The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Rev. Keith A. Ratliff, Sr., pastor of the Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church in Des Moines, Iowa has another duty - head of the local NAACP chapter. The registered Democrat has announced that he supports Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats. Why? Because Vander Plaats says it's his goal to pass an executive order to halt marriage equality in Iowa. That's a reach beyond his powers as Governor, but there you have it. Via On Top:
"I know that Bob Vander Plaats is not afraid to stand up for what is right," Ratliff said. "That takes courage."
"He's talked about the importance of defending the institution of marriage. ... That takes backbone and determination. That's what I want in my governor - and that's why I'm standing here today to show my support for him," he added.
Ratliff, a board member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the nation's oldest civil rights organization, also said he will actively campaign for Vander Plaats.
As we ponder extreme anti-gay views endorsed by yet another black pastor (who says this endorsement is not in his capacity as NAACP director), who not only cannot separate church and state, look at the contrast with the leadership in the NAACP national, Chairman Julian Bond.
NAACP board chair Julian Bond spoke at the National Equality March in Washington, D.C. saying he was proud to stand with gay and lesbian citizens in their quest for equal rights:
"Rights for gays and lesbians aren't special rights in any way. It isn't special to be free from discrimination, that is a universal entitlement of citizenship," Bond said. "That many had to struggle to gain these rights makes them precious. It does not make them special. ... When others gain their rights, my rights are not diminished in any way. My rights are not diluted when my neighbor enjoys protection from discrimination. He or she becomes my ally in defending the rights we all share."
At a September 16 debate on the merits of marriage equality in Iowa, an Iowa Family Policy Center spokesman questions why elderly, infertile, or childless couples want to marry.
"One might ask, why are you getting a marriage license anyway?"
Utterly heinous. Forget love and commitment, seniors. If you don't have reproductive potential, you're not wanted in the club. And in Washington state, if we don't approve Referendum 71 even your domestic partnership will be hobbled.
Like the anti-domestic partnership group Protect Marriage Washington, the Iowa Family Policy Center has ties to Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage and the Alliance Defense Fund. Same crap, different state.
And why does the school board reserve the right to do this -- no parental consent required?
Family members said this week that Atlantic high school officials forced five teenage girls to remove their clothes during an investigation into a theft.
The girls' families and their lawyers said the incident at Atlantic High School amounts to a strip-search, which is illegal in Iowa schools.
But school officials said the search was "allowable" under board rules.
The search took place during a gym class after a classmate charged that $100 was stolen from her purse. And it wasn't just stripped down to underwear -- one girl was stripped naked. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that no school official has free rein to do intimate searches of students. Making a girl pull the waistband of her underwear away from her body constituted a strip-search, the court ruled. And after the indignities heaped on these girls -- the money was not found.
What do you think occurred as a result of this egregious behavior on the part of school officials?
Atlantic Interim Superintendent Dan Crozier has confirmed that an Atlantic administrator had been placed on administrative leave, but did not name the individual. Unconfirmed reports have identified Activities Director Paul Croghan as the individual placed on paid administrative leave, pending further investigation into the incident.
Crozier said the faculty denied the searches were strip-searches, but he added that there are different interpretations of what the term means. "According to the people that we've talked to the first time, and I've talked to them maybe once or twice, they've said it would not fall into that category," he said. "I'm real careful about saying that because it could be interpreted differently."
OK, here are additional details. You decide:
Each girl stripped in varying degrees, families and the lawyers said.
Hudson's client, who is 15, "was asked to remove all of her clothing including her undergarments," he said.
One mother said the girl refused to take off her underwear in front of everyone, but went around a corner and did so.
Some of the girls didn't take off their underwear because it was more revealing than the other girls', making it more obvious that nothing was hidden underneath, said Noethe, one of the lawyers.
Hudson said, "Someone asked if they could just lift up their bra and they were told that wasn't good enough."
One of Noethe's clients was searched twice, he said.
"She was told to take her clothes off and put them back on, then told to do it again because we need you to take your bra off," Noethe said.
Is there some other meaning for "strip-search" that I'm unaware of?
