Comments

  1. says

    Oh Jesus, some fags might come to Iowa and spend their money on dining out and hotels.

    Oh God help us not that! Don’t those queers know there’s a recession on? Why, we could become a tourist destination!

    Trust the GOP to the big picture. I hope that those gay meccan’s hold their nuptials on his driveway.

  2. KevinM says

    I grew up in Rep. King’s district. Back in the day (the 60s and 70s) he would never have been elected. That district was represented by a wonderful gentleman, Rep. Berkley Bedell, who was never such a self-satisfied bigot. As I recall, he ran a bait shop in Spirit Lake or perhaps Lake Okoboji in the northern end of the district. Anyway, Steve King has been capitalizing on the peoples’ fears, and I think has shamelessly exploited the elderly, native population for his own political gain. I think that by nature and by tradition, people in northwest Iowa are fair-minded and reasonable, just like their fellow-citizens across the state. So, I’m saying this is an example of a politician taking advantage of an issue, not because of his own convictions, but because of his own career. Northwest Iowa should dump King ASAP and get back to their tradition of tolerance and civility. Of course, I left their more than 20 years ago, and so it’s probably not the place I remember, anymore.

  3. liz templin says

    ah, they’re losing and it just sucks. sucks to lose for them. their precious institution is being ruined by the homosexuals. we’re gonna ruin everything, aren’t we?

    OH WAIT….it’s *ALREADY *ruined to begin with. party on! 😛

  4. Alex says

    If the Constitution of Iowa somehow does not required that they marry the gays, then why is he calling for an amendment to it? Clearly if an amendment is necessary, then the Constitution does require gay marriage be legal, which means the Supreme Court of Iowa interpreted it correctly.

    Where’d he get his law degree from? Oh wait, he doesn’t have one. Might explain why he shouldn’t be talking out of his ass about the appropriate role of the judiciary and what the constitution there says.

  5. RB says

    Well I am not sure anyone is lined up and ready to go to Iowa; gay or straight! However, this is a win and I am happy.

    Again, Iowa a gay mecca? Really?!

  6. shane says

    isn’t this fairly dangerous territory? are we gays and our straight allies mobilized well enough? did california not teach us any lessons?! is king “panicked” or does he know EXACTLY what he is doing? iowa is one of the remaining few states that does not have an amendment to its consitution banning marriage…yet. but if this goes to a referendum to the people of iowa, what happens? anyone? i worry the GOP DOES GET THE BIG PICTURE: let the gays get slaughtered state by state quickly, and then it gets to a federal court faster. then we’re really screwed.

  7. says

    These politicians and right-wing nuts need to be OUTTED as “Theocrats”. They don’t believe in a democracy, they believe in a Theocracy. They are neither liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican (except in name only) they are “Theocrats”. They have rewritten the conservative movement.

    I think if this site, and others start referring to people, such as Rep. King, Rep Kern and others as “Theocrats”, it may catch on and get people thinking, “Is this truly what we want, our country run as a Theocracy.” This country was founded as a Democracy, with the separation of church and state, many politicians are starting to step over the line, attempting to take away that separation.

    We know that in all their arguments they use the “Bible”, cherry picking it, as a reference for their hate. It is time that they are OUTTED as what they truly are….”Theocrats”!

  8. jimmyboy says

    Sort of caught a bit of gay news on logo earlier. They mentioend something about a study that showed that gay marriage if legal in california would generate a Billion dollar annual buisness for the state.

    With the economy the way it is one would expect iowa to be begging gay america to flood their states and get married as long we bring our gay cash with us.

  9. woodroad34 says

    Perhaps Iowa Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron)should go back to elementary school and relearn his civics lesson. The judiciary is an equal partner and the legislature does not have the right to pass laws that are illegal. When a complaint is brought about because of an illegal or bad law it’s up to the judiciary to ameliorate it. Geez, what a foot stamping little 5 year old he is. This panicky response is the true face of the term Homo-phobia.

  10. JD says

    “Watch another bigot, Chuck Hurley of the Iowa Family Policy Center, who you may remember organized a huge demonstration of hundreds of anti-gay bigots in January 2008 to pressure the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage, react to the court’s ruling today.”

    Narcissists I’ve known also have odd religious ideas, in particular believing that they are God’s special favorites somehow; God loves them, so they are exempted from ordinary rules and obligations: God loves them and wants them to be the way they are, so they can do anything they feel like — though, note, the narcissist’s God has much harsher rules for everyone else, including you. [Many readers have questions about narcissism and religion. Here is an interesting article on the Web: “Narcissism Goes to Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship” by Monte Wilson. “Modern American Christianity is filled with the spirit of narcissism. We are in love with ourselves and evaluate churches, ministers and truth-claims based upon how they make us feel about ourselves. If the church makes me feel wanted, it is a good church. If the minister makes me feel good about myself, he is a terrific guy. If the proffered truth supports my self-esteem, it is, thereby, verified.”]

