The Not-so-Innocent Fruits of Bigotry

If nothing else, Bob Vander Plaats and his FAMiLY LEADER have made life easier for comedians.  They help in many ways, starting with a refusal to capitalize the “i” in their name.  Odd.

Yesterday, they helped troubled laugh makers again when Vander Plaats took to the steps of the Iowa Statehouse to release a pledge the group is asking primary candidates to sign, the Marriage Vow – a Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY (the “i” in marriage, not in family?).  Let’s dive into this precious farce, shall we?  For those interested in following along at home, the heavily footnoted document including a preamble and the candidate vow may be found here in its entirety.

Michelle Bachmann was the first to sign the pledge.  This is slightly surprising.  One might have thought this year’s only announced female presidential hopeful would have belted Vander Plaats after reading the Vow’s second line which states marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects, in part, “vulnerable women” and “the rights of fathers.”  Another woman seeking to be the Leader of the Free World might have found it offensive to hear her entire sex labeled vulnerable and that the rights of fathers are thought to be different than, if not above, those of mothers.  If Bachmann didn’t see the sexism here, she had other chances.

The vow calls for the “prompt termination of military policymakers who expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.”  I am not exactly sure what sexual leveraging is, but I will join in condemning it and everything listed. I wonder if Vice President Dick Cheney was thinking about his need to be terminated as he pinned the Distinguished Flying Cross on Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lori Hill in 2006 because his policies put her fragile female sensibilities at risk.

Some Innocent Fruit of Conjugal Intimacy

The bullet point above the one about women in uniform is another favorite.  It calls for the “humane protection” of women and the “innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy.”  They mean children, for those of you who cannot put a hand on a copy of Oxford’s Dictionary of Biblical-sounding Pomposities.  A friend’s daughter said it was OK if her mom introduced her as an IFoCI as long as she got to be the strawberry.  Another friend indelicately asked if a child conceived on a beach would be considered a less intimate innocent fruit of conjugality.  I told him Vander Plaats need not know what happened years ago in Ft. Lauderdale on Spring Break.

The Vander Plaats crew’s oddest reference comes in the first bullet of the preamble.  According to the All in the FAMiLY cast, an African American child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to have been born into a two-parent home than an African American child born after the election of the first African American President.  I am thinking those figures didn’t include the children who were the product of master raping the mother or the fact the happy two parent home numbers dip a bit if the timeline is stretched to include the families split when its members were sold to the Plantation owner a state or two away.

The FAMiLY wants candidates to recognize the cost of divorce.  OK, that may not be a bad idea.  But, they fail to see when they say, “”married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability,” most of us are screaming “which is why people should be allowed to marry regardless of gender!”  If I may, Archie, – sorry, I couldn’t let the All in the FAMiLY reference die, yet – sex is better when a person loves his partner, not because a bureaucrat handed him a piece of paper.  The official raised seal on a marriage license isn’t sought because it is sexually titillating, but because it provides legal benefits once denied to many couples in Iowa.

There is also a bullet point about recognizing “robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to the U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security,” but I am not going to address it as it may interfere with amorous thoughts some have planned for this weekend.

I have saved a personal favorite for last: “Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.)”

How is it they make everything sound so dirty and what in the world is an “attracted?”  Here’s the thing.  As a people, we have a responsibility to protect everybody.  There is no need to spell out a difference between men and women, the married and unmarried, or combat troops and those toiling behind the lines.  Everybody deserves the same protections.  Thankfully, the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions protect all of us, not just those the FAMiLY highlight in their silly pledge.

Oh, another point, I am certain 99.9% of the Americans who sign up to serve their country do so out of a sense of duty, honor and respect.  Believe it or not, FAMiLY, they don’t enlist to get a peek at somebody in the shower or with a hope they will “commingle” their underwear with a fellow Marine on the wash line at a forward post in Afghanistan.