Iowa voters have kicked NOM's carpetbagging butt. According to unofficial results, Democrat Curt Hanson has beat NOM-backed Republican Stephen Burgmeier 3,932 to 3,825.
As you will recall, NOM barged into Iowa and dumped $86,000 on the local anti-equality candidate in this special election to fill a state legislative seat. The contest is seen as a test of whether marriage equality can be used as an electoral wedge issue in the state.
Just a few days after the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board sent NOM a sharply-worded worning, One Iowa and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa filed a formal complaint against NOM with the Ethics Board.
"NOM's last minute, and desperate campaign directly violates Iowa law and is right out of their deceitful playbook," said Carolyn Jenison, Executive Director of One Iowa. "NOM has a history of funneling secret money to fund divisive political campaigns across the country with little regard for laws allowing voters to know who is bankrolling those campaigns."
Sound familiar, Mainers, Californians?
"We reject the use of divisive fear-based appeals to influence Iowa elections and believe transparency is vital to a healthy democratic process," said Connie Ryan Terrell, Executive Director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund.
It looks like the majority of Iowans in the 90th legislative district also reject NOM's divisive fear-mongering carpetbaggery. Take home message for NOM: Iowa ain't for sale.
Got word today of this 4 page letter sent to SFMM and NOM- with an additional 61 pages of correspondence and evidence- from Jonathan Wayne, Executive Director of Maine's Ethics Commission and had to share it here... all emphasis mine.
By E-Mail and Federal Express
Joseph A. Keaney, Treasurer
Stand for Marriage Maine PAC
One Monument Way, Second Floor
Portland, Maine 04101
By E-Mail and Federal Express
Brian S. Brown, Executive Director
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
As explained below, the Commission is statutorily required to consider Mr. Karger's request. The Commission will consider the request at its meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held in Room 208 of the Burton M. Cross Office Building, 111 Sewall Street in Augusta. At that meeting, I anticipate that the Commissioners will decide whether to conduct any investigation regarding the compliance issues listed below.
Your Opportunity to Respond to Mr. Karger's Request
The Commission would welcome written responses from the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC and the National Organization for Marriage no later than Thursday, September 17, 2009 concerning whether the Commission should conduct an investigation. You are welcome to attend the meeting to comment to the Commission in person and to answer questions. This is a regular meeting, not a formal hearing.
Commission's Standards for Requests for Investigation
Under 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1003(2), a person may apply to the Commission to investigate a PAC's reporting of campaign finance activity. Under this provision, the Commission "shall review the application and shall make the investigation if the reasons stated for the request show sufficient grounds for believing that a violation may have occurred."
Compliance Issues Raised by Fred Karger's Request
Mr. Karger does not specify which provisions of Maine's campaign finance laws were violated by the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC or its contributors. To assist the Commission in deciding whether to conduct any investigation, the Commission staff has identified the following compliance issues that are implicated by Mr. Karger's factual allegations. By discussing these legal issues, the staff does not mean to imply at this time that any investigation is merited.
Stand for Marriage Maine PAC
All PACs are required to report the names and addresses of contributors who have given more than $50 to the PAC. (21-A M.R.S.A. § 1060(6))
In addition, under 21-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1004(3) and 1004-A(3), it is illegal for a PAC to knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.
Mr. Karger alleges that "the four funders of Stand for Marriage Maine are merely conduits for those wishing to hide their contributions. These entities are laundering money to evade the disclosure of the actual contributors to Stand for Marriage Maine." (Aug. 24, 2009 letter, at 1) If true, these allegations might constitute violations of 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1060(6), 1004(3) and 1004-A(3).
National Organization for Marriage
Mr. Karger alleges that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has raised funds for the purpose of initiating or promoting the people's veto referendum to repeal P.L. 2009, Ch. 82, and has donated those funds to the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC. His allegations, if true, may indicate that NOM was required to file campaign finance reports with the Commission as a ballot question committee under 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1056-B or was required to register and file reports as a PAC under 21-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1052(5)(A), 1053, and 1058.