  11. JD says

    The nature of narcissists’ personality disorder is so profound and so primitive that narcissists damage virtually everyone who comes into contact with them. They hurt their children in ways that are hardly imaginable to anyone who hasn’t been there. Narcissists elicit profound and primitive wrath rage hostility from sane and stable people. This damages the social fabric by embittering the very people who might possibly be able to counterbalance the narcissists’ malign influences.

  12. JD says

    The worst torture one could devise for narcisstic freaks would be to lock them in a room all alone for about three days. After about an hour, they would probably have their socks on their hands like puppets, just to have someone to lie to. Anything similar to this.

  13. Charlie says

    I am not an Iowa fan because I don’t like they power they have in picking presidential nominees. Plus, if you want to win their state you have to kow-tow to farm interests. This is why our country is so fat. Subsidies for corn (and corn syrup) but nothing for fresh vegetables.

    But people are already speculating on what effect this will have on the next presidential election.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/iowa-same-sex-marriage-and-the.html?hpid=topnews

  14. Danny says

    If the anti-gay forces really want to get rid of gay marriage in Iowa, they should pay Geoff Kors and Lori Jean to come into Iowa to be the defenders of gay marriage. Given enough time and money, these clowns would find a way to lose marriage rights there as well.

  15. Fewer Adjectives, Please says

    I suspect this is a hopeless effort, but I’ll try anyway. Could you tone down the promiscuous use of adjectives and adjectival nouns, like “bigoted” and “bigot?” There really are very, very many genuine bigots out there, and perhaps King is one of them. You, though, are so effulgent in your use of those and similar terms — used, it seems, with indisciminate disregard to apply to everyone and every position that deviates at all from your version of civil liberty — that they have not only become meaningless when used on this site, they’ve become unhealthy weights on your otherwise very good reporting. This is a great site; I appreciate your efforts quite a bit. I just tire of the in-advance and without-distinction designations of everyone who holds a philosophical and moral position that differs to the right from yours.

    Again, great job. Just a little less of the blatant, indiscriminate, un-nuanced characterizations, please. It is simply not true that everyone who disagrees with you is a contemptible vessel of hate and fear.

  16. Gene says

    It’s interesting to me that the opponents of marriage equality keep talking about what this ruling, or the Vermont legislation would “create.” The Iowa Supreme Court ruling hasn’t really created anything. What it did was recognize that these relationships and families already exist – some for decades – and should treated the same as all other families in the state.

    There will be no more gay people in Iowa in 21 days than there are today. With a lot of luck and a little miracle, there will be more of a sense of community among all the diverse people of Iowa.

    “All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy.” – Al Smith

  17. alex in boston says

    I love the statement made by Hurley “…that 1,000’s of Ex-Gays do not exist according to the opinion of the court”, just as WE gay people do not exist to Hurley!

  18. Bart says

    The comments of the anti-marriage parade remind me of the children’s story about the sky falling.

    I think that having such a common sense state like Iowa shrug and state that defining marriage to exclude gays is illegal will have a defining ripple effect. Having a fly-over state agree that gay marriage should legal will echo through the heartland (instead of from what they consider the crazy coastal states) and will make more sense to more people.

  19. Matt says

    In what sense does the court’s decision help them “achieve their *personal* political ends”? Are all seven of them gay people looking to get married?

  20. TooBoot says

    Apparently “Less Adjectives Please” (LAP) believes that Steve King and Chuck Hurley’s statements are more “nuanced” and not contemptably bigotted rhetoric. How is what either of them said merely “slightly right?” Their language is completely devoid of any nuance and is well deserving of the ascription of “bigot.”
    This debate is certainly not for the squeemish and if you can’t handle the name calling perhaps you should be quiet and let those that aren’t afraid of calling people out for their intolerance to the grownups.

  21. John says

    Sorry, but this is exactly the type of man who puts his arms around my waist thinking I’m going to throw my legs up in the air because he’s some Daddy type.

  22. Mike says

    Whatever… like we should expect less from these wingnuts. The bottom line is these anti marriage equality people simply don’t believe that gay people are entitled to equal rights. They believe gay people are sexual perverts and immoral. They continue to use double speak and spin to shroud their bigotry and hate with euphemisms in an attempt to obfuscate their true feelings. They detest these supreme court rulings which use logic and the law to strip away all their double speak bullshit and expose them for what they really are – bigots and hate mongers. Yes, they bristle when they are called bigots, they say it is a matter of opinion – which is true… but one can have bigoted opinions (they leave that part out).

    It pains me that the press doesn’t call them out on it. The press continually allows them to spew their crap as a valid alternative view.

