or, as it is formally known, Iowa House Joint Resolution 6, resulted in quite a bit of publicity, as Tara and I expected.
Here are my full comments as I delivered them on Monday night during a public hearing in the Iowa House. I actually ran out of time before coming to the end of them, so consider this "the director's cut."
Remarks For House Public Hearing On HJR 6
Monday, January 31, 2010
I see many friends within this chamber tonight. As many of you know, I served 12 years in the Iowa Senate. I, like all the legislators within this Assembly, took an oath to defend the Constitution—an oath that I continue to take very seriously as a citizen activist.
During my tenure in the Iowa Senate, I voted for an amendment similar to the one contemplated tonight and was lead sponsor for a similar Constitutional amendment just a few short years ago.
But I am here tonight to tell you that I have changed my position on this issue, and to urge a “no” vote on House Joint Resolution 6 and ask that this assembly continue to allow same-sex couples the ability to be joined in civil marriage.
Every legislator knows that any discussion of a contentious issue such as this one should begin in areas of common ground before moving to areas of disagreement.
I know that we all agree that the purpose of our Constitution is to protect the rights of individuals. It does so by limiting the government’s power to control the lives and properties of our citizens.
The resolution before you places pro-active, legislative language in our Constitution meant to limit the ability of a select group of citizens to be civilly joined in marriage. It does not restrain government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens and therefore violates the very purpose of our Iowa Constitution.
Let me also say that the tenor of the debate has become such that it does not serve the people of Iowa well and is not in keeping with an Iowa culture that is known nationwide for displaying both respect and generosity of spirit.
Each day, Iowans worship with, work with, live with, and love people who are gay. This debate centers around the devaluation of the lives of a select group of people. At its worst, we are asked to believe that our gay friends and neighbors are involved in a nefarious agenda…the outcome of which, supposedly, is the unraveling of society itself.
My friends, Iowans are discomforted by this debate, because we know it not to be true.
So let me return to my earlier theme of finding common ground within a contentious debate. We all are joined together tonight but our love of liberty. Free citizens are allowed to disagree and live their lives as they choose without fear of government reprisal as long as life and property are not threatened. Countries that seek to use the secular law to enforce religious principle are NOT free countries.
I urge legislators in this debate to “default” to the side of liberty and vote “no” on House Joint Resolution 6.
Additional comments today: I very much appreciated the opportunity that legislators provided for citizens to stand in the House chamber and voice their arguments for and against the resolution.
If there would have been two more minutes for my speech, I would have suggested that the folks in the chamber on Monday night work out a plan in which they could meet together over several weeks and just talk. They may not come to agreement, but civility, love, and respect comes with relationship. I wondered during the hearing how many people actually talk to folks who disagree with them on this issue. I wonder if the rhetoric would be different.
I didn't change my mind on this issue due to a single "epiphany" moment; I changed it over time due to friendships with people who are gay. Adult life is still a lot like my lunch room in grade school or high school; we tend to sit in groups with which we feel comfortable and not socialize with the groups with which we do not. We'd all benefit from a little purposeful "exposure" to people who are different than us.
Planned Parenthood’s War on Baby Girls
2 hours ago
4 comments:
Jeff - Congratulations on your thought process in coming to this conclusion. I agree that we'd all benefit from a little purposeful "exposure" to people who are different than us. Perhaps you are the one who can open up this type of dialogue among those proposing this ammendment. I don't understand why people can't believe that this is a civil right, and religions can still marry whomever they want. A good article on this is the ELCA human sexuality statement: gift and trust found at: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx
Thank you for your statement last night
Warren Woods
Thank you so much for your comments. As a private citizen who believes that government exists *to protect individual rights*, the current political atmosphere is deeply discouraging to me. Both sides of the aisle seem to think the state is a mechanism to force their idea of virtue upon the rest of us. It was a refreshing change to hear from a (former) politician who knew what government was supposed to be about. Thank you for mitigating my despair somewhat.
Mr. Angelo,
Thank you for granting my request!
I am always interested to have incite into why people have changed their position on this issue. Your change in position is truly a testament to how dangerously self-serving and selfish remaining in the closet is for gay people. I sincerely believe that only through openness and honesty in personal and individual situations will gay people can achieve equality.
I agree, greater civility and communication is needed between both sides of this debate. It seems to me that people get somewhat caught up in big ideas and don't really think about the impact that the implementation of those big ideas would have.As a gay man, I know that what is plainly apparent to me is a struggle for others to understand and vice versa.
Sir, Thank you for your measured & thoughtful remarks to the House regarding HJR 6. Although I no longer live in the state, I have always been proud to tell people that I am from Iowa. We have been a state known for our pragmatism, our belief in hard work, and - as you said - a remarkable ability to display "respect and generosity of spirit." The current debate, while bringing out our very best qualities in some, has also brought out some of the very worst qualities in others. We see politicians and activists pandering to people's most base fears, attacking others, ignoring evidence, and using ignorance for their own advantage and purposes.
I would watch this debate with interest for the simple reason that I believe in marriage equality. But the debate in Iowa, in particular, is much closer to my heart. You see, two of my closest friends from childhood - with whom I attended preschool, played in marching band, graduated high school, and eventually attended college - turned out to be gay. And while their sexual orientation matters not a whit to me or our friendship, it saddens me that in both cases it was nearly ten years - a full decade - after our high school graduation before they came out to me, because neither of them felt they would be safe or accepted if they were out in our home town. So when Iowa made such a huge step forward on marriage equality in 2009, I was elated. In the current debate, I am simply hopeful. But it is people like you - who urge careful and respectful debate, acknowledging the humanity of both sides in the argument, and are courageous enough to admit that after consideration they have changed their mind - who help me remain hopeful and give me someone to point to as a model Iowan when I am asked by my friends why I would be proud to come from such a "backward" or "redneck" state.
With my gratitude,
Anonymous for the sake of my friends
Post a Comment