Proposed Iowa Bill Would Allow Religion-Based Discrimination Against Same-Sex Married Couples

More nonsense from the Iowa bigot crew. A House Subcommittee is set to consider this proposed legislation tomorrow:

Anderson House Study Bill 50, called the Religious Conscience Protection Act, would allow a person, business or organization such as a charity or fraternal group to deny services without fear of facing a civil claim or lawsuit if they think doing so would validate or recognize same-sex relationships.

The same-sex exclusion is by itself constitutionally troubling, several legal scholars and civil rights activists said.

However, the bill is so broad that it would legalize a wide spectrum of other discriminatory acts, they said. They raised questions about whether services could be denied if, say, a Christian were married to a Jew or if a woman who is 60 married a man who is half her age and the couple could not procreate.

Rep. Richard Anderson, R-Clarinda, a lawyer and sponsor of the bill, said its intent is is to protect religious liberty.

What's Anderson's end goal of course? "Anderson wants to ban same-sex marriage, a step that would drive state policy toward responsible procreation, he said on the floor of the House last week. He also said that same-sex marriage is a step toward state-recognized polygamy."


  1. marshallt says

    Actually, this is an attack on religious liberty. A church may require whatever they choose of their own membership, however, the minute they provide charitable services to the general public they loose the power to dictate the requirements. To do so, would interfere with the religious liberty of the general public.

    Obviously, same-sex marriage fits within the beliefs of those who enter into it. Therefore, refusing to serve these people is an attack on their religious liberty.

  2. Gary says

    Dreadful! However, I say to the the “fundies”, bring it on! Pour out your hateful and fearful hearts for all to see. It’s going to backfire in your faces.

  3. jpeckjr says

    The Iowa Supreme Court in their ruling included a section on the religious questions regarding same-gender marriage. It was not necessary, but they stated it was useful as the religious questions are part of the debate. It is a brilliant exposition of the religious liberty questions, noting that prohibiting same-gender marriage interfered with the free excercise rights of religious groups that supported same-gender marriage.

    I am an openly gay, liberal Christian pastor in CA serving a church that supports marriage equality. The law does not compel me to solemnize any specific marriage. I can refuse any couple who comes to me on any basis, theological to scheduling conflict.

    For this reason, I support changing our marriage laws to require a civil ceremony for all couples, with an optional religious or family ceremony that carries no legal weight.

  4. says

    Well if you are going to ask me? I am not actually in favor for this same sex marriage. Why? simply because there are no such thing to have the same sex to be one because they are not actually compatible for each other. I am sorry this but it is such an abnormal activity to do so.

  5. rovex says

    Compatible how? In that they dont have a penis and vagina that fit together once a month if youre lucky? Ok fine. Emotionally, socially and in just about every other way? No, id say same sex couples beat hetero couples on that front..

  6. 1♥ says

    Re: “so you ‘d better cut the crap and live like normal people.”
    So you think your threats will intimidate us. You are so very pitiful.
    News for you, I am normal, I’m just not full of hate like you and Die Cuts.

  7. rovex says

    People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones,and there is no house more glassy than heterosexual marriage and coupling.

    The problem for the haters is that we grow up in their world because we are raised by them, we know what the reality of their little perfection is. That make crap up about us because they dont know us and like to think they are better.

  8. Jeremy says

    I am just amazed… You can not discriminate against someone because of their religion… But their religion can discriminate against you… Perfect… Looks like the Puritans are back in charge… So watch, next it will be witch trials, burnings at the stake, and hangings for the ones the so called “Christians” decide to go after.

Leave A Reply