Tuesday, April 07, 2009

"You Guys Don't Understand. You've Already Lost"

While Maryland Democrats hold up an important bill in committee that would prevent discrimination against gay and transgender people, Iowa has plunged forward, allowing same-sex marriages. Further, the Majority Leader of the Iowa state Senate says he's not going to let it come up for a vote. Listen to this guy -- this is what I'm talking about. The Chicago Tribune:
DES MOINES, Iowa - A key lawmaker Monday ruled out any move to overturn an Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, even as backers of that effort promised to step up pressure on the Legislature.

Meeting with reporters, Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, was clear about proposals to begin the process of amending Iowa's constitution to overturn the decision.

"It will not come up," said Gronstal. "I have no intention of taking it up." Iowa Senate leader rules out gay marriage debate

It isn't for some politicians to decide who you can fall in love with, who you can marry, whether it's federal politicians or ones at the state level. It's not something people vote on. Here's a politician who gets that.

Skipping down ...
Rep. Dwayne Alons, a sponsor of a resolution seeking to put a constitutional amendment before voters that would ban gay marriage, said his phone lit up over the weekend.

"The people of this state should have a say," said Alons, R-Hull.

No they shouldn't. I didn't have to ask "the people" who I could marry, and I don't see why gay people should have to, either.

Towleroad has video and a quote from Gronstal:
"One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country. And my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: 'You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care.' I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And Ive talked with other people about it and that's what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that. Is that so wrong? I don't think that's so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know I've been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other. No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you."

In the meantime Maryland legislators are doing all they can to avoid the subject.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that. Is that so wrong?"

Yes, it is.

It's none of the state's business.

April 07, 2009 9:12 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

I see. So you think that states should not allow it employees to add their heterosexual spouses to their health plans? You think that there should be no state allowance for bereavement leave when a spouse dies, or when an in-law dies?

When one spouse in a heterosexual marriage dies, the surviving spouse should have no particular claim on their shared property, above whatever claims any other co-owner would have? You believe that the state has no business considering married heterosexuals as each others' legal next-of-kin?

Because if you really believe as you say that recognizing two people's professed love for each other is none of the state's business, how would you justify the state bestowing legal kinship and all of its benefits on pairs of totally unrelated straight folks?

April 07, 2009 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The whole love thing is not the state's business.

Commitment is another thing.

Commitments of support among heterosexual couples is beneficial to society and should be preferenced in our laws.

April 07, 2009 11:32 AM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes:

"Commitments of support among heterosexual couples is beneficial to society and should be preferenced in our laws."

Presumably,Anon,you believe that commitments of support among same sex are NOT beneficial to society and thus should not be recognized. If that is your belief, could you please explain why you believe that?

April 07, 2009 12:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

More good news! The Vermont house voted to override the governor's veto of the marriage bill.

Equal marriage arrives in Vermont!!!

April 07, 2009 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I think Senator Gronstal is right: opening marriage to lgbt couples makes straight marriages more meaninful. Otherwise, it's a right some people have and others don't, and what's the joy in that?


April 07, 2009 4:24 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...


"Commitments of support among LOVING couples is beneficial to society and should be GIVEN preference in our laws."

April 07, 2009 4:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home