In the end, I appreciate the efforts of the FAMiLY folks to keep stand-ups knee deep in fertile material during these difficult times, but they can stop now.  Once we stop snickering about the nonsense they spew, it is painfully clear they really aren’t that funny after all.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Navigating the Political Minefield Using a Holy Compass

(WRITING A POLITICAL BLOG FOR THE DES MOINES REGISTER IS ENJOYABLE, BUT NOW AND AGAIN I COME UP BLANK IN THE TOPIC DEPARTMENT.  LAST WEEK I TURNED TO MY FACEBOOK FRIENDS AND ASKED FOR THEIR ADVICE.  I PROMISED THOSE WHO CAME UP WITH CHALLENGING IDEAS YET TO BE REHASHED IN CYBERLAND TOO MUCH A POCKET COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND U.S. CONSTITUTION AS A THANK YOU GIFT.  MY FRIENDS DID NOT DISAPPOINT.  I AM STARTING WITH ONE THAT IS A TAD SELF-ABSORBED, BUT I AM TOLD BLOGS ARE NOTHING IF NOT VEHICLES FOR THE EGOTIST.)

An old high school friend asked me a series of religious questions that were hardly new.  Religion’s role in government has been debated since the founding of our nation.  But, as many Iowans debate same sex marriage from a religious viewpoint and many in the Republican Party link religious values with fiscal conservatism, the topic seemed relevant.

His questions:  Is it acceptable for government to sanction that which the Bible says is wrong?  As a nation under God, do we place ourselves under His authority or is He simply in the sky above us?  If we choose to sanction that which He specifically condemns, then just who is the final authority?

Benjamin Franklin

I may be unqualified to answer these questions and it might be best to leave them to somebody “above my pay grade.”  However, avoiding the subject entirely is kind of a cop out.  The Bible speaks to my friend. Like some Iowa legislators, he appears confident about what is right and what is wrong.  I have never been so sure I could rely on my own reading of that holy text.  So, I thought I would pose these questions to someone who is spending a lifetime in such work.

I called Matt Mardis-LeCroy, Minister for Spiritual Growth at Plymouth Church in Des Moines.  He is articulate and well-learned in the field of Christianity having attended Messiah College, Chicago Theological Seminary and Princeton Theological Seminary.  On hearing the questions, he warned me against selective literalism.  I chuckled.  The term reminded me of my grandfather.  In later years, Grandpa adopted what the rest of us defined as selective hearing.  He would choose what he heard by removing his hearing aid when topics became troublesome.  Reverend Mardis-LeCroy said some do the same with the Bible and that one has to consider the entire message, not a few chosen verses.

OK, I see that, but it makes me again feel ill-equipped to ponder my friend’s questions.  I imagine few amongst us are experts on God’s word, but I know for sure I am not.  In talking about marriage, Reverend Mardis-LeCroy himself has said that “religious people in Iowa are not of one mind on the subject of marriage.”  Great, men and women who spend all of their time spreading the word of God cannot agree.  I was back to square one – faith is a guide, but where do the answers lie?

I picked up that pocket Constitution sitting on my desk and thumbed through it to distract myself for a minute.  My Facebook friend had agreed the Founders dictated a separation of Church and State, but he was asking about that which guides us, me in particular.  This made me think of my friend Amir Busnov.

Amir grew up Muslim in communist Yugoslavia.  While President Josip Broz Tito ruled, Amir played with Christians as a child and was baffled as a teenager when family members disapproved of a Christian girlfriend.  Years later, Amir watched neighbor turn against neighbor – Christian against Muslim – in the bloodbath of war.  Yet, Amir speaks self-assuredly about his religion and how it guides him as an American.  His conviction is as unwavering as my high school friend’s or those who attended the Family Leader event yesterday with former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.  Except, there is a difference in Amir’s approach and I think it comes from what he witnessed in Bosnia before he and his family fled, when he returned to Bosnia with the U.S. Army in the years that followed and in his service to the U.S. government in Iraq today.  Amir tells me Islam provides him a moral path.  Goodness lies in how we treat our fellow man, not in how we judge them based on our interpretation of religion.

Amir makes me think of Benjamin Franklin who signed those documents in my pocket guide.  I do a quick Google search and find what Franklin wrote to his father in 1738, “I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did.”  That makes sense to me and leads me to this:

The Bible tells us divorce is wrong, but Americans crafted laws to allow people to make their own choice there, because we respect liberty.  In a fair society, if marriage is to be a legal partnership between two adults, it has to be allowed between any two adults without bias, religious or other.  However, in a just society, if one’s actions harm another or infringe on another’s rights, we must not let those actions stand.  A religious conviction may guide us, but we cannot let one’s selective literalism trump another’s.  We must seek a kind of legal compromise as mortals.

