FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
2/11/10 Pleasant Hill, IA – Standing between Iowa citizens and
their right to vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment, Senate Democrats
this week obstructed efforts to take action on the amendment ahead of
an important legislative deadline. Bills that fail to move out of
committee before the end of “funnel week,” are generally no longer
considered viable for the remainder of the session. While Senate rules
provide options for leadership to take action on items like the Iowa
Marriage Amendment after the funnel, Senate Majority Leader Mike
Gronstal has publicly offered to risk his majority status, and his next
election, to keep Iowans from having an opportunity to vote.
The Republican effort to let Iowans vote on the Iowa Marriage
Amendment this week was lead by Senator David Johnson of Ocheyedan. By
inviting the other Senators to sign a discharge petition, Johnson
attempted to bring the Iowa Marriage Amendment to the floor for a vote
over Gronstal’s objection. The petition quickly gained the signatures
of all 18 Republican Senators, along with that of Democrat Senator Tom
Hanckock. As the week wore on, other Democrats began to respond to
calls and e-mails from their constituents. As the funnel closed,
Democrat Senators Black, Kreiman, Olive, and Seng had added their names
to the list. Ultimately, Johnson fell three Members short of the 26
signatures he needed.
IFPC Action spokesman Bryan English responded to the end of this
week’s activity in the Iowa Senate by saying, “Thanks to the hard work
of Senator Johnson and his Republican colleagues, we now have a record
of who really cares about marriage, and who understands that the
Supreme Court is not the lawmaking body of this state. It is blatantly
apparent that in the environment created by last April’s Iowa Supreme
Court opinion, Senate Democrats are not qualified to remain the
majority party.” According to English, “Iowans who support real
marriage are not going away, and if Mike Gronstal would like them to
focus their energy on removing him from the majority, they will be
happy to comply.”
One Member of the Iowa Senate whose signature was glaringly absent
from the discharge petition was Senate President Jack Kibbie of
Emmetsburg. Senator Kibbie, who has on several occasions publicly
declared his support for real marriage, and his willingness to vote for
the Iowa Marriage Amendment, refused to take even the smallest action
to keep his promises. This week, Senator Kibbie chose to side with Mike
Gronstal and the homosexual lobby over the wishes of his constituents,
and an opportunity to preserve the only definition of marriage, by
refusing to sign the petition.
Commenting on the larger implications of the events of the week,
English said, “The battle raging in Iowa over the issue of marriage is
a political reflection of a larger spiritual war that began with
original sin. Anyone who has read the Bible knows that while individual
battles will continue, the ultimate outcome of the spiritual war was
settled long ago by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” He
concluded by saying, “When the current political debate over marriage
is viewed through the lens of eternity, politicians like Mike Gronstal
and Jack Kibbie need to understand that they’ve already lost.”
###
CONTACT:
Bryan M. English
IowaFamilyPolicyCenter / Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION
Phone (515) 263-3495
Fax (515) 263-3498
Cell (515) 210-7475
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
House Democrats Turn Deaf Ear To Iowans - Again
2/9/10 Pleasant Hill, IA -
House Speaker Pat Murphy today presided over a vote that confirmed
for all of Iowa that he and his caucus ought to shut off the lights in
the State House and go home to look for legitimate work. With the
exception of Rep. Deloris Mertz, the Democratic caucus today turned
their back on the Constitution, their assigned legislative duty, and
the people of Iowa by refusing to take action on the Iowa Marriage
Amendment. Reacting to the vote, IFPC Action spokesman Bryan English
said, “If Speaker Murphy intends to allow courts to make law in Iowa,
he ought to stop stealing his paycheck from the taxpayers and go look
for other work.”
House Republicans, on the other hand, responded to the calls and
e-mails from their constituents and made certain that every Member of
the House went on record with their support for or opposition to the
Iowa Marriage Amendment. The lone exception was Rep. Mark Kuhn who had
been excused from today’s vote to attend to a personal matter.
After the vote, English said, “Real marriage enjoys broad
bi-partisan support among Iowa citizens, but the Iowa Democrat Party
has attempted to make it a partisan issue. Almost to a person, they all
say that they support real marriage when they are talking to their
constituents, but today those constituents got a good look at who
really represents them.”
