Essential Estrogen

[Commentary] I know there must be a place -- somewhere either between or beyond the salvos of political rhetoric of Des Moines -- for Iowans to have a real conversation about civil rights in our state. Unfortunately, when the rhetoric is so loud and so obscene, everyday Iowans tend to switch to a different channel and tune out important issues.

Monday, for example, House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, a Sioux City Republican, decided he would implement a rarely used legislative rule to move a proposal on the Iowa Marriage Amendment out of committee. Rants was prompted to make this move due to the fact that the Iowa Legislature is entering it's first "funnel week" -- a time when bills not moved out of committee die on the vine. Despite the rule being implemented Tuesday morning, the proposal remained in committee.

During the course of announcing that the rule would be used to force the proposal to the floor, Rants told my Iowa Independent colleague Jay Wagner, "So the question is whether [Democrats] vote their conscience or blindly follow the leadership." It isn't the first time Rants and other Iowa Republicans have accused Democratic members of the House and Senate of bowing to the whim of "leadership" without actually naming who or what such leadership is. It's also doubtful it will be the last.

In his public remarks, however, one thing Rants failed to mention was the pushing he's receiving from his own "leadership" to get the proposal out of committee for a vote. On Feb. 25, Chuck Hurley of the Iowa Family Policy Center was a guest on WHO Radio's "Deace in the Afternoon" program. This particular program (mp3) was dedicated to advocacy of the Iowa Marriage Amendment. The program began with Hurley, a politically-charged conservative personality in the state, exhorting listeners to push the legislature to move this particular measure out of committee prior to the March 6 deadline.

Steve Deace, the host of the radio program, is also one of several conservative individuals and organizations who have joined together to push for the Iowa Marriage Amendment to come out of committee. Others include the Concerned Women for America of Iowa, Iowa Eagle Forum, Iowa Christian Alliance and Hurley's organization.

As a part of the pressure this coalition has initiated, a search of campaign-finance documents for donations to Democratic officials from openly gay individuals was completed. In the ensuing press release, these donors, who have the legal right of making contributions to any political campaign they desire, were given the distinctive, emotion-provoking title of "homosexual activists." At least one member of a sponsoring organization stated to me that she felt political contributions by gay people should be limited, based on the fact that since "they typically do not have family concerns," they have more disposable income and can, therefore, provide more monetary incentives to politicians. I guess, using the same logic, the government should also limit campaign contributions by sterile heterosexual people.

It is difficult to imagine the outcry if anyone dared to scour campaign-finance forms for names of regular Iowa churchgoers and labeled them as "fundamentalist activists" or for business owners and labeled them as "corporate money-mongers." Yet, this same tactic has been used by those who prefer to stand behind "what if" arguments to block certain Americans from their inalienable rights as granted by our founding fathers.

If the Iowa Marriage Amendment were to come out of committee, it would proceed to a vote in the Legislature. If passed, it would then face another legislative debate in the next session before it could be placed on a general election ballot. The conservative groups advocate this must be done -- that everyday Iowans should not be subject to the yet undetermined verdict of the Iowa Supreme Court on the matter of same-sex marriage. Repeat after me: "straw man."

Much to the dismay of many Iowans who support same-sex marriage, Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat who believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman, has already publicly announced that if the Supreme Court should uphold an August 2007 District Court ruling that Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, he will not only act but would consider a special legislative session for the specific purpose of "dealing with" the Iowa Supreme Court's verdict. While it is true that the Governor has no direct control of how state legislators would eventually vote during a special session, it is safe to say that his opinion would carry weight with Iowa's Democratic majority.

Conservative groups contend, perhaps rightly, that the vast majority of Iowa residents support the discrimination against homosexual couples. I would argue, as I have in the past, that quantity does not necessarily equate to quality.

Forty years ago the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in relation to marriage "that connections and alliance so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion." In a similar decision, the Georgia courts said that some marriages were "not only unnatural, but... always productive of deplorable results." The Georgia courts added that such marriages "are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

At that time, however, the courts were not discussing same-sex marriage, but interracial ones. At that time, when the United States Supreme Court eventually ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage was one of an individual's "vital personal rights" protected under the 14th Amendment, most Americans believed such unions to be unnatural ones that would lead to the complete dismantlement of both marriage and society.

While same-sex marriage is one of those topics that tends to provoke strong emotions, it is in the best interests of our state to step back and allow the state Supreme Court to make its ruling. If there must be a legislative circus that will distract from everyday -- but nonetheless important -- issues before our Legislature, let it come after the courts have had their say. Until that time, I encourage all Iowans to wave away any rhetoric from either side of the political aisle concerning the issue. More likely than not, the rhetoric has more to do with the next election than it does to the sanctity of marriage.