Clarinda, Iowa House Rep. Richard Anderson's bigot protection law dead for now; Democrat Kurt Swaim: "I think it has some merit."

Jason Clayworth of the Des Moines Register reports that a legislative proposal to allow Iowans to deny service to people whose marriages they disapprove of is dead. Richard Anderson, R-Clarinda, informed about 75 people today that House Study Bill 50 would not receive further consideration. Excerpts:

But after the meeting he indicated to reporters that work will continue on the bill.

The bill was so broad that it would legalize a wide spectrum of other discriminatory acts, constitutional scholars and civil rights advocates said. They raised questions about whether services could be denied if, say, a Christian were married to a Jew or if someone objected to a couple who were unable to have children since Anderson himself has said the state’s prime role of marriage is in promoting “positive procreation.”

Two of the 10 people who spoke at today’s subcommittee meeting were in favor of the bill: Danny Carroll of The Family Leader and Tom Chapman, the executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference.

Multiple speakers today told the subcommittee that it would be best if House Study Bill 50 was forgotten.

Yesterday, Clayworth quoted Drake University constitutional law scholar Mark Kende on the bill: "It seems to have some significant constitutional issues that are problematic."

Excerpts:

Anderson wants to ban same-sex marriage, a step that would drive state policy toward responsible procreation, he said on the floor of the House last week. He also said that same-sex marriage is a step toward state-recognized polygamy.

A similar bill, House File 2350, was introduced last year by Rep. Kurt Swaim, D-Bloomfield, a lawyer.

"I think it [House Study Bill 50] has some merit," Kurt Swaim, D-Bloomfield, had said of the bill.

Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, call the bill an effort to legitimize discrimination under the guise of religious liberty; the ACLU opposes it, as do two other civil rights groups.

Swaim said the idea behind the original bill came from a group of law professors from across the nation, including professor Tom Berg of the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis.

Several commenters to the Des Moines Register's web site weren't amused:

nst101

Can we charge Rep. Anderson for the time spent on this? I think it should come out of his salary as it was a waste of time and taxpayer money (and I'd feel the same if the Dems came up with an equally ridiculous bill that wasted time).

MHaddon

What if my religious beliefs are that people like Richard Anderson should be denied employment and housing, and forced to become educated about human decency? He's not just showcasing and showboating, he's showarsing.