I will answer my friend’s questions this way.  The strength of our country lies in the American accord.  While faith is an individual journey, we share a commitment to fairness and equality.  My faith guides and comforts me as Amir’s faith does for him and my high school friend’s faith does for him.  But, as a nation established and inhabited by people who recognize religious freedom, we leave it to each to seek that final authority.  As an American, I accept my neighbor as my equal.  My moral compass is set by my faith and I acknowledge that faith likely determines my neighbor’s “true North” as well.  Our faiths may lead us to different conclusions from time to time, so we must rely on the most American of principles, to treat all people with equality, kindness and respect.

Faith sets our compass, but that does not mean we should insist all Americans must follow our spiritual path.  Our country is based on fairness, liberty and freedom.  No person or group gets to select what part of a holy text is more important than the next.  Let’s leave that to the “final authority.”

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Bob Vander Plaats Does Not Speak for Iowans

Bob Vander Plaats reminds me of Groundhog Day, the 1993 Bill Murray film.  No matter what we do, every time we turn around there is Vander Plaats asserting he speaks for Iowans and repeating the same thing we heard yesterday.

Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, 1993

Yesterday, Vander Plaats applauded statements that Gov.-elect Terry Branstad made to reporters this week indicating he would look for candidates with “more judicial restraint” in filling the three current Supreme Court vacancies, and for calling it “a tragic mistake” when the court last year struck down as unconstitutional a state law defining marriage in Iowa as only between one man and one woman.

“The people have spoken and demanded a change in leadership,” Vander Plaats said, saying a majority of Iowans have indicated they do not believe the unanimous court acted within their authority in making Iowa “a same-sex marriage state.”

It is mystifying how Bob Vander Plaats, a guy who has been personally rejected by voters in four different elections, can assert he understands what Iowans want, let alone imply he speaks for them.

The people have spoken clearly on four occasions and rejected Bob Vander Plaats.  Hopefully, soon they will find a way to stop his tiresome groundhog like reappearance on the Iowa political landscape.  A judicial retention vote on one judge does not mean other judges should resign, but a quadruple loss at the polls might be a signal that Vander Plaats is not a reliable source when it comes to interpreting what Iowans are thinking.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Grassley’s Tantrum

I feel like I have picked on Senator Chuck Grassley recently in this space.  That was not my intent; the Senator deserves credit for many good things.  He has, however, made himself an easy target.   He did so again today.

Grassley held a conference call for Iowa reporters this morning.  Bret Hayworth of the Sioux City Journal captured the just of the call fairly well in his blog.  Earlier in the day, Grassley joined 41 of his colleagues in pledging to block all Senate action until the Bush tax cuts were extended.  After standing up to almost every action brought to the floor by the folks the majority of Americans voted for in 2008, Grassley and friends now think they know exactly what the people – all the people – want because their guys won more seats this time.  It would be nice to be able to pick the results you like and discard the ones you do not.  It doesn’t work that way.

Grassley said the lesson of the 2010 election was a repudiation of Democratic leadership, that Americans want members of Congress to focus on deficit reduction, the economy and job creation.  OK, but that isn’t exactly or all they/we want.  I happen to think we want government to be better, more efficient and fair.  We want those in seats of power to work together, not stymie each other for selfish political gain.  Yes, we want you to find compromise, Senator.  More than anything, we want members of Congress to work toward the same end, our nation.

Don’t say you will thwart all legislation until you get what you want.  That’s how spoiled children behave.  Demand a vote on tax cuts and allow the other party the chance to have a few up and down votes on issues they feel are important to the people they represent, too.  Neither party has blanket authority to act and forward issues independently because of what happened in this election, the last one or what the latest poll says might happen in the next.

I’ll admit I am adamant about same sex marriage and the repeal of the unfair and silly Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law that has forced many a qualified American from military service.  I get that way when people aren’t treated equally in a country that is based on equality – call me crazy.  But, Grassley’s comments about DADT on today’s call were inane and this issue provides a good example of what I am talking about.

“Reid knows he doesn’t have the votes for a lot of things, like The Dream Act, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” said Grassley.