    Thank goodness we have people like Jon Stewart and Tina Fey that show how ridiculous these people are…

    Being gay isn’t a “lifestyle”, I don’t want to be “tolerated”.

  23. steve donoghue says

    He may be beady-eyed, and he may be despicable, but unfortunately he IS right: the state constitution clearly defines what marriage is in Iowa, and the court has no legal authority to change or ignore that. It doesn’t matter at all what the ruling is about – although imagine how different the gay community’s reaction would be if the Iowa constitution DID allow gay marriage and the court just summarily ruled AGAINST it. I understand the impatience for social change, but what the Iowa court did here represents a DANGER to gays – and everybody else: if we allow that impatience to shatter the very structure of the law, then so can our enemies.

  24. gabriel says

    SHANE – it would not be up to the people (like in CA) to amend the constitution. It has to go through two sessions of the legislature and THEN be put to the people. It is more like in Mass. CA’s constitution is too easy to amend (or revise? since we still don’t seem to have a good definition of what is considered a revision and what is an amendment).

  25. GregV says

    Steve Donaghue, The Iowa constitution guarantees equal treatment and does NOT allow sex discrimination.
    That`s the reason there is all this noise from the bigots about wanting to CHANGE the Iowa constitution so that they can ADD gender mandates into it in regards to marriage laws.
    That`s why the judges, if doing their job right, could not have ruled other than they did.

  26. GregV says

    I watched as this asshat pretended to read from the decision knowing full well that he was adding in words that were not there to make it sound absurd. (I knew because this is a tried and true tactic of the anti gay groups.} Then I looked at the decision, and sure enough, there is nothing in there saying, for example “homosexual behavior is immutable.“ In fact, it argues that sexual orientation seems highly resistant to change but that whether or not it is immutable is irrelevant.

    These issues of whether we could “change“ should not even be entertained in the courts in my opinion. The Lovings did not have to prove that their attraction to another race was immutable in order to gain marriage rights. This should be considered a case of sex discrimination. If my spouse is male or black or tall or short or Methodist and we are denied rights ny the state because of it, that is sex (or race or height or religious} discrimination. It should not matter whether I could have, in a parallel world, been married to someone else who is female or white or Southern Baptist, or even whether one of us could convert to something else. The fact is that this is who we are and we are denied rights on the basis of who we are (in thgis case, in regards to gender.}

  27. says

    Steve King has long been recognized as a right wing NUT. He does not represent Iowa or even his district well. His lunacy is going to make him a target in his next election. As an Iowan, I’m sure I am not alone in the embarrassment that is Steve King.

  28. steve donoghue says

    Gabriel: shut the fuck up or what? you’ll punch me? Yeesh. The state constitution doesn’t disallow same-sex marriage – but it does disallow judicial legislating. It says laws shall only be made by the legislature. We all LIKE what the Iowa court has done here, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t riding roughshod over due process. My point is that once you allow that, it can work against you as much as for you.

  29. mike says

    I just love all those Republicon buzzwords, especially “judicial activists”. What Rep. King seems to forget is that the Judiciary is the third branch of our constitutional trinity. Sometimes it is necessary for the judiciary to tamper down the over-reaching excesses of the executive or legislative branch, particularly when those two branches of government use baseless fears and bigotry to justify the denial of full civil equality to a state’s citizens. The video clip shows a bigot who was probably convinced the judiciary would rule against marriage equality, but is so shocked by the judges’ decision that he might just faint on the spot. Hurley looks like he’s ready to “hurl”. What is even more incredible is the decision itself. It is a reasoned treatise on just what “equality” means constitutionally. If we are a nation of laws and one of our founding principles is that all men (women) are created equal, then there can be absolutely NO abrogation or surrender of that principle. I am still amazed that this has happened. But, like another poster here, I fear that the much-feared Republicon base will rise up in faux or sincere outrage and do in Iowa what they did in California. Notice that in the video clip shown here there is a black man, a pastor, standing next to Hurley. Remember, if there is one thing that unifies black and white evangelicals, it is the issue of “gay marriage”. We should rejoice but still be ever vigilant against those who seek to destory us.

  30. RJ says

    @STEVE DONOGHUE … Yes, the legislature makes the laws but it cannot make ILLEGAL laws. That’s why there is a judiciary branch of the government in the first place.

  31. Doug says

    Luckily, the photo of Rep. King that accompanies this article doesn’t really show his combover that well — but I gotta say he’s got the dreamiest blue eyes I’ve ever seen! His boyfriend must thank Allah every morning that he wakes up next to him. I know I will. (We can fix the combover.)

  32. says

    “We all LIKE what the Iowa court has done here, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t riding roughshod over due process.”