Mr. Karger points to a few factual circumstances which could be relevant to whether a violation has occurred:
• NOM is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization that is roughly two years old. Based on the information that is presently available to the Commission staff, it appears that NOM has contributed at least $250,000 to the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC. This is a large amount of funding, which could suggest that NOM solicited and received funds for the purpose of initiating the referendum.
• In 2008, NOM formed a committee in California to raise and spend money in support of an amendment to the California State Constitution (Proposition 8) stating that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by the California state government. According to the California Secretary of State, NOM's California committee raised $1,870,134 and contributed $1,561,134 to a larger PAC supporting Proposition 8. So, NOM has demonstrated the capability to raise a significant amount of funds to support a referendum on same sex marriage.
• Mr. Karger has provided the Commission with some fundraising solicitations from NOM stating to potential donors that the funds would be used to oppose the legalization of same sex marriage in New England. The two most relevant are the communications dated March 13 and 31, 2009, which mention Maine specifically.
The March 31st communication refers to "a hard-hitting new radio ad that we're launching today as part of our 2009 Northeast Action Plan ..." and makes the following solicitation: "We're excited about this new ad, but we need your help to keep these ads on the air, especially in states like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and New Jersey, where coordinated grassroots opposition to pending gay marriage legislation is urgently needed."
The ad was apparently intended to run while the marriage legislation was under consideration by the Maine Legislature (March or April 2009). Nevertheless, the solicitation does seem to look forward to more communications to voters later in the year: "Throughout the year, we'll be rolling out new ads as we work to identify and motivate marriage activists throughout the Northeast." (italics added) This could easily be a reference to communications to voters in support of a referendum petition drive in Maine, which was actively discussed during the 2009 legislative session.
• As Mr. Karger has noted, the March 2009 solicitations from NOM promise its donors anonymity: "[P]lease make the most generous donation you can to help us keep these important ads on the air. Use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation. And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM's Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protestors."
Because of these factual considerations, the staff of the Maine Ethics Commission would welcome a written response by NOM regarding whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant a Commission investigation or fact-finding to determine if NOM was required to file campaign finance reports as a ballot question committee under 21-A M.R.S.A. § 1056-B or to register and file reports as a PAC under 21-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1052(5)(A), 1053, and 1058.
Other Contributors
Mr. Karger has alleged that three other contributors to the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC "laundered money." Because the information provided with regard to these contributors is less specific, the Commission staff is not inviting responses from them. Nevertheless, they are copied on this letter so that they are aware of this matter and have an opportunity to submit comments if they wish.
Thank you for considering this invitation. If you have any questions, please feel free to telephone me at (207) 287-4179 or the Commission's Counsel, Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner, at (207) 626-8830.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Wayne
Executive Director
Below the fold, a letter from Justin of OneIowa, regarding NOM's activities there and a request.
This and other assertions flew through an emotionally-charged town hall meeting conducted by Sen. Chuck Grassley Monday in Pocahontas.
"The president of the United States, that's who you should be concerned about. Because he's acting like a little Hitler," said Tom Eisenhower, a World War II veteran. "I'd take a gun to Washington if enough of you would go with me."
Grassley met with constituents as part of a junket that also brought him to Humboldt, Ruthven and Rockwell City Monday.
By his count, Grassley's Pocahontas town hall was his 2,848th such gathering since being elected to the Senate in 1980.
Grassley said the attendance at the town hall meetings has been six times what it was last year.
U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley should have denounced what was essentially a threat of violence issued at a town hall forum, a Washington, D.C.,-based gun-control organization said Tuesday.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was responding to an exchange Grassley had with a constituent in Pocahontas Monday. The man, who identified himself as Tom Eisenhower, said President Barack Obama is acting like a "little Hitler" and then told the audience "I'd take a gun to Washington if enough of you would go with me."
"It was a credit to the senator's audience that they booed Mr. Eisenhower, but Sen. Grassley also has a responsibility as an elected official to categorically denounce Mr. Eisenhower's statement and the sentiment behind it," said Doug Pennington, assistant director of communications for Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Grassley may not have taken the threat seriously, Pennington said, since Eisenhower appears to be a senior citizen.