He continued, “Democrat Members will now go home and try to say
that procedural votes don’t matter, but nobody is buying that story any
more. Members of the House have had an opportunity to reassert their
proper role as lawmakers, and to reaffirm the only definition of
marriage, both last session and again this morning. On both occasions,
they failed to do the right thing.”
Shortly after last spring’s Supreme Court Opinion, a crowd of over
500 gathered at the Capitol to lobby the legislature to bring the Iowa
Marriage Amendment to the people for a vote. A crowd estimated at 1000
gathered at the Capitol on January 12th of this year to tell their
Lawmakers to “Let Us Vote” on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Lawmakers
have been inundated with calls, e-mails, letters, and personal visits
from constituents asking them to let us vote. The communications were
so one sided, that Speaker Murphy recently sent an e-mail to a special
interest group that promotes sexual deviance asking for people to come
and help offset the message of marriage supporters.
English said, “Speaker Murphy and his caucus can only ignore the
people of Iowa for so long. We will remember in November.” He concluded
by saying, “We look forward to working with the new Speaker in the next
session to pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment.”
The Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION has long been a proponent of
pro-family public policy and an active supporter of preserving the
institution of marriage through passage of the Iowa Marriage Amendment.
Their LUV Iowa effort, which stands for “Let Us Vote,” has been
organizing affiliate groups in cities all across the state since last
April. More information about the LUV Iowa movement is available at http://www.LUVIowa.com.
CONTACT:
Bryan M. English
IowaFamilyPolicyCenter / Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION
Phone (515) 263-3495
Fax (515) 263-3498
Cell (515) 210-7475
Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION / LUV Iowa: Launches Legislative Initiative
12/28/2009
LUV Iowa Campaign Launches Legislative Initiative
12/23/09 Pleasant Hill, IA – IFPC Action President, Chuck Hurley, today announced plans to launch an initiative in conjunction with the LUV “Let Us Vote” Iowa campaign. The initiative, which is being called “Two Days For Marriage,” will kick off with a gathering at the State Capitol on January 12th.
According to Hurley, “People from all over the state have reached out to IFPC Action, and joined the LUV Iowa Campaign. On January 12th, we are encouraging those people, and all Iowans who care about preserving marriage and the constitutional separation of powers, to come together to take a stand, and once again ask Iowa lawmakers to ‘Let Us Vote’ on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.”
The concept behind “Two Days For Marriage” involves Iowans attending the large gathering on January 12th, and then giving one additional day during the legislative session to lobby for passage of the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Hurley said, “We plan to send a very clear message on January 12th that we intend to exercise our right to vote on the definition of marriage, and then follow up on that message with a consistent presence at the Capitol all session long.”
January 12th is the date when Governor Culver is scheduled to deliver his annual Condition of the State address. In addition to all 150 State Legislators, the Iowa Supreme Court Justices also attend the speech. The Governor’s speech is scheduled to begin at 10:00 am, and citizens are permitted to begin entering the Capitol as early as 6:00 am.
Hurley said, “We will be encouraging people to come as early as possible, and to stay as long as they can.” He concluded with, “We expect the Members of the Iowa Legislature to listen to their constituents and not to stand in the way of our constitutional right to vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Any Member who stands between the people and our right to vote is risking their political future. We will remember in November.”
LUV Iowa is short for Let Us Vote Iowa, and is a direct response to public requests for help from Iowa citizens as they organize to pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment. As more details concerning the event on January 12th become available, they will be posted on the LUV Iowa web site at www.LUVIowa.com.
20 years ago last week I met the woman of my dreams, believe it or not just a month after the fall of the infamous Berlin Wall on Christmas day at the Berlin Wall. Its a long love story to explain, but the headline is Iowa Joan and I have been married 18+ years.
So here now is a great cause in Iowa and America to get behind standing not only for the sanctity of marriage, but protecting the fundamental freedoms as described in our constitution too. Though Berlin trumps precedence in this analogy, I do see a similarity. There is a wall now building to divide this state as one where citizen rights mean less and less when “judges legislate and execute from the bench” to quote Bob Vander Plaats.
Plain and simple, the people of Iowa should get a chance to vote on a marriage amendment.
Thank God there is not an actual brick barrier separating us and the state government, but it is time Iowans should acknowledge, assess and address the insinuated gap between the two. So here is an idea for you…
Let me tell you about a romantic date we have planned. In celebration of a long time coming, we will watch Chet Culver deliver his final state of the state address. (Speaking of oppressive walls to fall.)
