CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION FOR HOMOSEXUALS

“AND NOW YOU KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY”

Paul Harvey uses this line to end his “Rest of the Story” vignette. It’s like an exclamation point. I use it here at the beginning because I’ll start out with the punch line.

The House Republicans had a golden opportunity to get one win on an issue in which they were steamrolled all session: homosexual activist attacks on our culture. David Yepsen, in his Sunday, April 29^th column, remarked about the gamble Rep. Pat Murphy and Rep. Kevin McCarthy were taking in bringing up the bill without having 51 Democrat votes: “Had they lost, it would have been an embarrassing defeat, a sign of weakness that would have undermined their power to control other issues.” He also called the nine Republicans who voted in favor of SF 427, the civil rights for homosexuals bill, a courageous act.

Rekha Basu gave credit to and thanked the Republicans by name in her column in the Register’s Sunday Opinion section. In her thanks, she also included Senators Jeff Angelo, Thurman Gaskill, Mary Lundby, James Seymour and Pat Ward for their vote in favor of SF 427 when it passed that body some weeks ago. She said a lot of other things, mostly conjecture and wishful thinking, in regard to why this bill, and other gay promoting legislation, was passed this year. The following quote sums up her thinking about traditional values and those who fight to retain them: “Now it’s Chuck Hurley who’s regarded as extremist when the Iowa Family Policy Center head says, ‘We don’t think sexually immoral behavior should be made a protected class’.” By who Rekha? If you have the Sunday Register please read the Yepsen and Basu columns. If you disagree with them, politely tell them so at dyepsen@dmreg.com or rbasu@dmreg.com. I’m sure they would like to hear from you. These articles can be accessed online at:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070429/OPINION01/704290363/1035/archive

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070429/OPINION01/704290330/1035/archive

Now back to the rest of the story. The gay civil rights bill, SF 427, had passed the Democrat dominated Senate weeks ago. We spoke to several Democrats who are, because of their and the majority of their constituents beliefs, inclined to be conservative on social issues. They assured us that there were not enough Democrat votes to pass the bill. We then spoke to Republicans and were informed that a Republican would not be the 51^st vote, needed to pass SF 427. Initially we were told that more than 3 Democrats were unwilling to vote for SF 427. That may have been true, but high pressure tactics were employed by Murphy and McCarthy on the human cloning bill, the Planned Parenthood sex education bill, the school bullying bill (homosexual advocacy for school children) and on any number of bills that they were told by Senator Mike Gronstal to pass or defeat.

It didn’t matter that other Democrats in the House were changing their minds (and massaging their twisted arms) we had unconditional, confirmed no votes from three Democrats, Rep. Brian Quirk, Rep. Dolores Mertz and Rep. Dawn Pettengill (who just announced she is switching her affiliation to the Republican Party). Since we had a commitment that no Republican would be vote #51, the bill would fail for not attaining a constitutional majority. Now here’s where it gets interesting.

Wednesday morning, March 25^th, we saw that SF 427 was moved from the unfinished business calendar to the debate calendar. We heard that House Leaders Murphy and McCarthy were given marching orders from Sen. Gronstal to bring up the bill and find a way to pass it. They found a way. We heard that Democrat Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, was going to bring up the bill and invoke a rarely used section of the Iowa Constitution (no one, Republican, Democrat, lobbyist can remember when it was last used). We heard it was called rule 75. Regardless, according to David Yepsen, the maneuver allowed Rep. McCarthy “to compel attendance by all members. The doors to the chamber were closed so members couldn’t leave. McCarthy said he didn’t want any wavering Republicans who might vote for the bill to ‘take a walk’ by leaving the chamber.” We heard that in addition to the chamber being locked down, State Troopers were stationed at all exit doors from the Capitol to prevent any representative from leaving if they had somehow escaped the chamber lockdown.