"Yet we recently saw 88 year-old James W. von Brunn shoot and kill a security officer at the Holocaust Memorial Museum here in Washington, DC," he said. "Sen. Grassley should have taken Mr. Eisenhower and his words very seriously."
Last week desmoinesdem blogged about the upcoming special election in Iowa's 90th legislative district, where the republican candidate will test the mileage of marriage equality as an electoral issue. Well big surprise, look what hit my mailbox today from NOMskull Brian Brown.
Today we take the battle for marriage back to the heartland, as NOM launches its Reclaim Iowa Project.
The Reclaim Iowa Project is a multi-year campaign to pass a state constitutional amendment reversing last spring's same-sex marriage ruling from the Iowa Supreme Court. Iowans overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, but a handful of politicians are determined to block any effort to give the people of Iowa a say in the matter. According to the latest polling, 67% of Iowans favor putting a marriage amendment on the ballot for a decision by all Iowa voters -- not just a handful of judges.
"Reclaim Iowa"? Was Iowa ever Mormon property to begin with?
UPDATE:One Iowa, Iowa's largest LGBT advocacy organization, has responded. Executive Director Carolyn Jenison says: "The Mormon Church and NOM have invested millions of dollars to spread lies and fear in California and now they have their sights set on rural Iowa. This raises the question: Has Burgmeier been bought and paid for by out of state religious extremists? If not, he should reject this divisive ad." You can find One Iowa's full press release near the bottom of the post.
Iowans in House district 90 will elect a new state representative in a special election on September 1, and the Republican candidate appears to be planning to make same-sex marriage a major campaign issue.
The seat opened up when State Representative John Whitaker, a Democrat, accepted a position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Republicans didn't even run a candidate against Whitaker in 2008, but Iowa House district 90 has been competitive in the recent past. The southeastern Iowa district contains all of Van Buren County and parts of Wapello and Jefferson counties, including the Fairfield area (home to Maharishi University and the so-called "Silicorn Valley").
I hope this gives other fence sitters and jellyfish on the Hill the idea that they can not only discuss marriage equality, but change their position on it, legitimately saying their thinking has evolved. (Are you listening Mr. President?). (Quad City Times):
Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin said Friday he no longer holds the same views he held when he voted for the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited federal recognition of same-sex marriage nearly 13 years ago.
Harkin described his own evolution on the issue during a taping of Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press," which airs this weekend.
"We all grow as we get older, and we learn things and we become more sensitive to people and people's lives," Harkin said. "And the more I've looked at that, I've grown to think differently about how people - how we should live. And I guess I'm at the point that, you know - I'm to that point of live and let live," Harkin said.
Notice there is no mention of religion; that's a clear sign that Harkin knows this discussion is about civil marriage and the road to cultural acceptance of -- indeed -- a redefinition of marriage. In either case we are talking about an institution -- no matter what the bible-beaters say -- has evolved over time. He also took a fearless swipe at NOM, saying "There's always going to be some who feel that they have to push this issue, and for whatever reason, they're going to try to push it and try to divide people up, but they're on the losing end. They're on the losing end of history."
H. Alexander Robinson, Executive Director of the National Black Justice Coalition, will be blogging his visit to Iowa. I really look forward to hearing what he learns there and what he sees as the prospect for the future of black LGBT Iowans, and how black Iowans in general define and prioritize the ongoing civil rights struggles. A sample of his kick-off post is below the fold.
This is another example of why Don't Ask, Don't Tell is ridiculous and why Congress should repeal it. If a gay couple gets legally married in Iowa, and, let's say, puts the announcement in the paper, if one of them is in the National Guard that's all it takes to be discharged. This of course applies to any state where gay and lesbian couple can legally get hitched under state law. (Des Moines Register):
The federal law, approved by Congress in 1993, takes precedence over the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in April that legalized same-sex marriage, according to legal experts. The ruling struck down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act, which had limited marriage to a man and a woman.
