Alex Blaze

Iowa GOP's Homophobia: Fire Kevin Jennings, Ban Trans Folk from Marrying

Filed By Alex Blaze | April 28, 2011 9:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, iowa, Kevin Jennings, LGBT, platform, Republicans, transgender

To follow-up on Joe's post on the Iowa Republican Party's platform, there's a lot of anti-gay and anti-trans ideology in there. While I'd love to go through and post on all the crazy (the platform actually says it opposes "The Rights of the Child," a UN treaty that opposes child slavery and cruel punishment, as well as calling for an end to "Islamic Sharia law," "the appointment of 'Czars,'" and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, and support homeowners' right to shoot trespassers on sight), but the gay stuff is already enough.

marriage-gay-protest.jpgThey oppose same-sex marriage, civil unions, and any rights associated with marriage being granted to same-sex couples:

6.01

We believe that traditional, two-parent (one male and one female), marriage based families are foundational to a stable, enduring and healthy civilization. Therefore, policy must always be pro-family in nature, encouraging marital and family commitment, and supportive of parental rights and responsibilities.

6.02

We call for the repeal of sexual orientation in the Iowa Civil Rights Code and we oppose any other legislation or executive order granting rights, privileges, or status for persons based on sexual orientation.

Unlike Texan Republicans who want transgender people to marry based on birth gender instead of actual gender, Iowa Republicans want to ban them from marrying anyone:

6.03

We support an amendment to both the U. S. and Iowa constitutions that states that all marriages should be traditional one natural male and one natural female, omitting transgendered.

Several planks down from where they said they don't want same-sex marriage, they say they want the people to vote on it. It's almost as if they see the positions as one and the same....

6.04

We support allowing the electorate to vote on the marriage amendment.

Those activist judges need to be kept from deciding on marriage cases. The wording here seems like they want to ban judges from even deciding in divorce cases:

6.05

We support a Concurrent Resolution of the U.S. Congress asserting its Constitutional authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the following manner: "Pursuant to Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the sole and exclusive power to make regulations and exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, effective this date, the Congress of the United States denies the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over cases relating to marriage."

6.06

We oppose the State of Iowa, its Courts, and its political subdivisions creating or recognizing a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.

They oppose gay adoption too:

6.07

We favor improvement, strengthening, and simplification of adoption laws, and oppose adoption by homosexuals.

Outside of family law, they're also opposed to HIV getting special status (it's the end of the free ride for people with HIV/AIDS, you privileged bastards!):

8.15

We believe HIV/AIDS should not be classified or treated any differently than other communicable diseases.

They oppose hate crimes legislation:

10.16

We support repeal of state and federal "hate crimes" legislation.

They want DADT back:

11.08

We support "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

They want Kevin Jennings out of a job:

4.18

We call for the removal of Kevin Jennings, now head of the United States Office of Safe Schools (Safe School Czar). America's schools would be safer without him.

They want schools to be de-gayed and bully-friendly:

4.40

We oppose the teaching of homosexual behavior as a normal or acceptable lifestyle in our public schools.

4.41

We believe that sexual orientation should not be allowed to be a basis for any school clubs, such as the Gay Straight Alliance, at any level of the public school system.

4.42

We oppose the "Bullying Law".

But don't think they oppose students' free speech rights just because they're banning LGBT students from having a club, since they really like the free speech rights of other students:

4.31

We support the free speech right of students to write and speak about God and religion in public schools.

If you support the free speech rights of some people to say what you agree with, then clearly you're a friend of civil liberties.

There's a lot more gay in there than there is in other states' Republican platforms, even Texas's. It's probably because the state's Republican party, since same-sex marriage was legalized there, has become obsessed with our issues. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Fred Karger gets there.

This is what a backlash looks like. Hopefully their resentment won't be enough to effectively organize for 2012.

img src


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Alex I have complained about this for months It took talking to Joe about it to get it out there. I have read many of the States GOP platforms and not even Arizona,Texas, or Alaska's is as openly hateful.I'd also like to put out there that it was my friend Jill who figured out that they seem to want to bring back slavery after I showed her how bad it was on LGB and T issues. I may be a in in the ass and sometimes go places that make people squirm but I'm worth keeping around as a true Allie to the LGB.Thank you Joe and Alex and hopefully these stories get the kind of attention they deserve in the right places. The Iowa GOP is a hate group.

