SENATE DEMOCRATS BLOCK MARRIAGE AMENDMENT VOTE

Sad, but true, the Iowa Marriage Amendment failed to get an up or down vote in the State Government Committee of the Iowa Senate. Wednesday, March 22nd, was the last day the committee would meet before the latest funnel date. Any House passed bills that failed to get through a Senate committee by March 23rd are now dead. The same goes for Senate bills that failed to get acted upon in a House committee.

We did everything we could to give Senate Democrats an honorable out. Republican leaders offered to fast track a bill creating Reciprocal Beneficiary Contracts (RBC). These contracts would provide to any non-married couples a single document which would allow for a power of attorney, hospital visitation privileges, medical decision making, right of survivorship, etc., etc., etc. These legal rights are what many homosexual couples say they are denied because they are prohibited from marrying. An RBC would apply not only to gay couples but any two or more persons living together, such as widows, siblings or people co-habiting. It may sound like we were offering a civil union or pseudo marriage. Not so. These arrangements can be executed currently, but with multiple contractual arrangements, incurring significant legal expenses. Although some Democrat senators like Jack Hatch, Mike Gronstal and Dennis Black greeted the offer as an answer to their “homosexual rights” concerns, they did not seriously seek a compromise. The only outcome they would accept was killing the amendment and denying Iowa’s electorate an opportunity to vote on this crucial issue, the definition of marriage. We were especially disappointed in Senator Dennis Black’s decision not to press his leadership to bring the amendment up for a vote. Although he committed to vote for the amendment a few weeks ago, it became evident that he did so only to avoid having to defend his previous no vote on the amendment two years ago. Although he did nothing to bring the amendment to a vote, he will probably tell voters in his district that he “intended” to vote for the one man, one woman marriage definition. His constituents should not let him get away with this ploy.

In a previous report I reported that Senator Joe Bolkcom said he felt the Iowa law, which defines marriage, would be upheld. When I asked him what he would do if a judge decided our law was unconstitutional, he said he would have to revisit the issue. Then in an interview in the Des Moines Register he characterized the marriage amendment as “institutionalizing intolerance and bigotry.” Since that statement didn’t square with his “revisit the issue” comment, I asked him if he favored gay marriage. He does. He would vote to give gays the right to marry.

The Iowa Interfaith Alliance also said that putting a definition of marriage in the Iowa Constitution would institutionalize intolerance, bigotry and they added, hatred. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.” Matt. 23:27 I have another message from God’s Word for both Senator Bolkcom and the Interfaith Alliance: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:20-21

I had it on good and reliable authority that, after meeting with her constituents at the Capitol on the day of the Marriage Rally, Senator Maggie Tinsman, Republican, District 41, Scott County, was overheard lobbying at least one Republican senator to influence his decision on the amendment. When confronted, she denied it. She was only explaining why she opposed the amendment. Well, let’s see, if I explain my position on a bill, it’s regarded as lobbying. When Senator Tinsman does it, it’s what? Conversation or chitchat? Senator Tinsman, for whatever reasons, is a supporter of gay marriage. She should have the intestinal fortitude (guts) to say it and explain to her constituents why.

Where do we go from here? Senate Democrats (I paint them all with the same brush since not a single one of them who had the opportunity to vote two years ago, voted for the amendment) have denied Iowans the chance to vote on the amendment. They cannot deny Iowans a chance to vote in primaries in June and the general election in November. They had the power in March; we have the power in June and November. We serve a great and awesome God. If He be for us, who can be against us?

Our first objective is to support candidates in the June primaries that are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and willing to fight for our faith values. We need to encourage our pastors, our shepherds, to take the lead in registering values voters and informing their flocks about the issues and where candidates stand on the issues that preserve what’s left of our Christian heritage. In my next report, I’ll lay out some action steps we will need to take to become the majority of the majority. Only then can we be assured of some chance to protect our families. We owe this to our posterity.