I think the number of or representatives who have had the guts to publically state that allowing a vote on a constitional amendment banning same sex marriage would be a huge mistake and an injustice is pretty few and far between. I know Mike Gronstal has been very clear on the issue, there is one other representative who is gay that has been very clear. Maybe there have been others, but I can’t think of them.

It’s kind of a tough one. Bob Vander Plaats campaign against the Supreme Court Justices proved that supporting the idea that gays and lesbians in Iowa should be provided with the same rights and protections as every other citizen isn’t going to win anyone many votes. So I think I understand why potential representatives are cautious about supporting the rights of gays and lesbians.

That said, I think that Liz Mathis was pretty clear in her statement that she does not support descrimination and she believes the decision is constitutionally sound. Isn’t that a pretty strong statement in support?

I also think that she was right on target when she talked about the decision bringing on single issue voters. Again, look at what Bob Vander Plaats was able to accomplish in the last election. He was able to bring a lot of attention to a part of the election most people never cared much about and get three justices kicked out of office.

I’m one of those single issue voters, at least in the sense that if you come out against marriage equality you’ve lost my vote. But in reality, anyone who would think like that wouldn’t stand anywhere near where I am on any other issue and would never had gotten my vote in the first place.

Also, isn’t it kind of difficult to find any real changes in Iowa that are directly attributable to the decision? I’m hard pressed to find tangible benefits or consequences. We have married same sex couples, which is a good thing. We might appear to be more enlightened than some other states, but that gets cancelled out by the actions of people like Bob Vander Plaats and Cindy Golding’s fretting over what the neighbors might think.

I couldn’t find anything about that scholarship, it’s probably something offered by a private organization and it is likely it existed prior to the decision anyway.

It pleases me that Liz Mathis is taking a stand in support on non-discrimination.

Apparently, Cindy Golding thinks it is okay to discriminate if the people vote to do so. No Cindy, discrimination is wrong, PERIOD. As a leader you need to have the courage to do what is right, and discrimination is not right.

Cindy also seems to think the primary objective is to get out of the spotlight. So, Cindy, is it okay to discriminate if that gets us out of the spotlight?

Let me conclude by noting that this whole debate is really only academic since the issue will be resolved at the federal level in due time. Why waste time and energy on it at the state level?

“And I believe that once we vote on it, whether we vote it up or down, the spotlight can come off Iowa for that issue and we can focus on business, we can focus on jobs, focus on education. We can focus on the things we really need to be taking our time and energy. Because nobody in our district, it was not a huge issue to either one of us as we were going around. It became an issue to us by the national media.” So Golding says we have to have a constitutional ammendment vote on something not so important to the 18th district, before we can do stuff thats important to most people. She is unfit for any leadership role. The only reason we are in a spotlight is because her party needed a wedge issue. Enough of this nonsense already.

I find it hilarious that Golding believes the ‘spotlight’ will disappear once the vote is done. Does she not understand that a yes vote for discrimination would only bring more spotlight due to the guaranteed legal battle that would follow, possibly even reaching the SCOTUS. (However, even that would be unlikely given the status of the Prop 8 trial in California.)

For the life of me I cannot figure out why this is an issue…Marriage is a voluntary, private contract between two adults (although I see no reason why it could not be open to more than two adults as long as it is voluntary). The government has no business interfering, other than upholding the terms of the voluntary contract. It should not be in the business of dictating the terms. Some people choose to have a religious contract, others do not. If you are not party to the contract it is simply none of your business. With all of the problems voters face (e.g. enormous public debt, debased currency, high unemployment, multiple wars, etc. etc.) why must we focus on something that is simply no one’s business but the people getting married?

I live in New England, so I guess I’m one of those outsiders shining a spotlight on Iowa because this is an issue brought to me by “the national media” that Golding likes to blame.

First, I’d like to say that this indeed is an issue of national interest. All Americans cherish our Constitutionally protected civil rights, so whenever any state tries to deprive its citizens of their civil rights that is national news and it matters to me and to many Americans.

Second, Golding’s entire argument that the spotlight will go away after a vote is false. She says that, “across the nation where the voting has come up … regardless of whether the state voted up or voted down, the spotlight came off them.”