We are also going to the state capitol on January 12th to politely and simply tell a man named Mike Gronstal to “Let Us Vote”. Just like marriage and freedom loving Iowas did last April “Here In Iowa.”
I ask you join us. Yeah so maybe it’s not so romantic. The romantic part will have to be created later in the day. Check out this press release from IFPC for all the latest information.
LUV Iowa Campaign Launches Legislative Initiative
12/28/09 Pleasant Hill, IA – IFPC Action President, Chuck Hurley, today announced plans to launch an initiative in conjunction with the LUV “Let Us Vote” Iowa campaign. The initiative, which is being called “Two Days For Marriage,” will kick off with a gathering at the State Capitol on January 12th.
According to Hurley, “People from all over the state have reached out to IFPC Action, and joined the LUV Iowa Campaign. On January 12th, we are encouraging those people, and all Iowans who care about preserving marriage and the constitutional separation of powers, to come together to take a stand, and once again ask Iowa lawmakers to ‘Let Us Vote’ on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.”
The concept behind “Two Days For Marriage” involves Iowans attending the large gathering on January 12th, and then giving one additional day during the legislative session to lobby for passage of the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Hurley said, “We plan to send a very clear message on January 12th that we intend to exercise our right to vote on the definition of marriage, and then follow up on that message with a consistent presence at the Capitol all session long.”
January 12th is the date when Governor Culver is scheduled to deliver his annual Condition of the State address. In addition to all 150 State Legislators, the Iowa Supreme Court Justices also attend the speech. The Governor’s speech is scheduled to begin at 10:00 am, and citizens are permitted to begin entering the Capitol as early as 6:00 am.
Hurley said, “We will be encouraging people to come as early as possible, and to stay as long as they can.” He concluded with, “We expect the Members of the Iowa Legislature to listen to their constituents and not to stand in the way of our constitutional right to vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Any Member who stands between the people and our right to vote is risking their political future. We will remember in November.”
LUV Iowa is short for Let Us Vote Iowa, and is a direct response to public requests for help from Iowa citizens as they organize to pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment. As more details concerning the event on January 12th become available, they will be posted on the LUV Iowa web site at www.LUVIowa.com.
10/4/010 Pleasant Hill, IA – Last night, the citizens of Maine proved once again that whenever the people are given an opportunity to cast a vote on the definition of marriage, they always reaffirm the only definition of the word – one man and one woman.
Responding to the positive news from the state of Maine, IFPC Action President Chuck Hurley said, “Every time the people have an opportunity to support and protect marriage from radical redefinition they consistently cast their vote for real marriage, and that is why we continue to ask the Iowa Legislature to Let Us Vote.” He went on to say, “Pro-homosexual lawmakers like Senator Mike Gronstal and Speaker Pat Murphy fight so hard to keep the Iowa Marriage Amendment from coming to the floor for a vote because they have benefitted from out of state homosexual contributions to their campaigns and their party that now exceed $1 million. They know the Iowa Marriage Amendment would pass without their obstruction. They also know that the people of Iowa will add the amendment to the state Constitution when given the opportunity.”
Hurley went on to comment on Governor Culver’s role in the causing the current constitutional crisis in Iowa. He said, “Governor Culver once promised to do anything and everything to protect marriage from redefinition by the court, but when it came time to lead, he went dark and refused to honor his word.” According to Hurley, “Culver’s refusal to confront the court has contributed to the creation of an unconstitutional judicial oligarchy in this state.”
Prior to last night, Maine was one of the few states where homosexual marriage had been created through the proper legislative process. Five other states, including Iowa, have begun issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples even though the law defining marriage has not been altered by the state legislatures.
According to Hurley, “Whether homosexual marriage is created by a court as in Iowa, a governor expanding on a court opinion as in Massachusetts, or the legislature as in Maine, the overwhelming majority of US Citizens still understand the intrinsic value of promoting and preserving real marriage in our laws.” He concluded with, “Last night we added one more to the win column. Marriage has won in 31 of the 31 states where citizens have been given the right to vote. Perhaps Iowa will be next.”
States where citizens have voted on the definition of marriage:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin
For more information on the efforts to pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment, visit the Let Us Vote web page at www.LUVIowa.com.