The Iowa National Guard is prevented from implementing the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling for its personnel because it is a federally recognized military organization, said Lt. Col. Gregory Hapgood Jr., the Iowa National Guard's public affairs officer.
"We are a microcosm of society," Hapgood said. "We have gay people in the Iowa National Guard. But under that policy, that is not the test. It is about conduct, not about whether you are gay."
As it is with all these articles, the newspaper feels compelled to present the anti-gay views of former service members, not those currently serving.
The Rev. Skip Hansen of Eldora, a former Army Reserve drill sergeant and a leader of the Iowa Baptist Conference, said allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military is not only immoral but impractical in a highly disciplined military culture focused on life-and- death matters. To permit homosexuals to have lovers within a military unit would create dangerous tensions among people who carry weapons, he said.
What on earth is this man talking about - the homos are going to come out, guns ablazing at their peers? This insanity is right out of the discredited Elaine Donnelly playbook.
Of course Matt Barber wants "the people" to decide. As history has shown us, "the people" (including legislative bodies) would have voted to retain slavery and would have kept the ban on interracial marriage among other things, so what does that prove about the wisdom of the people? As usual, Bam Bam, The Peter's featured guest at AFTAH's upcoming banquet (get your tix now!) presents a flaccid argument.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: April 27, 2009
Iowa Governor Should Tell Court 'Thanks but No Thanks'
Lynchburg, VA - Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel* released the following statement today encouraging Iowa Governor Chet Culver to honor his obligation to uphold the Iowa Constitution and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex pairs.
"In Baker v. Nelson, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to imagine there exists a 'constitutional right' to 'same-sex marriage.' It held that if the Court were to create such a right, it would amount to an unconstitutional act of 'judicial legislation.' With its recent opinion charging that such a right exists and ordering that, starting today, marriage licenses be given to homosexual duos, the Iowa Supreme Court has done just that. It has co-opted the role of both the legislative and executive branches of government and has presumed to unconstitutionally create and administer law from the bench.
"This presents the perfect opportunity for Iowa Governor Chet Culver - who publicly opposes 'gay marriage' - to give the Iowa Supremes and the American people a much needed lesson in 'separation of powers.' The constitutional process cleverly provides intrinsic checks and balances to avoid tyrannical governance from any one branch of government," said Barber. "The Iowa Supreme Court has attempted to fundamentally redefine the millennia-old definition of natural marriage in direct conflict with the constitutionally codified will of the people and the legislature. It doesn't get much more tyrannical than that.
"For any new law to be properly implemented, either the people of Iowa - through ballot initiative - or the state legislature would have to affirmatively create that new law. And, of course, if such a law arrived on the Governor's desk by way of the legislature, he has every right to either sign it or veto it.
"In this instance, the court has arbitrarily and unilaterally attempted to circumvent the constitutionally proscribed process and constructively impose a new law on the people of Iowa. It has issued an 'opinion' and an opinion is just that. The Court has no constitutional means or right to enforce its unconstitutionally imposed opinion. If the Judiciary is supreme lawmaker, then it renders the other two branches of government politically impotent. Why even have executive and legislative branches of government if we ultimately live under a judiciocracy?" asked Barber.
"Governor Culver has an opportunity to do what former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney refused to do when given the same chance. That is, to uphold his state Constitution and become a champion to 'we the people' in the process. Culver should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, 'thanks but no thanks' and immediately order that no further marriage licenses be given to any couple that does not meet the common sense requirements properly in existence since the day the Iowa Constitution was drafted."
*Titles provided for identification purposes only.
Wow. So what is the purpose of the Supreme Court, in Matt's opinion? How desperate and unhinged it is to continue to advocate for mob rule -- that only works when the numbers are on his side. Sorry, Bam Bam, it doesn't work that way.
Difficult matters regarding civil rights have always been led by the courts, simply because there is always a slice of America that is threatened by social change. That fear should not be what governs our society or determine who is entitled to equal protection and rights under the law. These folks are running out of arguments.
