Todd Dorman

Todd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007.
Updated: 20 October 2011 | 12:55 pm in 24 hour dorman by Todd Dorman

NOM fires marriage mailer into Senate District 18


thegazette.com Copyright 2011 SourceMedia Group. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

We’ve been hearing a lot of predictions that outside groups would turn the Senate District 18 special election race into the latest battleground in the fight over gay marriage in Iowa.

Now, the first tangible evidence has landed in district mailboxes.

Here’s a news release that arrived around midday:

National Organization for Marriage (NOM) Continues What it Started in 2010

NOM Launches Independent Expenditure Campaign in the 18th Senate District Race in Iowa

 Des Moines, IA —- The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today announced it is launching an Independent Expenditure campaign along with The Family Leader in the 18th Senate District race to support Cindy Golding. Golding, a strong traditional marriage advocate, is running against Democrat Liz Mathis, a vocal supporter of same-sex marriage. NOM was a major player last year in the successful effort to remove three Supreme Court justices from office after they redefined marriage in Iowa.

“This is a pivotal election contest in our battle to allowing the people of Iowa the opportunity to vote to restore marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “A proposed constitutional amendment on defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman enjoys broad-based, bipartisan legislative and voter support, but is being prevented from coming to the floor of the Senate by Majority Leader Mike Gronstol. If Ms. Golding is successful in her election, we are hopeful that Senators will finally have the opportunity to vote on the marriage amendment, and we expect it to pass handily.”

NOM will be supporting Golding with a series of mailers and other activities in the 18th District. The first dropped today.

 Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, www.nationformarriage.org. Not authorized by any candidate or any candidate’s committee.

So it’s on, apparently. But who’s this “Gronstol?’”

Here is the mailer:

NOM District 18 Mailer

 

First, the mailer defines the candidates’ positions on this issue in sharper focus than the candidates themselves have been willing to. Mathis says she supports the Iowa Supreme Court ruling striking down Iowa’s statutory gay marriage ban, but hasn’t publicly given her opinion on the drive for a constitutional ban. But if she supports the ruling, I doubt she supports the amendment.

Golding says she supports allowing Iowans to vote on a constitutional ban, but has not said whether she personally supports the amendment. I haven’t heard either give their opinion on retention. They’ve both argued that it’s the media, not voters in the district, that cares the most about the marriage debate. They’re probably right.

And is the marriage issue really in the balance?

If Mathis wins, I think it’s unlikely she would break Dem ranks to bring the amendment resolution to a vote, so it remains stuck. If Golding wins, it’s still highly unlikely that the amendment will be brought up in a gridlocked 25-25 Senate, so it remains stuck.  Either way, I think the issue stays in a holding pattern.

But if you’re NOM and Vander Plaats, sitting on a mountain of cash and righteous indignation, you might as well inflict some of it on Senate District 18, the only game around. I hope they send me several. I’ll need something to light my tailgate charcoal Saturday.

Rules of Engagement
  • Be truthful. more
  • Be civil. more
  • Be responsible. more
  • Own your words. more
  • Leave the trolls alone. more
  • Take commercial ads elsewhere. more
  • Know that comments will be moderated. more
  • Or what? more
NOM fires marriage mailer into Senate District 18
  1. Groups such as NOM can fire as many mailers into voters’ mailboxes as they want. What they and the GOP cannot and should not be allowed to do is write discrimination into the Iowa Constitution by way of a marriage amendment.

  2. Sheesh, my wife and I have been married for 30+ years (longer than all three of Newt’s marriages combined?), and these NOM people pretend they speak for us?

    Give me a break…

  3. This actually has the opposite effect on me.

    Supreme Court Justices “imposed gay marriage” on Iowa? That seems an outright lie to me. They did no such thing. They struck down a law that tried to ban same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. I don’t remember them ever forcing two people to get married, gay or not.

    And its true. Iowan’s don’t have a right to vote on what’s constitutional or not, outside of a vote to change the constitution. I’d think that would describe every conservative’s view. Otherwise we’re voting on everything from the making gun ownership illegal to voting to allow police to search people’s homes without a warrant. That’s not the country (or state) I want.

    • Thanks, Will. I think Iowans have a legitimate right to vote on, say a constiutional amendment setting term limits, or one to establish a unicameral legislature.

      But voting on whether a minority has protected civil rights? I have to wonder how many Americans, given the chance, would vote to disenfranchise, say, Muslims?

      Cue the Islamophobes…

  4. It’s such a waste or time and energy to spend time working for or against a marriage amendment for the state constitution. The rights of same sex couples to marry will be address and resolved at the US Supreme Court in the not-to-distant future. This will make any action at the state level, including the amending of our constitution, irrelevant.

