I receive notices for many upcoming events I’m unable to attend, even though they would provide good material for a post at Bleeding Heartland.

Health Care for America Now has scheduled forums across the country this spring, including three in Iowa during the next month. The forums in Ottumwa and Sioux City will focus on rural health care reform and are co-hosted by the Center for Rural Affairs, Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Citizen Action Network, Working Families Win, and Health Care for America Now Iowa.

The organizers are willing to accredit someone to cover each Iowa event for Bleeding Heartland. Please send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) or post a comment in this thread if you are interested in attending one of these forums, taking notes and posting a diary about it later.

Wednesday, April 15 from 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM

Host: Charlie Wishman

Location: Ottumwa Public Library, 102 W 4th St in Ottumwa. Click here for more event information.

Wednesday, April 22 from 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM

Host: Charlie Wishman

Location: Western Iowa Tech, 4647 Stone Ave in Sioux City. Click here for more event information.

The Des Moines event is a longer symposium on what needs to be done to get health care reform passed in 2009. Co-sponsors include Health Care for America Now, the 1st Unitarian Church, RESULTS, AFSCME Council 61, and Every Child Matters.

Saturday, May 2 from 12:00 PM – 4:00 PM

Host: Charlie Wishman

Location: 1st Unitarian Church, 1800 Bell Ave in Des Moines. Click here for more information.

I’ll post a more detailed calendar of events this week later today or this evening.

This thread is for any comments about health care reform or good organizing work going on around Iowa.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be created in renewable energy manufacturing. Will these employment opportunities be “high-road,” decent-paying union jobs, or will employers take the “low road”–tapping into the desperation of unemployed workers who have already seen too much pain?”  The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is not giving up on bringing organized labor’s opportunities to workers in the sector, despite a recent setback.

Angry social conservatives are speculating that Senator Chuck Grassley could face a primary challenge in 2010. The religious right has been dissatisfied with Grassley for a long time (see here and here).

After the Iowa Supreme Court announced the Varnum v Brien decision, Grassley issued a statement saying he supported “traditional marriage” and had backed federal legislation and a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But when hundreds of marriage equality opponents rallied at the state capitol last Thursday, and Republicans tried to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Iowa House floor, Grassley refused to say whether he supported their efforts to change Iowa’s constitution:

“You better ask me in a month, after I’ve had a chance to think,” Grassley, the state’s senior Republican official, said after a health care forum in Mason City.

Grassley has supported legislation in the past decade to establish marriage as between a man and a woman, and to enact an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage. […]

“But it doesn’t have to be marriage,” he added. “There’s things like civil unions.”

Grassley said the amendment he supported left the issue of government acknowledgment of same-sex relationships, such as civil unions, up to states

to allow or ban.

Wingnut Bill Salier, who almost won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2002, says conservatives are becoming “more and more incensed [the] more they start to pay attention to how far [Grassley] has drifted.”

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn denies that party activists are unhappy with Grassley. I hope Salier is right and Grassley gets a primary challenge, for reasons I’ll explain after the jump.  

Congressman Steve King is still “royally ticked” about the “unanimous decision on the part of seven unelected Iowa judges who decided to take the law into their own hands and usurp the legitimate authority of the Iowa Legislature […].” He doesn’t seem real clear on the concept of judicial review, whereby courts can strike down laws that violate citizens’ constitutional rights.

Then again, maybe King does understand that legislators can’t pass unconstitutional laws. As David Waldman pointed out, last month King complained that a bill to restrict bonus payments to executives from bailed-out financial institutions was “a dangerous and unconstitutional disruption of America’s free-market system.”

In any event, King is bringing his crusade against marriage equality to a telephone near you. Several Bleeding Heartland readers in different parts of the state have told me that they received the robocall corncam diaried here. Paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, the call features King asking if you are a registered voter in Iowa. If you say yes, King asks if you believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. If you say no, King thanks you and says good-bye.

We need someone to say yes, take detailed notes about the rest of this robocall, and post a diary here about it. Obviously it’s a voter ID call for a group that will be campaigning to overturn the Varnum v Brien ruling, but what talking points are they using, and what information are they collecting from sympathetic respondents?

