Tuesday, February 1, 2011

62-37: Iowa House passes HJR 6;
Video: Zach Wahls defends his gay moms from political assault waged by Iowa Republicans and Family Leader

Iowa Republicans Kim Pearson (l) and Glen Massie flatly
refused to answer Rep. Nathan Willems' questions about HJR 6
After the formality of last night's HJR 6 hearing (see previous post — click HOME tab), Iowa House Republicans bulldozed the measure through the General Assembly today, five hours earlier than scheduled (because of the snowstorm, they said.) Republicans own 60% of the 100-member Iowa house, and all of them except one absentee voted for HJR 6, which would put to a popular vote an amendment to the U.S.'s least-amended state constitution that would deny marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships to gay couples. Three Democrats defected to the Republican side: Dan Muhlbauer, Brian Quirk and Kurt Swaim. Every other Democrat voted no. The Iowa Independent took note of the following:
Two outspoken opponents of marriage equity — Republican state Reps. Glen Massie of Des Moines and Rep. Kim Pearson of Pleasant Hill — took the highly unusual step of refusing to answer questions in defense of the constitutional amendment when requested by Democratic state Rep. Nathan Willems of Lisbon.
Considering the quick evisceration that Willems gave Rep. Erik Helland (here), they were probably smart to duck his questions. It's all the more rich when you consider that Helland is a lawyer and Willems isn't.

Here is Zach Wahls, 19, defending his two moms and his family during Monday's HJR 6 hearing from the political assault brought by Iowa Republicans, the national anti-gay-for-pay industry, and Danny Carroll of Iowa's so-called Family Leader. We have Tim Gill to thank for the fact that Danny Carroll is no longer in the Iowa Legislature.

Posted by
Labels:

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 1, 2011 at 5:54 PM

    I am an Iowan who was living in Iowa when this issue was foisted upon us without bringing it to a vote of the people. I feel it is only fair that the general population have a chance at voting on the issue of what is termed "equality in marriage" or in reality acceptance of gay/lesbian marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AKSARBENTFebruary 2, 2011 at 1:32 AM

    You say the issue was "foisted" on you. In fact the entire Supreme Court (appointed by both Republican and Democratic governors) ruled that denying marriage to gay Iowans violated equal protection.

    Contrary to what the religious right claims, this unanimous, bipartisan legal decision was not the product of "activist" judges.

    Aksarbent thinks that carving out arbitrary exceptions to equal protection and then subjecting them to a popular vote is fundamentally unfair, despite what you "feel."

    Also, you talk about "marriage" as if HJR 6 didn't also make gay couples strangers to the law by including bans on civil unions and domestic partnerships.

    Even a lot of conservatives who are uncomfortable with gay marriage did not sign on to the "extra" animus added to this discriminatory amendment.

    Thank you for your comment.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

ShareThis