    With respect to the Mathis/Golding race, this is a meaningless issue to debate and no one, on either side of the issue, should make their decision on who to vote for based on this issue.

  5. THE FUTURE OF IOWA HANGS IN THE BALANCE!!! OMG!!! OMG!!! OMG!!!

    Oh, they almost had me for a minute there.

  6. I will not vote for anyone with such prejudices. One needs to look at Vanderplatts, Santorum, and their connection to Lawrence VanderEsch to see whats really going on . It disgusts me, that in a time when people are suffering that this kind of bigotry moves to the top of the list again. Nothing good will happen to the economy till the rebubs grow up or get out.

  7. Please explain the horrors of dieing with aids! To our kids. I guess I don’t see aids as a disease as much as it could be called a choice. Yes, I know you can get it other ways.

    • I suppose that in that light you also view malaria as a “choice” as well, since one has to choose to live in the tropics in order to be susceptible to it…

      • Yup, if you choose to step into the fire, a sane person should expect to get burned.

        • So Joseph, if because, as you imply, homosexual relationships lead to AIDS, you are for an amendment that would deny gays the right to marry, you must also be in favor of laws banning people from living anywhere they might get malaria, or from stepping into fires. Or should they be allowed to make those choices for themselves? After all, their choices don’t affect you at all, do they?

          • Kevin; that’s considerable speculation on your part, or as it could be called, a giant leap to conclusions. I implied that it could lead to aids, or malaria, or burned feet. Some more likely than others. I really don’t care if same sex couples marry as long as my taxes don’t pay for medical care for the burnt feet. Actually their choices do make me nauseous.

          • I’ll give you credit for one thing, Joseph:

            At least you didn’t call AIDS “the gay plague” or “Jahweh’s judgement on gays.”

      • Jack Lorenz
        You got it (partially) I believe you can get malaria in the US as well. It is more likely to happen in the tropics! Choosing to live there increases the odds. My statement is all about the odds increasing with increased exposure.
        I have not implied all in a certain group will suffer the consequences in the same manner.
        It’s “choice/choose and consequences!”
        Jeff, I have seen the dieing of aids devastation inflicted on individuals.

    • I could be wrong, but I can’t believe you’d write something like this, Joseph, if you knew someone close who died from AIDS.

    • So those people who contract the AIDS virus through a blood transfusion (yes it’s still remotely possible to do) chose to contract the AIDS virus because they were subjected to a blood transfusion? So you’re saying that gay and lesbian people who contract the AIDS virus as a result of their sexual orientation did so because they “chose” a gay lifestyle? How quaint.

      Sorry Joseph but all you’re really doing here is exposing your own prejudices against gays and lesbians.

      • “So those people who contract the AIDS virus through a blood transfusion (yes it’s still remotely possible to do) chose to contract the AIDS virus because they were subjected to a blood transfusion?”
        Those are your words Lori, not mine. Spin, spin, spin.
        I really never tried to hide my prejudices anywhere. I guess I am ok with what I post here. It’s you who is bothered.

        • Joseph, by painting a “blame the victim” picture, which is what you essentially did, I was simply showing the world how absurd your prejudice against gays and lesbians is, nothing more, nothing less.

    • Actually Joseph, Aids can only be contracted from someone who actually has Aids (or is HIV positive). Their sexual preference has no relevance at all. If neither partner has Aids then neither will contract it from the other.

      Using your argument, we could say that no heterosexual person should be married either so that they don’t contract a sexually transmitted disease.

      • Michael, you mistakenly assumed me to be stupid? What I write is what I feel about the subject. Statistics have shown that male to male sexual activity has increased the risk of contracting and spreading aids.
        “Using your argument, we could say that no heterosexual person should be married either so that they don’t contract a sexually transmitted disease.” Really? Can you get a STD without having sex? Your “we” does not include me.

  8. Joe … I can’tbelieve you actually said this? I had believed you usually had logical comments for me to read before I saw this.

  9. Has anyone seen this magic bullet Amendment that will circumvent and/or disable sections 1 and 6 of the IOWA CONSTITUTION so Iowans will be free to discriminate against anyone they want to as long as they vote it into the Constitution? Trot it out so we can compare apples to oranges.

    • Don’t forget, dave, that the Iowa House GOP also passed a “freedom of conscience” measure which would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense prescriptions they find morally objectionable, and to allow businesses to discriminate based on religious criteria.

      If those measures represent “conservatism,” then conservatism is evil.




Featured Jobs from corridorcareers.com