering.

However, Senate Study Bill 3085 would allow teens to carry passengers if a parent rides along with them.

“It’s about keeping kids safe,” said state Sen. Tom Hancock, a Democrat from Epworth.

Anonymous said...

And while were at it - let's outlaw biracial marriage again!!!!!!!

Cedar Waxwing said...

What this vote today only proves..is that Democrats do not TRUST the people of Iowa to make this decision for themselves..

Democrats in this state would much rather allow unelected Justices of the Iowa Supreme Court to make law..and dictate public policy.

Again..I'll put it out there for any Democrat out there..SHOW us..where in the Iowa or US Constitution does it talk about marriage??

Folks..marriage is NOT a basic civil right. Its not in the Bill of Rights..or in any other amendment to either the Iowa or US Constitution.

If a particular issue is not specifically dealt with in either the US or Iowa Constitution..it becomes a matter of public policy for the Legislature to decide upon.. NOT the Judiciary...

If Democrats REALLY wanted to end debate on this issue..put it up for a vote once and for all...

Let the PEOPLE of this state decide this issue...

What's the matter Speaker Murphy and Majority Leader Gronstal?? Do you think the people of Iowa are too ignorant to decide for themselves??

Or is it really that you dont want that gravy train of donations from out of state interests to dry up??

Anonymous said...

Marriage may not be a civil right in the Constitution, but the question is whether the Constitution requires that citizens be treated equally. Is the right to make a marriage contract open to any two persons or not?

Here's the words of the IA Constitution:
"SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."

Looks like an open and shut case to me. Maybe that's why they filed the case! ---Spotlight

Anonymous said...

Don’t buy a word of it and remember that every single Democrat voted to sustain civil rights. That’s what Democrats do!
Republicans accelerate the trip to Gomorrah from a slouch to a sprint by giving support to closeted public officials such as Sen Craig, Senator McConnell, Senat tor Grahm,Rev. Haggard, karl rove; by sexual perverts, Senator Vitter etc. And by serial Marriers, Mc Cain, Guiliani, Angelo, Noble and let's not forgive or forget the Gipper.

Poor chrissy Rants, he is so disappointed that his attempt to promote fear and hate didn't work.
Go to the back of the room and pout

Ghost of gerald Ford

Anonymous said...

Three guys are in a room, A gay Guy, a straight guy and a Republican. Suddenly the rooms go dark. Who do you trust?

Answer: The Gay guy. All Rebulicans have a long history of trying to screw the public.


Real ted Spincter GOP

Art A Layman said...

sporie:

The Democrat response, that the vote would derail the “judicial process”, is silly. In fact, just one word defeats the argument “how”.

Strange that when the GOP extremists state that same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, we Dems ask the same question. How?

Anonymous said...

People do have equal rights regarding marriage right now. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The law doesn't have to provide for equal desires.

Art A Layman said...

8:55:

You're right! The law doesn't have to provide for equal desires. The law does, however, have to provide for equal treatment.

In fact, the law shouldn't be involved in this decision at all, one way or the other. It is a decision between two consenting adults, with no infringement on anyone else's rights, and the law should stay out of it. Given the quote, above, from the Iowa Constitution, it is likely that the courts will come to this same conclusion.

Would that you diehard Christians could use the bible as a guide for the treatment of your fellowman rather than as a tool for condemning them.

sporie's constant refrain about those 10,000 generations of human experience is truly, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". The history of mankind and its social morality is fraught with horror and inhumane treatment of dissidents or those judged as aberrant or inferior, and is full of ever shifting mores. It best should be viewed as a vehicle supporting change rather than as a vehicle for continuing man's inhumanity to man.

Perhaps, sporie should look more closely at McCain's much admired statement: “We are Americans. We don’t hide from history, we make it.”

Anonymous said...

We are treated equally. We can all marry people of the opposite sex.

Art A Layman said...

2:25:

Perhaps the problem then lies in defining "opposite sex". If one partner acts as the receiver and the other acts as the plunger do we not have "opposite sexes"?

Art A Layman said...

2:25:

All kidding aside you are now making your own interpretation of your state Constitution.

Assuming below is a correct rendition, there is good reason to infer that those of the same sex have the right to marry. The definition of "class of citizens" and the phrase, "upon the same terms" would seem the pivotal legal determinates. That, of course, is merely a layman's sense.

"SEC. 6. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens."

Will be interesting how your courts rule.

KenRichards said...

Especially interesting for Art who has no connection to Iowa but finds it worthwhile to post on this particular blog.

Art A Layman said...

kennie:

I post on a lot of blogs, have never been bashful.

When issues arise which tend toward the universal, it's always interesting to follow them, whether in the hustle and bustle of the coasts or in hog heaven.

KenRichards said...

"I post on a lot of blogs, have never been bashful. When issues arise which tend toward the universal,"


Art sounds a little like another boaster.

"From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it" - Job

KenRichards said...

Rather the Book of Job.

Art A Layman said...

kennie:

Though it seems you're stretching a bit, it is nice to know you enjoy reading fiction.

KenRichards said...

I guess you reject the Bible.

Art A Layman said...

kennie:

Not a question of rejection,just perspective. I don't accept the bible as inviolate or inerrant.

It is a compilation of the perceptions and speculations of "men", not of God or gods.

Labels

Amazon Bookstore