    Obviously everyone doesn’t LIKE what the IA court has done here, as the above terrified-of-progress talking heads demonstrate. If the court was truly “riding roughshod” over due process, why are only right wing homophobes (and you) complaining about it? Seems like other constitutional scholars–and the court itself–would have been astute enough to see the flaws. The court justly found that marriage can’t be restricted to a man and a woman. Gay couples in IA will be able to marry within a few weeks. Unlike in CA, there seems to be no immediate or easy way to overturn this decision. What’s happening in IA is a boost to the federal quest for marriage equality. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see the bad side for gays here. I only see a bad side for the likes of King and Hurley.

  33. TANK says

    I have yet to see a compelling argument that this is a violation of the Iowa SC, and, to be honest, a coherent definition of “judicial activism”.

  34. John in CA says

    I think the term has been defined very clearly over the last several decades. “Judicial activism” is whatever conservatives say it is.

  35. NovaNardis says

    King is also showing of his own ignorance of the electoral process. While US Supreme Court Justices are unelected, Iowa Supreme Court Justices–like most states–are elected. So while the whole “legislating from the bench” claim can still be made, it loses a lot of it’s steam because these are elected people. At least on retention, anyway.

    For example, here in PA we had an unpopular pay-raise fiasco in the legislature a few years ago. There was a huge backlash against incumbents, and a Supreme Court Justice *lost* retention, and so lost his seat. Whatever you think about voting for judges, these are elected positions. Why does Steve King hate democracy?

  36. DR says

    laugh all you want at the “wingnuts”, but they’re winning boys and girls:

    http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid77464.asp#Receipt

    “The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law.”

    They now have HUGE support from the White House to keep us as second-class citizens.

    Yeah, we won Iowa. But who’s sinning in the long run, us or the folks who can read that statement to their constituencies?

  37. Mike says

    Regarding the Obama comment… I was for Hillary, but I am now convinced that he was the correct choice. The guy is brilliant and is beating the wingnuts at their own game. Parse his statement: “Although he supports civil unions rather than same sex marriage” (which is his personal preference) – “he believes … equal rights under the law” (his belief). He knows separate isn’t equal, and he also knows that the vast majority believes in equal rights. As more and more states knock down these laws, eventually the US Supreme Court will have to rule for marriage equality. That is down the road probably about 5 years. The logic of the State Supreme Courts in this matter is irrefutable. He is just taking the wind out of wingnut sails so they can’t mount a distraction campaign. Wingnuts know they can’t argue directly about equal rights… so they go back to their nonsensical spin language. I’ll also go out on a limb here, after watching the oral arguments in the Prop 8 hearings several times, I have come to the conclusion that the California Supremes will strike it down. You can’t take rights away from a suspect class via the amendment process.

  38. says

    “Yeah, we won Iowa. But who’s sinning in the long run, us or the folks who can read that statement to their constituencies?”

    I assume you meant “winning” in the long run, tho I like the idea of sinning in the long run. But the answer to your question is, unequivocally, WE ARE. As Mike says, the logic of the IA Supreme Court–there is no valid reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage–is irrefutable. We are on the right side of history, period.

    There will be setbacks, and even politicians who are basically on our side have room to evolve (as public opinion evolves–sadly, successful national politicians tend to follow not lead), but the historical trajectory is in our favor. In VT, for example, the legislative opposition is increasingly made up of out of touch old guys who are actually apologizing for their bigotry (as if apologies excuse it) because they at some level recognize that they are dinosaurs. The shifts we’re seeing in New England and Iowa are the future; it’s only a question of how long before the rest of the country follows, and how astutely we make our case.

  39. DR says

    There is problems with Mike’s comments:

    A) When Justice Kennedy had the opportunity to make at least some comment about the rights of same sex couples to marry, he didn’t. Go reread Lawrence (2003).

    B) The Iowa State Supreme Court raised the level of scrutiny to “intermediate”, while the USSCt still uses “rational basis”. Do you know how easy it is to beat that test????

    C) Obama has never once supported gay marriage in recent history; as matter of fact, he’s gotten more conservative on the topic since he was interviewed lo those many years ago.

    D) “As more states knock down these laws”? You guys need to do a bit more research; so far almost 40 states have either passed laws of amendments prohibiting gay marriage.

    Man, I don’t believe how many people have drunk the Obama Kool Aid. I really have to wonder who the wingnuts are.

  40. Tom says

    It’s scum like this who – quietly and otherwise – sanction the abuse and murder of our amazingly courageous but under siege LGBT community worldwide. Confront hate wherever it is. We have reason and sanity on our side, those these do not always seem to take the day.

  41. rickp says

    Obama’s statement is as lame as his special olympics joke and he needs to be called on it……the man is a simpleton plain and simple so stop giving him credit.

Leave A Reply