###
CONTACT:
Bryan M. English
Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION
Phone (515) 263-3495
Fax (515) 263-3498
Cell (515) 210-7475
Groups like IFPC Action and LUV Iowa have been partnering with Iowans all across the state for almost seven months now to network people and to work a strategy for passage of the Iowa Marriage Amendment. At each stop along the way, in every town meeting, and at every marriage event, people are outraged that the Iowa Supreme Court would take upon themselves the role of Legislative, Judicial and Executive authority to create homosexual “marriage” out of thin air. People always want to know why one branch of government has been allowed to grow so powerful in relation to the other two. They also want to know what, if anything, can withstand the tyrannical arm of an out of control judicial branch.
I think I have finally found the answer: Senate Tradition.
Last Thursday, I ran into Senator Dennis Black at a central Iowa coffee shop. Senator Black is my State Senator, but we weren’t in his district or at the Capitol, so neither of us had any reason to expect that we might cross paths, and we didn’t immediately recognize each other. While the meeting was a chance encounter, it had all the markings of a Divine appointment. Thanks to the Senator’s transparency in the conversation that ensued, I received a unique insight into a discussion that has been playing itself out all across the state since last April.
Upon learning that I work at IFPC Action, Senator Black immediately began to assure me that he is a supporter of marriage between one man and one woman. I thanked him for his support for marriage, and then asked him to explain what that means to him.
He replied with what had all the markings of a well rehearsed speech that had been delivered to constituents on countless occasions. He said, “I’m probably stronger in my support of marriage than you! I believe that marriage ought to be one man and one woman, one time.”
Again, I was extremely encouraged to hear this from a member of the Iowa Senate, and especially encouraged to hear it from a member of the Democrat caucus. I assured him that we were on the same page in our understanding of what marriage is, and so I asked him what he intended to do about it.
The Senator told me that he had spoken to Senator Gronstal, and encouraged him to allow the Iowa Marriage Amendment to come to the floor for a vote, but that he was fairly certain the leadership would never allow that to happen. As before, it seemed that his answers to my questions were well rehearsed. He appeared to anticipate each one, and had his talking points all ready to go. His message: “I support marriage as much as you, but there is just nothing I can do about it.”
I thanked him for talking to Senator Gronstal, and for asking him to bring the Iowa Marriage Amendment to the floor for a vote. I then asked him what he intended to do about Gronstal’s unacceptable answer. That seemed to be a question he was unprepared to answer.
“I’m not sure what you mean. Unless Senator Gronstal decides to change his mind, the amendment is not going to come to the floor for a vote,” he said.
At that point, I asked him if he would join me in standing up to those members of the Iowa Senate who refuse to allow the people of Iowa to vote, and if he would truly take a stand for marriage. I explained that Senate rules permit him to bring the amendment to the floor over the objection of Senator Gronstal.
He looked surprised and said, “Evidently you have read the rules more carefully than I have.”
I replied by explaining that the Senate Rules allow for a suspension of the rules, and that just as legislators did in the Iowa House last spring, he could force a vote through a suspension of the rules to bring the Iowa Marriage Amendment to the floor for a vote.
The Senator visibly bristled at the very suggestion that he ought to suspend the rules to force a vote. He said, “That has never been done in the entire history of the Iowa Senate! Do you have any idea what type of chaos would ensue on the floor of the Senate if I were to do that?”
My reply was to remind him that the Iowa Supreme Court has never so blatantly violated the Iowa Constitution before either, and that their unprecedented actions demand an unprecedented response from the other branches of government. I also asked, “Do you have any idea what type of overwhelming support you would receive from the people of Iowa if you were to stand up to your leadership and defend marriage like that?”
At that point, the Senator said, “A vote on a procedural maneuver is not perceived by most people as a real vote on the marriage amendment.” He motioned to the other people sitting in the coffee shop as he explained how the general ignorance of the voting public permits politicians to say one thing to their constituents and then behave differently when in Des Moines.
He then challenged me by saying, “You can’t with any integrity look me in the eye and say that a no vote on a motion to suspend the rules is actually a no vote on the marriage amendment.”
After that comment, I made a point of looking him in the eye as I said, “Senator, I will look you in the eye right now,” which seemed to come as a surprise to him.