Senator Grassley, let us see that for ourselves.  Let Senator Reid bring issues like these to the floor.  There is plenty of time for the Senate to vote on these bills, your precious tax cuts and a few others, before you head off for your extended vacations.  He may win a few and you may win a few.  Better than that, the American people will win a bunch.  For once, Congressmen and Senators will be doing their jobs instead of whining and obstructing.

We sent you to Washington to lead.  Sitting on your hands and saying you won’t do anything unless you get your way was bad behavior in pre-school and it still is.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Newt Gingrich is a Bully

Newt Gingrich is a smart guy and I have liked many things he has said over the years.  However, his willingness to throw democracy and the principles of good government under the wheels of his campaign bus as it swerves hard to the right is appalling.

Gingrich was in Iowa yesterday promoting his latest book and his potential presidential campaign.  Pushing the latest political hot-button, marriage, Gingrich said the integrity and authority of the system comes from the consent of the governed, “then the governed have indicated they don’t agree with this court … so I think they have any sense of integrity about protecting the court, they’ll step down.”

Wait.  What?

CHRISTOPHER GANNON/THE REGISTER

Gingrich’s statement is silly.   No, it is worse.  Gingrich has shown a reckless disregard for justice.  Having three separate and distinct branches of government provides an important balance.  The executive and legislative bodies are selected by regular and competitive elections.  These branches were meant to be responsive to the evolving priorities of the people.  Justice demands members of the Court consider the Constitution and laws of the land with a bit more distance from the influences of popular election.

Retention votes make sense.  The people should have the ability to remove judges they deem unfit for office, but judges should not be influenced to rule based on perceived popular opinion.

Gingrich’s statement is so outrageous it does not deserve comment, until you realize he could actually be a contender for the presidency.  Let’s deconstruct what he said.

First, Gingrich takes a huge leap in logic when he says voters would have tossed all of the Justices out had they been on the ballot.  He does not know that.  Polls indicate many of those voting “no” wanted to send a message.  If all of the justices were on the same ballot, it is fair to assume voters would have considered the potential chaos that could have ensued from the Supreme Court on down had all of the justices been tossed out.  A majority may not have voted “no” on the entire slate.  Balancing court continuity with the need for a public check is precisely why staggered terms for Justices were written into the Constitution.

Next, it is ludicrous to suggest this year’s vote should cause the remaining Justices to step down.  Following this flawed logic, all Republicans in the U.S. Senate who were not on the ballot should have resigned in 2008 to protect the integrity of Congress after the thumping their Party took that year.  Like Senators, Justices have terms that allow voters to consider a public servant’s entire record of service.  Had Gingrich resigned when he took a single vote in Congress that was unpopular, his career would have been considerably shorter.

A stable democracy demands a process of thoughtful consideration.   Voters have the opportunity to be heard from time to time, but that is different than knee-jerk mob rule.  Gingrich’s suggestion that Iowa’s remaining Supreme Court Justices step down looks less like democracy and more like a coup d’état where polls and the muscle of political groups substitute for guns and military strongmen.

Ejecting judges or forcing them to resign every time people disagree with a ruling will destroy a system designed to ensure each member of our society can find justice whether they have popular political support or not.

The Court acted in a legal manner and the marriage restriction was struck down.  Kicking Justices off the bench will not change that.  Democracy provides those who want sexually restrictive marriage a path to reverse the ruling.  They need to draft and pass laws and/or a constitutional amendment that withstand legal scrutiny.  That may be a painful and difficult task, but it is the way the process is supposed to work.

Replacing an independent judiciary with judges who will pander to win votes as Gingrich is should strike fear in all Iowans.  We all have a stake in preserving the ability of judges to do their jobs without being threatened by political bullies like Gingrich.

Justice prevails only if the people take a longer view than some guy who is singly focused on his fate in the next election.  Newt Gingrich may enjoy political racing, but he appears to not understand the fundamentals a stable and just society needs to survive.  He is wrong on this and he needs to steer his campaign vehicle in a different direction.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Semper fidelis. Always faithful.

Today is the 235^th birthday of the United States Marine Corps and tomorrow is Veterans Day commemorating the 92^nd anniversary of the conclusion of the “war to end all wars.” Veterans Day, originally called Armistice Day, marks the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918 when World War I officially ended.  The day is now a national holiday in which we honor those who have bravely served and rededicate ourselves to world peace.  With the vicious 2010 election season in our rearview mirrors, these anniversaries could not have come at a better time.

