Achtung Baker

Sorry, I know this didn't show up worth a hoot. I tried to make it clearer. You can see it better here on Facebook. It's probably a sign from the computer gods that you should "like" Cold Hard Cashner on Facebook.

Zach Wahls Remarks at 2012 DNC

Here is Iowan Zach Wahls addressing the Democratic National Convention. It was a good speech, although I'm not sure how deserving President Obama was of the butt-kissing at the end. Most battles for marriage equality have been fought and won at the state level with President Obama only paying it lip service during his reelection year.

Zach Wahls Speaks About Family

Zach Wahls, a sixth-generation Iowan, speaks before the Iowa House of Representatives about his life as the child of same sex couple.  Although I have my own religious reservations about homosexuality, I don't want to see the rights of homosexuals stifled by the government through the Iowa Marriage Amendment.  Mr. Wahls certainly presents his case passionately and articulately.

Poll: Iowans Support Medical Marijuana and Gay Marriage

According to a recent poll commissioned by KCCI NewsChannel 8 (Des Moines), majorities of Iowans support both medical marijuana and gay marriage.

A clear majority of 62% of respondents said they supported legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. 33% said they were opposed to the idea, while 5% were unsure.

"I don't think it's any more hazardous or dangerous than any other medication, if it's used properly," Bob Lipert, who said he suffers from multiple sclerosis, told KCCI.

Also according to the poll, a slim majority of 53% said they supported marriage rights for same-sex couples. 41% said they were opposed.

"Iowans want their elected officials to focus on issues like jobs and education and really, those pocketbook issues, rather than focusing on divisive issues that are going to pit neighbor against neighbor," said Justin Uebelhor of the gay-rights group One Iowa.

Bryan English of the Iowa Family Policy Center disagreed. Apparently referring to the fact that Iowa's gay marriage policy was imposed by the courts rather than the legislature, English told KCCI: "When folks go to the polls next week and then in November, they will in fact support candidates who understand their Constitution and who will defend marriage."

They're Here. They're Queer. We're Dealing With It.

One of the hardest lessons to learn as free people is how to resist the urge of I don't like X, so X ought to be illegal. The conservatives haven't mastered it. The liberals haven't mastered it. The libertarians try, but it isn't always easy.

Gay marriage here in Iowa is a perfect example of this tendency at work. Many of us were raised to believe that homosexuality is wrong. As free people we certainly have every right to believe that if we choose. Things that are "wrong" should be illegal, right? Not necessarily.

Libertarians believe that as long as the action doesn't harm anyone else, it should remain legal. The government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing morality for its own sake. Do we really want the likes of Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Rod Blagojevich, Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover defining morality for us anyway?

When we use the force of government to impose our own morality on "those people" (whoever that may be), we have to realize that we are all "those people" to somebody else. I'm not gay, but there are certainly those in this country who would view me as one of "those people" who needs to have different values imposed upon.

Some would view me as "one of those" kooky gun owners in need of regulation and registration. Some would view me as "one of those" evil white males in need of some reverse discrimination to put things right. My support of a third party might even land me on the Dept. of Homeland Security's list of "those" darned domestic terror suspects. Sooner or later we all end up on the receiving end of these attempts at government "redistribution of values." It is better if the government just protects our rights and leaves the moralizing to we the people.

The so-called "values voters," who may be opposed to gay marriage, can console themselves that the seemingly wide support for it is not necessarily part of some headlong rush toward mindless hedonism and away from all "traditional values." As reason contributor Jonathan Rauch points out:

"Here's something in the [ABC-Washington Post] poll data which is revealing, if indirectly. Rising support for [same-sex marriage] is accompanied by increased support for legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana—but also by a decline in support for gun control. A new poll from Pew confirms the turn against gun control, and adds that opposition to abortion is growing."

After Rauch wrote this article, a Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life for the first time since the poll started. Rauch continues:

"What does all of that have to do with gay marriage? Just this: It suggests that [same-sex marriage] is part of a libertarian shift in values—not a libertine shift or a flight from values altogether. The public increasingly rejects the claim that gay marriage harms a third party (as abortion does) or violates anyone's rights (as gun control arguably does)." [My thanks to Advocates of Liberty for posting a link to that article.]

So gay marriage might not be the end of the world as we know it. That is probably why Iowans have mostly responded to the gay rights mantra of "We're here! We're queer! Deal with it!" with a collective shrug and an "Okay."

Really, we don't care. Now shut up, our favorite show is on!

Gay Marriage Comes To Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court made its long-awaited ruling on the case of Varnum v. Brien on Friday, allowing gay marriage in Iowa. The lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of six same-sex couples who argued that the state’s ban on gay marriage violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The ruling makes Iowa only the third state (after Massachusetts and Connecticut) to allow equal gay marriage.

IowaPolitics.com reports that State Senator Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, an openly gay legislator, had this to say about the ruling: "Today is a red-letter day for the state of Iowa. All of Iowa’s citizens now have equal protection under the law. Thousands of Iowans who have worked hard, raised families, and paid taxes will now be afforded the opportunity to marry. As a lifelong Iowan, I know that fair-minded people throughout our state support equality for all. I have never been more proud of all the Iowans who have worked continuously for the advancement of human rights for all."

