IOWA CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE LEGISLATIVE REPORT
WEEK ENDING MARCH 27, 2007
Norm Pawlewski, Lobbyist
Legislation that adds sexual orientation and gender identity to Chapter 216, Code of Iowa, as protected classes, was passed by the Senate on a vote of 32 yeas to 17 nays. The bill SF 427 was explained in my report dated March 23, 2007. If you missed it, you can read it on www.iowachristian.com.
SF 427 was debated for about five hours on Monday, March 26th. Senate Majority Leader, Michael Gronstal floor managed the bill. Those speaking in favor of the bill offered not one example or cited any studies that would justify adding sexual orientation or gender identity to the Iowa statute. They all compared the plight of homosexuals to that of blacks, women and the handicapped. What they said:
Sen. Connolly said he was proud to be part of this bill. He spoke about justice and fairness and stated that 19 states have already passed similar legislation. Of course, that means that 31 states have not.
Sen. Quirmbach waxed eloquent (at least he thought he did) about this being the most significant vote of his career. He considered voting on SF 427 of historical significance, one that Iowans could proudly tell their grandchildren about. He compared the gay rights struggle to that of the struggle of black Americans and the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. He also compared it to women’s suffrage and all other noble civil rights struggles. I found his oratory over the top and more silly than profound. If I were a black American, I would be insulted by his comparisons to the civil rights movement.
Sen. Black stated he was a Mormon and opposed discrimination for any reason.
Sen. Dvorsky stated that he considered his vote on SF 427 as his second opportunity to make a sentinel (don’t ask me why he used this word) vote of his career as a legislator. His first was voting against the death penalty.
Sen. Bolkcom said that without the protections offered by SF 427, an employer could fire Vice President Cheney’s daughter because she is a lesbian. He expressed gratitude for the civil discourse of this debate, which was unlike previous debates involving homosexual rights. He stated that “this was the result of the last election, which resulted in a number of gay haters losing their seats in the Senate.”
Sen. McCoy, the only openly gay Iowa legislator, was the most caustic in his remarks. He stated that Sen. Hartsuch, who opposed the bill and offered some amendments, (I’ll mention later), was born in the wrong century. He took issue with a comment Sen. Hartsuch made in answering a question about the founding fathers and God declaring homosexuality a sin. He said as a man of faith, he objected to the notion that God would be invoked to discriminate against people. He also stated that Republicans are not getting support for their God issues from the electorate.
Sen. Gronstal, Democrat Majority Leader, cited several Iowa Supreme Court decisions that dealt with slavery and civil rights for black Americans. He also brought up the Americans With Disabilities Act. At a meeting, a young deaf girl asked him if she were to run and be elected to the Iowa Legislature, would the state provide an interpreter for her? According to the Senator, the question brought tears to his eyes. He mentioned that more than once. However, his reference to the deaf girl and the Americans With Disabilities Act puzzled me. Was he inferring that, like deafness, homosexuality was a disability? Also, how did an Iowa Supreme Court decision about a slave who had bought his freedom and had to go to court to defend it, figure into civil rights protection for homosexuals? That puzzled me as well.
Senate Republicans offered several amendments, all of which were rejected by the Democrat majority:
Sen. McKinley offered an amendment that would protect small businesses from frivolous lawsuits.
Sen. Boettger offered an amendment to protect schools against personnel and students from changing genders and demanding access to locker and rest rooms of the opposite sex.
Sen. Hartsuch offered an amendment to protect organizations like the boy scouts, girl scouts and other civic organizations that consider homosexuality contrary to their belief system. He argued that this bill violated first amendment rights of people who believed homosexuality to be immoral and contrary to their religious beliefs.
Every Democrat senator, except Sen. Tom Hancock, voted for SF 427. Three Republicans joined them: Sen. Lundby (Republican Minority Leader), Sen. Angelo (Assistant Minority Leader), and Sen. Ward. Seventeen Republican senators voted against SF 427. Sen. Gaskill was absent.
House File 611, another bill I wrote about in my March 23rd report, was debated and passed with the help of five Republicans on Thursday, March 29th. If you want detail of this bill, go to www.irlc.org. Iowa Right to Life Committee took the lead on HF 611.
If these five Republican legislators did not vote for this Planned Parenthood effort to dominate what does and does not constitute appropriate sex education in the state of Iowa, the bill would have failed:
Representative Libby Jacobs of West Des Moines
Representative Linda Miller of Bettendorf
Representative Doug Struyk of Council Bluffs
Representative Jeff Kaufmann of Wilton
Representative Walt Tomenga of Johnston
Three Democrats, Rep. Brian Quirk, Rep. Dolores Mertz and Rep. Dawn Pettengill, voted against the bill. If they are your representatives, a thank you is in order. Also, a thank you to all the Republicans who voted to allow local school districts the option of designing a sex education curriculum that best suits their own locale.
Four Republicans absent or not voting were: Rep. Clute, Rep. S. Olson, Rep. Rayhons, Rep. Soderberg.
Most disappointing was Rep. Walt Tomenga who we lobbied about an hour before the bill was brought up. Although he did not commit to vote against the bill, he argued that the Democrats had enough votes to pass it anyway; so his vote really didn’t matter. But he did not tell us that he would offer closing remarks on behalf of Rep. Mary Mascher in favor of the bill. Rep. Tomenga believes that if he supports some of the secular humanist bills the Democrats are pushing, they may throw him some crumbs. In fact, he said to me that sometimes you have to dance with the devil in order to make progress, or words to that effect. I disagree with Walt, who I’ve known for at least thirty years. I believe the old saying, “You should dance with the one who brung you.” In Tomenga’s case, that’s conservative Republicans, not liberal Democrats.
Just a reminder. Thank the senators and representatives who vote righteous. If you contact those whose vote disappointed you, remember to be civil and courteous. But let them know that your future votes and/or campaign assistance are dependent on their legislating like they candidate.
I have a difficult time believing that the supposed social conservatives, who voted with the liberals, gave their constituents any reason to believe they would support secular humanist legislation.
In conclusion, some Republican representatives who voted for HF 611 will try to justify their vote by saying that amendments by Representatives Heaton and Tymeson made the bill palatable. However, there is no guarantee that the Senate won’t remove the amendments, where the Democrats have a bigger majority.