Today, gay couples in Iowa will start applying for marriage licenses. Families will rejoice as couples celebrate their love for each other through the freedom to marry. Volunteers across Iowa are assisting county recorders who process marriage applications, and celebrations are taking place across the state.
As we join Iowa in celebration, we can't take this victory for granted!Right now opponents are working hard to reverse that victory. They are well-funded and well-organized. We must come together to protect the freedom to marry in the heartland and continue our progress across the country!
One Iowa, the leading LGBT advocacy organization in Iowa, released an ad last week as part of a broad public education plan to protect the freedom to marry from those who would strip these freedoms from the Constitution. The ad, "This Place" features Iowa scenes and Iowa families, and speaks to the traditional Iowa values of freedom and fairness. View the ad online here and help to keep it on the air!
Over the last few weeks, we've also seen advances in New Hampshire, Maine, and New York:
New Hampshire's House passed a bill to end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage, but a Senate committee voted against the bill. The full Senate will likely vote this Wednesday. Take action here: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/nhmarriagediscrim
On April 22, the Maine legislature held a joint committee public hearing for a marriage equality bill. Over 3,000 people attended with supporters outnumbering opponents more than 4 to 1. This week, the Judiciary Committee will vote on the bill. Keep the momentum going by taking action with Equality Maine: http://equalitymaine.org/
Gov. Paterson announced he would introduce a bill to end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage in New York and it is gaining momentum across the state. Just last week, two major up-state New York newspapers endorsed marriage equality. Tomorrow is Empire State Pride Agenda's Equality & Justice Day where thousands of New Yorkers will travel to Albany to meet one-on-one with their lawmakers and tell their stories. Get involved at: http://www.prideagenda.org/
Thank you to everyone who is already involved in helping these efforts or others in states across the country. As we’ve seen in the national press over the last few weeks, the wind is at our backs for the moment so we must capitalize on the momentum our movement is gaining by both protecting our victories and pushing hard to gain more ground.
We hope this ad will start a conversation with Iowans about the Supreme Court decision, which isn't just about gay and lesbian Iowans-it's about ALL Iowans. We know that marriage strengthens families and, as Iowans, we support committed couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage.
We invite you to view our ad and participate in a statewide conversation about marriage. Talk to your family, friends, and neighbors. Discuss what marriage means to you.
Here we go, folks. Some of the supporters of "traditional marriage" in Iowa don't take defeat well, in fact they show their true colors by issuing death threats. (The Advocate):
State Senator Matt McCoy, the first and only openly gay legislator in Iowa, received a death threat by telephone on Monday, reports the Des Moines Register.
Public safety officials said the matter, which McCoy declined to discuss publicly, was reviewed by the Iowa State Patrol at the capitol, then referred to Des Moines police.
McCoy, a Democrat, has been a vocal advocate of marriage equality, which the Iowa Supreme Court legalized with its unanimous ruling on April 3. Since then, opponents of the ruling have been attempting to pressure state lawmakers to take action against it. Legislative leaders have said they have no intention of considering a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
The AP story in the Chicago Tribune notes that Courtney Greene of the Iowa Department of Public Safety says because the threat wasn't received at the Capitol, matter was passed on to Des Moines police.
Here's Sen. McCoy on his reaction to the Iowa ruling:
This just landed in my inbox. To keep this in perspective -- this White House can't find the time or motivation to send out an official release to the MSM about marriage equality in Iowa or Vermont, but it can do this.
White House Releases Souvenir Easter Egg Design and Availability
The White House today unveiled the 2009 Souvenir Easter Egg. This is the first time the egg design has been available to families prior to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, to be held on Monday, April 13th. This year’s Easter Egg Roll activities build on the theme of ‘Let’s Go Play,’ which will seek to educate children on the importance of living a healthy and active lifestyle. This year’s egg is the ‘greenest’ egg in White House Easter Egg Roll history.
The 2009 egg:
· Uses 31% less paperboard than the 2008 designs
· Eliminates the need for the paper shred/filler
· Features an egg-shaped dye cut instead of a cellophane window
The Flood of 2008 is arguably the most destructive disaster that the state of Iowa has seen -- at least, that is, until last Friday.