I continued with, “I will tell you that there are options available to you as a Senator that would help to defend marriage in this state, and you are evidently unwilling to exercise them. You sir are not really a supporter of marriage.”
His shocked expression made it obvious that the conversation was rapidly coming to a close, so I offered to e-mail him with a step by step process for using Senate Rules to defend marriage over the objections of his party leadership. He assured me that my e-mail would not be necessary.
This conversation was another example of how comfortable politicians have become in telling voters what they want to hear without any expectation that we will require them to back up their words with actions. Too many politicians have become convinced that they are smarter than us common folk. Our ignorance often provides political cover for politicians who are too frequently hesitant to take a bold stand. That has got to change.
The conversation also revealed once again that if there is any singularly unshakable force in Iowa government it is senate tradition. It is increasingly evident that in the minds of many senators, the Iowa Constitution may as well be written on an Etch-A-Sketch, and the definition of an institution that predates civil government – marriage — is as pliable as Silly Putty, but Iowa Senate Tradition was evidently etched in granite on Mt. Sinai and can not be changed or challenged.
I wish that I could say this type of conversation was a reflection of the partisan nature of the current debate over marriage in Iowa. Unfortunately, this is the same discussion that many Iowans had with Republican senate leadership in April and May. It is the same discussion that constituents continue to have with Senators from both parties who claim to support marriage.
The idea that there were no options available to Iowa Senators for forcing a vote in the Senate, like the one that House Republicans forced on their side of the rotunda, is completely without a foundation in fact. They just believe that it is easier to confuse their constituents with legislative jargon, and to point fingers at Mike Gronstal, than it is to take a stand for one of the foundational pillars of any healthy society. Marriage is not a partisan issue. Senators on both sides of the aisle say that they support marriage. There IS something they can do about it!
As was clearly stated to several members of the Iowa Senate last spring, Iowa Senate rules allow for any senator to do the following:
1) Move to suspend the rules (rule 25) for the purpose of introducing the Iowa Marriage Amendment and bringing it to the floor for immediate consideration.
2) Get a recorded vote under rule 22. This way Iowans can know who supports real marriage and the Iowa Constitution, and who supports the homosexual agenda and courts that try to make law.
3) If the President rules you out of order at step 1 above, appeal the ruling to the Senate as a whole under rule 52.
4) Then get the record vote on the appeal under rule 22. This way Iowans can know who supports real marriage and the Iowa Constitution, and who supports the homosexual agenda and courts that try to make law.
(Reading the Iowa Senate Rules is tedious, but verification of the 4 step process for forcing a vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment is available on the state legislative web site: http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=BillInfo&Service=Billbook&ga=83&menu=text&hbill=SR8 )
This is not a difficult process. Any senator who has been entrusted with writing laws can certainly understand how to use the above mentioned rules. The consistent hang-up is not their inability to understand the rules but rather their dedication to “senate tradition” above all else.
Even with this insight into the unwillingness of “pro-marriage” senators to take action to defend the definition of marriage, it’s hard to comprehend why they are willing to take the political risk of having their constituents discover that they have options available but refuse to use them. Maybe instead of trying to pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment, we ought to look for a way to tie the definition of marriage to long standing senate tradition. Then, every Senator in the chamber would gladly risk their political career to preserve it.
Written by Bryan M. English
Director of Public Relations and Outreach
Iowa Family Policy Center
DES MOINES, Iowa (BP)--In the first statewide survey since the Iowa Supreme Court's landmark "gay marriage" ruling, a new poll shows that just over two-thirds of the state's voters support placing a constitutional marriage amendment on the ballot.
The survey of 500 registered voters by Voter/Consumer Research was released Monday, more than three months after the court made the state the first in the heartland to recognize "marriages" between homosexuals.
Iowa's Catholic bishops vigorously disagreed with the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision April 3 that strikes down state law defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
"This decision rejects the wisdom of thousands of years of human history. It implements a novel understanding of marriage, which will grievously harm families and children," the bishops said in a statement prepared by the Iowa Catholic Conference.
Should the state treat marriages the same way it treats baptisms and bar mitzvahs — as purely religious practices properly left to religious institutions? That’s what some are now arguing. If the state didn’t create marriage, they reason, then religion must have; and the state shouldn’t endorse sectarian religious beliefs. But their argument is profoundly flawed.
I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.
Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That's certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.