At the first observance of tomorrow’s holiday, President Woodrow Wilson said, “To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…”

Gen. Amos takes command
United States Marine Corps
Official Page, on Flickr

The thing with which it has freed us and the opportunity it has given. President Wilson was right then and his words remain true today.  The debt we owe those who walked these roads before us, who built our country and changed the world is, in part, gratitude for freeing us.  But, the bulk of this obligation can only be repaid by our making the most of the opportunity we have been given as a result of their sacrifice.

It is likely the first chills of winter were carried by the wind blowing across the Schuylkill River on this day in 1775 when two battalions of Continental Marines formed in Philadelphia.  These men who accepted their duty to protect and defend could not have known what they were starting.  The world, our country and the Americans of this century are quite different than anything they could have envisioned.  Yet, we share the same desire to expand the reach of peace and justice so those who follow will be free from that which limits our dreams.  And, that is the point.  Those patriots and every Marine who has followed were not willing to fight so we could pursue their dreams.  They fought so we could chase our own.

I get increasingly irritated by politicians, TV pundits and political agitators who review election results or the latest poll data and are willing to announce in confident tones that they and they alone know what the American People want.  It is likely most Americans share a desire for freedom and a better tomorrow.  Peace and justice.  When those exist and we fight side-by-side to protect them, dreaming becomes individual and boundless.  We may not always share the same dreams, just the commitment to protect the right to have and follow those dreams as free people.

Musician Kid Rock’s new single Born Free hits the right chord today.  The best way to honor those who sacrificed so we could stand freely in a world they would scarcely recognize is to give our all so those who follow will be able to fulfill a destiny that surpasses the limits of our imaginations.

Thank you to all of America’s veterans.

embedded by Embedded Video

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Does Blogging Make me Evil, or Just Uninformed?

I posted a link to a video produced by stop8.org on my Facebook page yesterday.  It is a clever refutation of an ad produced by Bob Vander Plaats’ group Iowans for Freedom.  I put it on my page because the stop8 piece is a good example of an effective viral video and, I admit, I happen to agree with the content.  (Here is a link to the video Matt Baume of stop8.org)  However, I posted the link with limited editorial comment, “here is a breakdown of the recent ad about judges and marriage in Iowa.” The comments I received on the post came from those who support the effort to change Iowa’s judge selection and retention system, but one commenter touched a nerve in me and I have been stewing about it since.

As background, the Vander Plaats’ effort targets the three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who are on the ballot for retention in November.  Something commonly referred to as the “Missouri Plan” brought the selection of judges by election to an end in 1962 when Iowa voters decided to replace the process of selecting judges by popular vote with a merit selection and retention election process. This system was adopted in hopes of taking politics out of the selection and retention of those serving in the third branch of government. The legislative branch passes the laws. The executive enforces them and the third branch, known as the judiciary, ensures the laws are enforced equally and in accordance with Constitution.  Vander Plaats and crew disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on marriage, want to boot the judges and are running a political campaign to do so.

I referred to the process in response to a question asked in the thread of posts and used the terms used by the law “merit retention and selection.”  In response, an attorney posted this:

“You are confused re the judgeship issue, Graham as you have no idea how it is done except from bloggers. The “merit” system is big firms/big business. No common people whatsoever. At least Governors appointments reflect the will of people that elected him/her. Not corporate big law firm appointments. Read Pelican brief. The Associate….What’s worse is present Culver appointments which reek of politics but “look like” merit. Senator’s husband? West Des Moines Trial lawyer. If you want to be a blogger, then blog. What it is called is not what it is.”

For the record, I happen to blog as a sideline.  I can hardly be defined by what I write in this spot, I hope.  I am, like most voters, a citizen capable of understanding how our government works.  Further, had my friend bothered to take the time to look, he would have found out I once served as the deputy appointments director for the Governor of Florida.  I have been intimately involved in the selection of judges to state courts, but a person does not need that experience to evaluate Iowa’s system of judicial selection, nor does he need to read John Grisham novels to become knowledgeable about the problems found there as my friend ridiculously suggests.