On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Licenses will be issued to homosexual couples April 27.
It is not hyperbole to say that this ruling has the potential to be the worst disaster to strike the state of Iowa. Flood waters destroy houses, ruin offices buildings and displace families. Yet, recovery happens. Houses are rebuilt. Businesses relocate. Families eventually find housing.
Legalized "homosexual marriage," on the other hand, does far more pervasive and irrecoverable damage. Civilization itself is eroded as marriage, the central building block of culture and society, is redefined. Soon, our sons and daughters are confused about what it means to be male and female, as "homosexual marriage" gains both legal status and visibility in neighborhoods and the classroom.
Far worse, the Gospel message is confused. Marriage is established by God to be a living picture of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the husband representing Christ and the wife representing his church. "Homosexual marriage" presents a distorted picture, a false Gospel, promoting a blasphemous message.
Flood waters erode the soil. "Gay marriage" erodes the soul. A flood impacts for a decade. "Same-sex marriage" destroys generations. A flood draws a community together. "Homosexual marriage" tears the family apart. Communities recover from floods. The promotion of un-natural unions has an eternal consequence.
If you need more proof, head over to Good as You and listen to the audio posted of Mat Staver responding to the Vermont vote in which he declares that "it is a sad day in America when elected officials are absolutely clueless about the definition of marriage [and] if they can't understand this basic human relationship between a man and a woman, then they absolutely are not competent for public office." He goes on to call upon the people of Vermont to "rise up in revolt" and says that "what we are seeing in America is literally the beginnings of another revolution" from the "silent majority" who will draw a line in the sand, leading to "another American Revolution."
There's a great piece by Kerry Eleveld in The Advocate about the pitiful fact that the Obama administration has missed an opportunity to issue a significant comment about the fact that the number of states affirming marriage equality has doubled since Air Force One took off for his trip abroad.
Late last week, Pam posted about how a White House press release used the term protections without using the term equal.
Here's the original White House statement:
"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law."
Here's the revised statement:
"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."
Pam made the comment...
So how many eyes in the White House were on this and they all "confused" or "missed" that significant phrase -- equal protection/equal rights? ROTFLOL!
My thought, when reviewing the press release, and discussion about the press release, this past weekend, was...
So how did so many eyes in the in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community who looked at this press release and got upset that it left out the word equality, yet themselves became "confused" or "missed" that the White House significantly used the phrase gay and lesbian, and didn't use the more inclusive phrase lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)? Did the LGBT community just give the White House a pass on leaving out the "Bacon & Tomato"?
Apparently, this isn't a discussion that LGBT community is having outside of Pam's House Blend.
And yes, I do know that the gender identity and expression that is associated with being transgender isn't a sexual orientation -- unless perhaps in the definitions of some civil rights and protection legislation (such as in the recent bill that died in the North Dakota House). And yes, I do know that bisexual people can marry people who are legally are classified as the opposite sex from themselves.
But, transgender people are also lesbian, gay, and bisexual. But too, bisexual people often do want to marry those who are of the same gender -- he, she, or ze loves the person whom he, she, or ze loves not based on whether or not they can legally marry that partner, but simply because he, she, or ze loves the person that he, she, or ze loves. In other words, many bisexual people end up wanting to marry same sex gender partners, and they, like exclusively gay and lesbian people, find they cannot marry the people that they love.
So, shouldn't the LGBT community be insistant of the Bacon & Tomato being included in the language of marriage equality?
And, as someone who identifies as both Bacon & Tomato, should I insist that my legacy and new media journalist peers, my LGBT civil rights organizations, and my government representatives include the Bacon & Tomato in all statements about our community's civil rights and protections? -- even marriage equality statements?
When we in the LGBT community are pointing out the significance of leaving the equal out of White House press release on the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, I see a corolary of significance in leaving bisexual and transgender out of the same press release. And honestly, today I'm feeling the audacity of despair, and not the audacity of hope; I very much feel like my B&T peers', and a future relationship of mine, are nothing but afterthoughts in broader LGBT community's push for marriage equality.
