Navigating Iowa

Two quick links, because it's time for me to leave the office. First, a Washington Post piece on the strange marriage between social and fiscal conservatism that fuels the so-called "tea party" in Iowa. The Machine Shed in West Des Moines gets name-checked, and the rest of the piece is a who's who of Iowa's far right. The recipe for success in Iowa these days? Apparently this: "[I]t's all about Christian values. If you're an honest person and have some accountability to God, you'd be a good candidate for public office."

And second, from the Democratic Strategist, some analysis of the first article. The conclusion, which frankly terrifies me, is this, regarding what the far right considers "overreaching constitutional authority" (conveniently defined, I would argue, as "doing whatever we don't like, such as upholding equal protection under the law for minorities"):

Long before conservative activists put on wigs and beat drums, it was the language of the Christian Right, whose obsession with overturning Roe v. Wade, and with opposing church-state separation, constantly fed constitutional originalism. Similarly, the importation into the constitutional design of the Declaration of Independence, which is semi-universal in Tea Party circles, originated with the Christian Right, which used the Declaration to smuggle God into the Constitution, along with a notion of natural rights that supported, in their own minds at least, the rights of "the unborn" and the prerogatives of the traditional family.

More generally, it's hard to identify Christian Right pols who haven't strongly identified themselves with the Tea Party Movement (two of its best-known leaders, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman, are highly illustrative of this fact), and hard to find Tea Party spokesmen who favor any policies that would in any way discomfit the Christian Right. Where they aren't the same people, they are certainly strong allies, and essentially two sides of the same radicalized conservative coin with the same apocalyptic vision of a righteous nation led hellwards by evil progressives. Iowa is not an outlier in this respect, but perhaps just a place where the political context makes it easier to see.

Zach's gone viral...and Representative Anderson really did say that.

Over 500,000 You Tube views. So far. Watch the clip (as part of the segment below, which also contains the almost impossible-to-fathom comments by Representative Anderson about his wish for more accidental babies of heterosexual hook-ups) and you can't avoid the conclusion that Zach Wahls was raised right. By his two mothers.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Groundhog Day

Ah...Groundhog Day. As a person who lives life in anticipation of the NEXT holiday, I am happy to embrace its goofy charm.

Punxsutawney Phil did NOT see his shadow...predicting an early spring (I always get confused over what means what...). At this point in the winter, I am always willing to believe him.

National Review's Jonah Goldberg praises the film "Groundhog Day" as one of the best films in decades. It's definitely a film that's become part of the culture--I've heard multiple friends having a string of bad days say, "I feel like it's Groundhog Day."

And in Des Moines, Iowa, it's an excuse to drink beer at 6 a.m. God bless my state!

Next holiday: Super Bowl Sunday, of course! Er...sorry...that's copyrighted...the big game...wink, wink.

Hooray for straight couples..."they can create children accidentally."

Well, as expected, HJR6 did pass the Iowa House. The anti-marriage-equality resolution was eloquently attacked by many able House members, but the votes were already there to pass it out of the House. A low point in the debate today can be found in the remarks of Republican Representative Rich Anderson of Clarinda, who played the absurd "slippery slope" card and then went on to opine that

"[W]e want to protect something called responsible procreation,” said Anderson, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “We want to drive procreation into a stable relationship and procreation only happens between a male and a female. See a male and a female can do something that a homosexual couple cannot: They can create children accidentally. That’s the issue. It’s not about love. It’s not about romance. It’s about driving state policy toward responsible procreation."

Guess what, Representative Anderson? I know just what you're talking about.

I work in family law, and any family lawyer will tell you that we spend a distressing amount of our time dealing with males and females who have accidentally created children together. But I would never DARE to call that responsible procreation, and you're a fool for even suggesting that. It's the most irresponsible procreation imaginable--resulting in children being raised by parents who barely know one another, custody fights, unpaid child support, abuse allegations, estrangement, acrimony, and downright hatred. Compare those children's likely futures to the very intentional decision of two people in love to have a child like Zach Wahls, who spoke with passion and love on the floor of the Iowa House last night.

We don't need more accidental children. We need more committed, loving families.

...But he still likes Sarah Palin

I was delighted and proud that Jeff chose to speak out last night against the anti-marriage amendment being considered by the Iowa House. You'll probably be surprised to know that I did not know his position on this issue had changed so dramatically before late last week, when he was asked to speak by a friend who thought and hoped that he might be willing to do so.

This bipartisan household of political activists is remarkably apolitical, at least on a day-to-day basis. Honestly, we're too busy wrangling kids and having fun together to revisit issues on which we've disagreed in the past.

But I can confirm (because I asked) that he's still the same dyed-in-the-wool Republican, with a lasting attachment to the political phenomenon that is (was?) Sarah Palin. Rest easy, right-wing friends!

My Comments Against The "Gay Marriage Ban"

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.