My friend makes a contradictory case for scrapping Iowa’s judicial selection process.  He supports the gubernatorial appointment of judges, because, he says, a governor is elected at the will of the people.  He then oddly claims that Governor Culver’s abuse of the judicial appointment system demonstrates why the merit system should be scrapped. Maybe I need to be pointed to another novel to help me understand, but saying we should give the Governor full independent authority to appoint judges without input from a separate commission of citizens because the current Governor made bad appointments from the list submitted by the commission doesn’t make sense.

I have been stewing about the condescending tone my friend took because I feel it reflects the state of political discourse in this country.  I am a blogger, but I am a voter, father, businessman, community volunteer and many other things.  Many will likely find my opinions wrong and my thought process flawed, quite possibly for good reason.  But, when we dismiss each other out of hand without taking the time to hear what others think and, sometimes, how they came to their conclusions, we shortchange ourselves.  My friend did this.

It is the exchange of ideas that will help us become a better state and country.  Too many engaged in the current political debate do so with a belief it is “us against them.”  They find it too easy to dismiss the other point of view as uninformed or anti-American/Iowan/family/fill-in-the-blank.  Not until more of us realize it is just about us and there is no them will we be able to set about solving the monumental problems we face as Americans.

(Contact Graham Gillette at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Equality is NOT a Ballot Issue

This week marks the anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage. The ruling touched off a sometimes rancorous political debate that promises to continue for years to come. I have heard some say that Iowa and our country are not ready for this debate. I have to agree that the marriage question has brought out the worst in some people, but it also has shown us at our best. I recognize gay marriage makes some people uncomfortable, but the time to end marriage discrimination in this country is now.

Perennial gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats has built the foundation for his campaign on the issue. The Iowa Republican puts it this way, “For much of 2009, Bob Vander Plaats focused on one issue – gay marriage.” For an entire year, nothing was more important to him. And, political rhetoric, some of it absurd, has not been confined to Iowa. J.D. Hayworth, Senator John McCain’s opponent in Arizona, drew a bizarre picture that same sex marriage is a step toward a man being able to marry his horse. Four time Iowa governor and returning candidate Terry Branstad has found it difficult to juggle this issue at all, stumbling over it numerous times.

Branstad and some who are even more vocal about ending same sex marriage are trying to build a case for letting the people decide by forcing a statewide or national vote on marriage. There is much hot air about how letting the Supreme Court ruling stand without a Constitutional question being put to the voters is tantamount to creating a judicial oligarchy. They argue the people should decide. When you take two steps back from this argument, it is laughable. The Iowa Legislature passed a law that defined marriage as one man and one woman. The people never voted on it. Last April, the Court found this legislative action to be in conflict with the Iowa Constitution.

It is not that the question of marriage is so big that it demands a vote of the people. What is at stake is bigger than marriage, something more important than an issue to be decided by a simple and single vote of the people.

This week, Governor Chet Culver made his strongest statement on the matter to date. He said a vote was unnecessary. “I think the overwhelming majority of Iowans do not want to amend our constitution in such a way that’s discriminatory. That’s the bottom line,” explained Culver. He was trying, I guess, but this statement proves the Governor also misunderstands this issue. It has nothing to do with the latest public opinion survey.

Our state and national constitutions were established on the most basic of underpinnings, we are equals. We are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law. There is no litmus test to determine who among us is ‘more equal,’ who among us is be entitled to own property, speak freely, or get married.

I got to marry the person I love, the person I chose to marry and the person who chose to marry me. No law or constitutional amendment can be written to say two other people can be denied the same ability because they share the same type of human plumbing, for doing so would violate the most basic tenet of our state and national constitutions. We are equals. Our sex, sexual orientation, religion, color, political belief and any other thing that makes us who we are cannot change that fact. If our Legislature passes a law that says differently, it violates our Constitution and should be struck down. If a ballot measure is passed by the electorate that says one segment of our population is not entitled to the same rights as another, the Court should invalidate it. If we say that it is OK for one couple to marry because they are straight, but it is unacceptable for another to marry because they are gay, we invalidate the very Constitution which created Iowa and the one that formed the greatest country on earth.

Tomorrow, many will gather to celebrate the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on marriage. I wish them well, but I hope they will pause for a moment in their revelry to realize that this is not a gay issue. This is not about marriage. This is about equality for all.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.