McCarthy could also use the “call of the House” to require an alphabetical roll call vote which David Yepsen calls, “a gambit that would have broken Rants’ requirement that 51 Democrat votes be cast before any Republicans voted.” As it turned out, the lockdown was invoked but the alphabetic roll call vote was not. Why not? Because during the Republican caucus that was convened as soon as the bill was brought up, three Republican House members announced that for personal reasons, they would vote for SF 427. Once that announcement was made, six other Republicans felt free to vote for the bill and use the cover of the three Republican yes votes. They can now reply to their constituents that their vote meant nothing since the bill would have passed anyway. Do you, who are constituents, accept that excuse from Representatives Clute, Forrestall, Hoffman, Raecker, Schickel and Struyk?

The three Republican representatives who turned on their party and its leadership, Representative Libby Jacobs of Polk, Representative Linda Miller of Scott and Representative Tammi Wiencek of Black Hawk, carry the biggest baggage from this vote. What motivated these three to throw their Republican colleagues under the bus?

Representative Jacobs has been referred to as a RINO (Republican in Name Only) for most of her thirteen years in office. One need only look at her resume in the Iowa Bankers’ Association 2007-2008 Legislative Directory and her membership in the most liberal church in Des Moines, to conclude she is a Country Club Republican that has little use for the Christian conservative wing of the Republican Party. She is supported by the Des Moines Golden Circle folks. They are the wealthy, secular humanists in both parties who make or break central Iowa politicians. Like it or not, they are the powerbrokers who controlled the party until about 20 years ago when family values voters became active in party politics, and will step in to lead the party if we go inactive again. Their ideology is power through wealth. Issues that are toxic to our culture are of no concern. Only a perceived effect an issue has on the business climate matters. As Rekha Basu said in her Sunday, April 29^th column, “Now, finally, companies and people considering bringing their talents and jobs to Iowa will see this is a progressive state. Everyone will see that being gay isn’t a Democratic, East Coast or West Coast issue. It’s an Iowa issue.” I wish for once Rekha and her left wing, wine and cheese crowd would back up their rhetoric with hard data. How many companies decided against locating in Iowa because we failed to protect the self-destructive behavior of homosexuality in Iowa Law? How many jobs did we lose? Any answers Rekha? No, I didn’t think so.

As for Representative Tami Wiencek, who defeated a Democrat who had served 24 years in the House, we can only guess that she is concerned about her re-election in a district that registers 7% more Democrats than Republicans, but is largely dominated by Independents. If that’s so, then for her this was a strictly political decision not influenced by right, wrong or principle. I noticed that she was one of the few Republican candidates that refused to send in her Iowa Christian Alliance candidate survey.

The most perplexing member of this trio was Representative Linda Miller. She did send in her completed ICA survey with answers that would imply that her principles and political convictions were conservative on social issues. I told you at the beginning of the session that I would let you know if a candidate legislated like they candidated. I think it’s fairly obvious, based on several votes, that Representative Miller has not. Comments she has made to other legislators clearly indicate she was not totally forthcoming in her responses to our survey.

Finally, I want to mention the three Democrat representatives that committed to vote against SF 427 and did so. Representative Dolores Mertz who always votes her principles and supports family values. Representative Brian Quirk who let us down only once this session (it was a big one). He was under a lot of pressure to be that 51^st vote. But this time I guess they couldn’t get “one sheet” Sheryl Crow to call him. Representative Dawn Pettengill, who was beat up time after time, because she wanted to represent the values of her district, committed early to vote against SF 427 and never wavered. She announced on Monday, April 30^th, that she was switching her affiliation to the Republican Party. Evidently she has concluded that her values would be welcome in the Republican Party. They certainly weren’t respected in the Democrat Party.

I’m sorry this is so long, but I wanted you to get the “rest of the story” from the “horse’s mouth.” I knew you wouldn’t get it from the Des Moines Register, Rekha Basu, or David Yepsen.

In my wrap up legislative report, which I hope to get to you within the next couple of weeks, I’ll give you more information on how some of the people you voted for respected your trust and voted your values. You will be both pleased and disappointed.