Although my question of the day is about why the public LGBT community didn't get up in arms about how bisexual and transgender were left out of the White House press release, I guess my real question is about why the concept of equality within the LGBT community doesn't appear to have room for bisexual and transgender people in the discussion of marriage equality -- unless a bisexual or transgender person brings it up.
Also, I guess I'm afraid that if we leave the bisexual and transgender out of equality language related to marriage, we'll see that habit of exculding bixexual and transgender left out of other equality language related to court rulings and legislation -- as a trans person, ENDA 2007/2008 is too fresh in my mind.
I do tend to think of the LGBT community as one, broad community, and for the reasons I've put forth in this diary, I don't like exceptions to the use-all-four-LGBT-community-terms-when-discussing-equal-rights-and-protections-under-the-law "rule."
In my mind, all of these equality under the law discussions are human rights discussions, not just specific identity rights discussions; in my mind, the broader and more inclusive the community language we employ at all times discussing civil rights and protections, the better.
So, did we just give the White House a pass? Am I being overly sensitive over the failure to include the Bacon & Tomato in the marriage equality discussion?
"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive protection under the law."
So, let's see...it should be left to the states so that as gay couples travel across state lines, they are married, not married, civil unioned, domestic partnered...yeah that sounds like equal protection under the law. Oh wait -- the press release didn't use the word EQUAL, did it?
Can the President elaborate on this position with reasoning that excludes anything related to "God is in the mix"? The Iowa Supreme Court brilliantly torched using religion as an excuse to discriminate, so our Constitutional scholar president needs to come up with a better sham excuse. And as massaged as you know that short paragraph was, the omission of the word equal was purposeful.
UPDATE (9:52 PM ET): That was fast. Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate just emailed that she just received a "corrected" statement from the White House that includes the word equal.
"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."
Wow. So how many eyes in the White House were on this and they all "confused" or "missed" that significant phrase -- equal protection/equal rights? ROTFLOL!
Also, a note on what is really going on here. The president can hold whatever personal or religious beliefs he wants to, but he governs us under civil law (which he obviously knows), not biblical law or how he "feels". The only reason civil unions and DPs exist is because too many Americans conflate religious and civil marriage. Conceptually, they are exactly the same thing, in practice (and in our ingrained culture) everyone knows they are not. He knows that. This is about political will and political strategy. It's pretty clear that the president chooses to follow, not lead on this one.
In striking down Iowa's ban on same-sex marriage, the court made some significant and important observations. The usual suspects submitted amicus briefs on this matter.These included the Thomas More Society, Knights of Columbus, Liberty Counsel, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), Evergreen International, Alliance Defense Fund, American Center for Law & Justice, United Families International, Family Watch International, Family Leader Foundation and several others.
Early on The Court established an historical perspective on the status quo:
The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV.It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.”
An interesting observation of circular logic:
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation. As indicated above, this distinction cannot defeat the application of equal protection analysis through the application of the similarly situated concept because, under this circular approach, all distinctions would evade equal protection review. Therefore, with respect to the government’s purpose of “providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons,” same–sex couples are similarly situated to opposite–sex couples.
"I know that Bob Vander Plaats is not afraid to stand up for what is right," Ratliff said. "That takes courage."
Iowa voters have kicked NOM's carpetbagging butt. According to 
Last week desmoinesdem 
H. Alexander Robinson, Executive Director of the National Black Justice Coalition, will be 
Lynchburg, VA - Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel* released the following statement today encouraging Iowa Governor Chet Culver to honor his obligation to uphold the Iowa Constitution and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex pairs.
"In this instance, the court has arbitrarily and unilaterally attempted to circumvent the constitutionally proscribed process and constructively impose a new law on the people of Iowa. It has issued an 'opinion' and an opinion is just that. The Court has no constitutional means or right to enforce its unconstitutionally imposed opinion. If the Judiciary is supreme lawmaker, then it renders the other two branches of government politically impotent. Why even have executive and legislative branches of government if we ultimately live under a judiciocracy?" asked Barber.