Many Republicans were disappointed by the ruling. GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats of Sioux City summed up their thoughts: "The Defense of Marriage Act had strong bipartisan support when it was introduced and debated in our legislature. That bipartisan support for traditional marriage between one man and one woman reflected the will of the people then – and reflects the will of the people now. On an issue of this monumental importance to the very foundation of our society, I believe a vote of the people is necessary. I hope the General Assembly will take the required steps to give Iowans a voice is this process on the most basic of issues – and that Governor Culver will take a leadership role to let all Iowans express their opinion.”

There were calls from conservative leaders to amend Iowa’s constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. An amendment seems unlikely in the near term, as such a measure would have to be passed by two consecutive sessions of the Iowa General Assembly, then by a vote of the people. Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said Thursday that it was “exceedingly unlikely” that the current session would pass legislation regarding gay marriage. A “Hail Mary pass” possibly available to conservatives in 2010 is that the question of whether to hold a state constitutional convention will be placed before Iowa voters, as it is every 10 years.

While I support the Iowa court’s recent decision, I don’t think that it is the quantum leap forward in individual liberty that gay rights advocates make it out to be. It is an advancement in equality under the law (certainly a worthy goal), but not in individual liberty overall. The gay rights advocates are not challenging the authority of omnipotent government, they're merely seeking its blessing.

As I explained in “Gay Marriage In Iowa” (11-28-08) and Beth Cody pointed out more recently, the real debate should be whether the state should be in the marriage business at all. Even with the recent ruling, supposedly free people (gay and straight alike) must ask for the state’s permission to marry the person of their choosing. So long as that remains the case, a larger issue of freedom remains.

Beth Cody on Gay Marriage

As the issue heats up in Iowa, Iowa City Press-Citizen writer Beth Cody weighs in on her website:

"Conservative Republicans have traditionally upheld personal freedoms and limited government (which is why I am still a registered Republican).

"Insisting that government get out of the marriage business is the only opinion that is consistent with Conservative belief in limited government.

"How could any advocate of Constitutional freedoms believe otherwise? Just as freedom of speech is not limited to speech that the majority finds agreeable, freedom to associate is not limited to majority-approved groups.

"Whether or not one personally approves of homosexual relationships, no rationale exists for government interference in such personal matters.

"As government once prohibited men and women of different races from marrying, now government appointees and bureaucrats believe they are wise enough to decide whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

"Why is it that people invariably look to government to help them, when government is nearly always the main force to be overcome in the pursuit of happiness?

"Marriages should be private contracts between individuals of legal age. Government would simply record civil union contracts as they occur, and enforce them like any other contract.

"Whether to call such unions “marriages” would be decided by couples, their families, their churches – not by government.

"Other people and businesses should be free to recognize (or not) these marriages; and churches not required to marry any specific couples.

"No matter how the Iowa legal case is decided, we will have made little progress toward real freedom from our government masters. I believe it will be up to Constitutional Conservative groups to ask the real question: who should control marriages: the state or free individuals?"

Read the entire article here.

Gay Marriage In Iowa

On December 9th, the Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Varnum v. Brien, which is a suit against Polk County brought by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. The lower court ruled that denying these Iowans the right to marry was unconstitutional. The case may well decide whether gay marriage will or will not be allowed in Iowa.

Although I’m a country boy with conservative personal (although not always political) beliefs and a Christian upbringing, I hope the plaintiffs win and gay marriage is allowed. I don’t care much about “gay rights,” but I do care about “individual rights.” If those individuals happen to be homosexuals, so what?

Ideally the question at stake should not be whether or not gays should be granted marriage licenses, but whether or not a government entity should be issuing marriage licenses at all. Marriage existed long before the Iowa state or Polk County governments and throughout most of its history marriage didn’t need a bureaucrat’s stamp of approval. In England, for example, it wasn’t until 1754 that marriage became regulated by law.

Cato Institute scholar David Boaz argues that marriage licensing, like many over-reaching government functions, could be privatized. Says Boaz: "‘Privatizing’ marriage can mean two slightly different things. One is to take the state completely out of it. If couples want to cement their relationship with a ceremony or ritual, they are free to do so. Religious institutions are free to sanction such relationships under any rules they choose. A second meaning of ‘privatizing’ marriage is to treat it like any other contract: The state may be called upon to enforce it, but the parties define the terms. When children or large sums of money are involved, an enforceable contract spelling out the parties' respective rights and obligations is probably advisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties.

"And privatizing marriage would, incidentally, solve the gay-marriage problem. It would put gay relationships on the same footing as straight ones, without implying official government sanction. No one's private life would have official government sanction--which is how it should be.”

However, according to the plaintiffs in Varnum v. Brien, Iowa law refers to marriage, directly or indirectly, at least 540 times. The state has effectively tethered itself to the marriage business, so the ad hoc approach of fighting within the current licensing regime is probably the best course for same-sex advocates.

While the government might have to be brought into this kicking and screaming, it appears that culturally we’ve already crossed the Rubicon. A recent survey of Iowa voters found that about 60% favored allowing same-sex unions. 28.1% supported “gay marriage,” while another 30.2% supported same-sex “civil unions.” 32% opposed both.

If gay marriage does go through, I know a lot of folks that are going to go through the roof. But my conservative-Christian friends can console themselves with the fact that, if they’re right, God will have far worse punishment waiting for gay couples than mere license denial. But it is His call, not the state’s.