How Roman Catholic of them - that is exactly the position on trans people and marriage taken by the Roman Catholic Church Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its "sub secretum" directive on the treatment of trans people, that was leaked to Catholic News Service in February 2003. The Catholic Church position is that trans folks are "gravely disordered" and do not have the capacity for marriage.

You know what, in the highly unlikely event these evil, evil people were to make this treatment constitutional on a state or federal level, it would seriously challenge, but would not overcome, my dedication to non-violent resistance. It would just call for me to move from a "work the inside track" (legislative advicacy and litigation) to a "work the outside track" (civil disobedience, etc.) attitude - because they'd be closing off the inside track, and violating the social contract in such a way as to require a peaceful change of government.

Well, and we know which part of the church the Pope came from.

Bonus question: Which part of the church ran the Inquisition? (Hint: The same part the Pope came from.)

The thing with Joe Ratzinger, is that during Vatican II he seemed to have been aligned with the more liberal of the German prelates - but as soon as he replaced Cardinal Ottaviani as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (fka The Holy Office, fka The Inquisition (and no, not the "Spanish Inquisition" but the same Inquisition that condemned Galileo)), he became the most conservative of the Church's leaders. He is ultimately responsible for the retreat of the Church's Magisterium from its encounter with "The Modern World" that Vatican II signified.

He was among the advisory architects of Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, which inspired hordes of Catholic women to start ignoring the Vatican, since it proscribed artificial birth control, a practice that up to that point many priests had advised their parishioners to "use their informed consciences" about.

He was also the principal author of several anti-gay documents for the Congregation, none of which appear to have any scriptural, moral or real natural law basis - but that has never stopped the VAtican before.

These Republicans in Iowa seem to be dangerously anti-American on many different fronts. The most chilling thing is that they and their supporters seem to be numerous - and that can bode ill for the future of that state and the nation.

"These Republicans in Iowa seem to be dangerously anti-American on many different fronts."

(laughs)

Yeah, except I am pretty sure that these ppl see *themselves* as the *real*, *true* Americans, not a the ppl they attack in their platform.

I hate where I live, but Iowa almost sounds worse.

"We call for the removal of Kevin Jennings, now head of the United States Office of Safe Schools (Safe School Czar). America's schools would be safer without him."

Presumably then they oppose the portion of the Constitution that prohibits bills of attainder?

can someone start a petition for this or is there already one? I am new here and still not sure how everything works.

"one natural male and one natural female"

So neither Bruce Jenner nor Joan Rivers can marry anyone?

gregory brown | April 29, 2011 1:25 AM

I know some Iowa Republicans. They are good, decent moderate progressives who believe in less government, lower taxes AND the responsible care for people who actually need it, as well as equal access to quality education. They are not happy. They are are not in sync with the selfish, homophobic Theocrate and Tea Party/Bedbuggers who have seized the attention of the public pretending to be Republicans. The comments in the DES MOINES REGISTER online reveal that they are eager to rid themselves of this faux human scum. I only hope they follow through on their intention to correct a horrible and aberrant trend.

Shows how successfully the Log Cabin Republicans are at winning the Republicans over. Two hundred more years and the Republicans might recognize our right to exist.
Tammi Dee Voytek

This upsets me more then I can express. I grew up in the Cedar Rapids area and served on the LCDCC up until the time I moved to California. I was so proud of the state I came from. They had just passed the gay marriage laws 2 months prior to my move.

If all of this garbage becomes a reality I will be ashamed to tell people where I moved here from. All the hate, and close-mindedness that is going on is terrifing.

For those that claim to believe in God and the bible and that gay or trans union is ungodly I have a message for you. "Thou shall not judge lest thee be judged, as you judge others so shall I judge you." Let God determine who has the right to love whom. Let God judge in the end if someone should be punnished for loving. I would be surprised if God punished people for love, however I would expect God to punish for hate. Maybe I am wrong here, however I would not want to risk it.

That people actually truly believe this kind of crap is beyond frightening.

twinkie1cat | April 30, 2011 1:56 PM

Progressives, supporters and glbt people must get out and vote against everyone who supports these laws. We must vote in every election enmasse even if we don't completely agree with the opposers of the supporters of these platforms. In some places, like Atlanta, there is great fear of the "lavendar district" by conservative politicians. It needs to be that way in other places as well. By the way, encourage your politicians to not simply court the "youth vote". There is a whole generation of old hippies who are still out there, still liberal, and still voting. They have not changed their politics and have not died. It is the older generation, the Boomers and the generation above us who are most likely to vote. They are the ones who need to be courted, not at the expense of the youth, but right along with them.