In Iowa, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal still refuses to let the people of Iowa vote -- even if it costs him the next election:
Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal said he intends to block efforts in the Iowa Legislature next year to refer a gay marriage ban to voters.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Gronstal said he knows his stand against letting voters decide whether to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban gay marriage could hurt him with some constituents, but he was willing to take the risk.
... Bob Vander Plaats, who heads the conservative group The Family Leader, speculated that Gronstal's position would hurt him in his bid for re-election.
"I think my political assessment of his decision is it will lead to his defeat in 2012," said Vander Plaats, who led the campaign to remove the three Iowa Supreme Court justices. "Obviously he'll be a top target of ours."
Vander Plaats said he would seek to repeat the successful campaign against the justices in his effort to defeat Gronstal.
"Anytime you stifle the people's voice, people are going to hold you accountable," said Vander Plaats. --Associated Press
18 Comments
"Vander Plaats said he would seek to repeat the successful campaign against the justices in his effort to defeat Gronstal.
"Anytime you stifle the people's voice, people are going to hold you accountable," said Vander Plaats. "
Godspeed, Mr. Van der Plats. Iowa has been an inspiration to those of us who hold our liberty dear.
Here's hoping Mr. Gronstal can join the three Iowa Supreme Court justices in a period of reflection upon the sovereignty of the People in our Republic and its states.
Maybe he realizes that attitudes are shifting? He understands that its unconstitutional to have a popular vote on people's fundamental rights? He's sure that DOMA and ALL gay marriage bans will soon be repealed by the SCOTUS?
HE BELIEVES IN AMERICA?
Any court ruling against DOMA removes all possible excuse for failing to press ahead with a Constitutional amendment explicitly requiring DOMA's terms to be binding on all states!
Pseudo-marriage is not a right, and anyone who loves America would not voluntarily contribute to its demise by supporting it.
Not according to a new poll out in iowa today. 70% support legal recognitioin for same-sex couples.
Someone once said that you can lie with numbers well the same can be said about polling..it depends on how you phrase the question.
What can't be denied is the fact that when a State has the chance to vote for or against gay marriage, it is always the same thing...it is voted down!
That, in and of itself should speak volumes but if that doesn't then you have to pose the question to these activists if voting matters?
Does it matter in California where the people voted against gay marriage?
These proponents of gay marriage are Totalitarians just like their bretheren in the old USSR and Red China!
Senator Gronstal is one of the most dishonorable politicians in America. He single-handedly, in a staggeringly arrogant fashion, refuses to allow the marriage issue to even come to a vote. We had to suffer the NY GOP Senate leadership doing this so why doesn't the Iowa Dem Senate leadership do the same? I say that the GOP and conservative groups should be prepared to spend millions if necessary to unseat Gronstal because he is an enemy of conservative progress. What a pitiful, self-loathing man he is.
To clarify my previous statement, we had to suffer the NY GOP Senate leadership not using their 'filibuster' power on the marriage vote so why do the Iowa dems use this power?
>>Maybe he realizes that attitudes are shifting?
If that's true, why the fear of putting it to a public vote?
I normally consider "conservative progress" an oxymoron.But I deplore those of my party who have sold it out to the homosexual lobby in order to get the support of a loud sliver of the electorate who demand things that should have no support on either side of the aisle.
@Dan
As I wrote above..."He understands that its unconstitutional to have a popular vote on people's fundamental rights" -That is a prime example of tyranny.
It really is. The SCOTUS will soon re-afirm this.
Amy,if courts remove all alternatives to an explicit constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage",we will simply have to do that,and vote out all politicians who stand in the way of it.
Marriage is a civil right according to the United States Supreme Court. To put a civil right to a vote is unconstitutional and antiamerican.
Anselmo,the court ruling that marriage was a civil right did not contemplate for an instant that the requirement that marriage partners be of opposite sexes would ever be called into question.
Louis when the Supreme Court first ruled that marriage was a civil right it also did not contemplate that interracial marriages would ever be allowed.
Badger,the ruling that marriage was a civil right was the one that struck down laws against interracial marriage!
No Louis. The Supreme Court has said on 13 separate occasions that marriage was a fundamental right and did so ages before Loving v Virginia.
Never in any context that envisioned "marriage" meaning anything not uniting male to female,or (before Loving) ruling out interracial.