That hasn’t been the case. Ever hear of Prop 8? As soon as the voting in California concluded and Prop 8 passed, the national spotlight only became brighter. In the time since, the high-profile legal case has kept California in the national spotlight news. The same happened in the State of Maine where they had a referendum to overturn a marriage equality law, but the spotlight lives on as marriage equality supporters have vowed to put the measure back before the legislature.

Golding should just be honest and admit she wants the measure on the ballot so that a majority group can deprive civil rights from a minority group.

There’s one more thing that I want Golding to know about that “spotlight” thing she seems to care so much about. The blame for that spotlight lies exclusively on with the people who are trying to undo marriage equality. People like Golding herself, who want to keep this issue going by advocating for a referendum.

When the Iowa courts made marriage equality the law in Iowa, yes Iowa was in the spotlight for a news cycle or two. But that’s all. Nothing else to see there, the news was over, ho hum, we moved along. Spotlight over and gone.

But the actions of relentless hate-gay-o-phobiacs like Bob Vander Plaats keep bringing the spotlight back. First it was ousting judges, now it’s trying to deprive people of their civil rights. That’s news.

So if you really care about that spotlight, Ms. Golding, just leave gay people alone. If you move on to other things, I guarantee the “national media” will move on too.

Once again, I’m late to the party. I was very troubled by this statement from Golding: “I understand the bill was poorly written. It was then voted on by the judges to determine the constitutionality of that bill. And now we need to go to the people, which is the final step.”

Would a majority of Americans have voted in favor of Brown V. Board of Education in 1954? How about Loving v. Virginia in 1967? Or Lawrence v. Texas in 2003? Golding seems ignorant of a fundamental precept OF THE FOUNDERS, even though THEY were inconsistent in applying it: you do NOT put up for referendum whether a minority has rights which the majority must respect.

I am most troubled by Golding’s obvious resentment of a scholarship for LGBT students. Here we see the selfishness of zero-sum politics exposed: Golding seems convinced that a scholarship for LGBT students will somehow depirve “normal” kids opportunity, or is some kind of “special favor” for LGBT kids. Golding’s attitude is just plain wrong.

I’ve tried to give Golding the benefit of a doubt, but no longer. The remarks Todd has excerpted here show that Cindy Golding may know how to run a business, but her abominable igrorance of fundamental rights, and her embrace of the politics of resentment, shows she is unfit to hold elective office.

Pardon me if I cry “FOUL” on Ms. Golding’s idea of what INALIENABLE RIGHTS means. What part of the Ninth Amendment that states I have an inalienable right to all those rights that aren’t enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t she get? Ms. Golding is using her own personal religious bias to determine other people’s rights. Sorry, but that is not the way it works in America. Every citizen retains their inalienable rights whether white, black, straight, gay, handicapped, female or male, old or young, religious or non-religious. THAT’S THE AMERICA IN OUR CONSTITUTION. If you want to turn your state into a THEORCRACY, vote for Golding.

BTW, Todd, I didn’t mean to anger you with my implicit allegation that the GOP is a totalitarian party. But can you understand why I am fed up to HERE (my hand is level with my eyeballs) with GOP wedge-issue politics?

Golding is simply towing the current party line of the far right GOP by stating that she thinks citizens should be able to vote on the marriage rights of others. A vote for Golding would be a vote for the agenda of Kim Pearson and other GOP Iowa House and Senate members like her who are more interested in pushing a divisive social agenda than they are about helping this state out of its economic troubles.

Liz Mathis may not be able to articulate her stance on every major issue the way some voters wish she would, but at least she has an apparent grasp on the fact that the marriage rights of some should not be able to be voted on by others.

If Golding is elected, the vote that Golding will be taking is technically not a vote to “let the voters decide.” Because every Constitutional amendment that is passed by the Iowa legislature goes before Iowa voters before it becomes official- that is how she misleadingly says that she will vote to let the voters decide on it.

What she will actually be voting on will be amending the Constitution to discriminate against gays and lesbians, not simply a vote to “let the voters decide” as she puts it. So if Golding votes ‘Yes’ on such a Constitutional amendment, she will be actually be voting on the amendment to discriminate against gays/lesbians- she need to say that for that for what is-I will vote to support discrimination! It is not a merely a vote to “let voters decide” as she puts it.