Tag Archives: Constitutional Amendment

News

Iowa House passes constitutional amendment to define marriage

1 Comment

From Shane at Caffeinated Thoughts.

Excerpt:

The Iowa House passes HJR 6 by a vote of 62-37, this resolution introduces an amendment to the Iowa Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.

The entire Republican caucus voted in favor of the resolution minus State Representative Betty DeBoef (R-What Cheer) who was ill today.  Three Democrats joined with Republicans to vote yes – State Representatives Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla), Brian Quirk (D–New Hampton), and Kurt Swaim (D-Bloomfield).

Before Iowans can vote on the language in this amendment it first needs to pass the Iowa Senate.  Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has already promised to block a vote, and an attempted vote to bypass Senate rules to allow the Senate version to come to the floor to be debated and voted on failed.  The amendment would have to be passed again in the next General Assembly before it could be placed on the ballot.

It looks like the Democrats will block it in the Senate, because they oppose traditional marriage, and do not believe that children should be raised by a mother and a father. That’s why they support single motherhood, no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage.

Caffeinated Thoughts also had this post about the opponents of the definition of marriage bill.

Excerpt:

  • Family Planning Council of Iowa – their purpose is “to provide quality reproductive health care and family planning services to all people in Iowa who desire such services.”  Huh?  Protecting the traditional definition of marriage somehow diminishes their mission?  And yet, they have one lobbyist registered against.
  • Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO – they also have a lobbyist registered against HJR 6.  I wonder how the definition of marriage is a labor issue and how many of their members don’t expect their dues to pay for activity like this.
  • National Association of Social Workers – They have two lobbyists working against.  How this advances the social work field or impedes their members from doing their work I’ll never know, but it is further proof how this profession has been hijacked by the left.
  • AFSCME Iowa Council 61 – How again is this a labor issue?  Oh I know benefits… Nope, sorry if I were a union member I’d be ticked, and they have six three lobbyists registered against this bill.
  • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland – Interesting, I’m surprised they are advocating any type of monogamous relationship since they want to treat youth like they are a bunch of minks.  They have two lobbyists registered against.
  • Interfaith Alliance of Iowa – they should change their name to InterLiberalFaith Alliance of Iowa.

It’s important to understand which groups are left-wingers. Unions, abortion providers, religious pluralists, etc.

In a prior story, Arkansas Republicans passed a ban on taxpayer-funding of abortion.

News

Gay federal judge rules traditional marriage unconstitutional in California

7 Comments

Here’s the story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

A federal judge has ruled that California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is unconstitutional, because it excludes same-sex unions.

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who presides over the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, declared Proposition 8 had no “rational basis” in a 138-page ruling on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case released Wednesday afternoon.

[…]The judge dismissed the amendment, saying its restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples was “nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.” He also added that it seemed to him proponents of Prop. 8 were defending the amendment on the basis of “moral disapproval,” which he said was “an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians” and enacted in law, “a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.”

[…]Walker, however, is himself an active homosexual, and some conservative critics of the Prop. 8 case contended that Walker would be too personally invested in the case to deliver an impartial outcome.

[…]Walker also ruled that domestic partnerships did not satisfy the duty on California to let same-sex couples marry each other.

Michelle Malkin reports that pro-marriage activists are appealing:

In court papers filed Tuesday night, lawyers for the Proposition 8 defense team asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for a stay of his ruling if the outcome is to declare the law unconstitutional. The motion indicates that the Proposition 8 lawyers will immediately ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling if Walker rules against them.

Comments to this post will be strictly filtered in accordance with Obama’s law restricting free speech on this topic.

Related posts