Some people have wondered whether King recorded this call in order to raise his profile for a future statewide campaign. Last week King told the Omaha World-Herald that he would be more likely to run for governor in 2010 if Chet Culver did not work hard to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien. Although I’d love for King to leave Congress, I agree with Iowa Senate Democratic leader Mike Gronstal, who says “Steve King’s too chicken to run for governor because he knows he’d get his butt beat.”

King responded by accusing Gronstal of being “afraid to allow a vote on marriage,” which made me laugh. If Gronstal were afraid of backlash on this issue, he would be making cautious statements that grudgingly accept the Supreme Court ruling while emphasizing his own belief in “traditional marriage.” Instead, Gronstal has made clear that he welcomes marriage equality and will not “insert discrimination into our state constitution.”

The Steve Kings of the world are scared because they know Iowans and Americans increasingly support legal recognition of committed relationships, regardless of sexual orientation.  

Speaking of campaigns, Politico reported on April 3 that the Federal Election Commission has questioned why King’s campaign committee paid the Congressman’s son Jeff King $156,000 during the past five years. An attorney for the campaign committee responded that Jeff King is the sole full-time employee of the campaign, and that he was paid a “fair market value” salary for “bona fide campaign-related services.”

King isn’t the most energetic campaigner, so I find it surprising that he employs a full-time year-round campaign staffer, but to me this is a non-issue. Many politicians employ close relatives on their campaigns. If King’s contributors don’t mind his paying his son $30,000 a year, then who am I to argue?

What bothers me are the elected officials who hire close relatives to do taxpayer-funded work–especially when those officials pretend to care about allegedly unethical campaign payments.

One of my golden rules of parenting is, “If it’s not working, change it.” We need to get creative if our bedtime routine, mealtime rituals, discipline techniques or outside activities stop meeting our family’s needs. Parents who are inflexible can get locked into power struggles that don’t fix the problem.

Des Moines Register editorial writer Linda Fandel’s follow-up on Isabel Loeffler reminded me of how well things can work out when parents are willing to question and change what isn’t working. In the summer of 2007 I was outraged by Fandel’s feature story on how a Waukee elementary school disciplined Isabel, an eight-year-old on the autism spectrum. She repeatedly spent long stretches in a timeout room as school staff kept resetting the clock when Isabel tried but failed to meet nearly impossible demands. The inappropriate and punitive use of the timeout room didn’t improve Isabel’s behavior and certainly didn’t create a good learning environment for her. Her parents pulled her out of the school and moved to California. Fandel writes:

Officials in the Waukee school district and the Heartland Area Education Agency, which helped prepare Isabel’s individualized learning plan, insisted they had done nothing wrong. But an administrative law judge in 2007 found that the district and AEA used interventions not consistent with accepted practice. That decision was upheld on appeal. A civil suit is pending.

Isabel’s father, Doug Loeffler, recently e-mailed Fandel to say that his daughter “loves school and is very active in several community groups that provide opportunities for children with special needs to work together with children without handicaps.” He also said there is growing interest nationally how schools misuse timeout rooms and physical restraint.

Last year the Iowa Board of Education adopted stricter rules on timeout rooms and certain kinds of physical restraint. I’m glad to know this is part of a national trend, but public policy is no substitute for parents who are willing to get involved and learn what is going on in their child’s school. If the Loefflers had not asked for a videotape to find out why their daughter wasn’t responding well to discipline at school, they never would have realized how inappropriate the school’s policy was.

This thread is for any comments on education, discipline or parenting.

Crossposted from Hillbilly Report. Come join the conversation on Rural America, our issues and candidates for the 2010 elections!! City-Slickers welcome too!!

We all remember the no-bid contracts we were so opposed to under the last administration. Now, it has long appeared that all the crimes committed on all levels in this fiasco will go unpunished. Although we are still far from punishing the lies and propoganda unleashed on the American people to start this war, after a court ruling hopefully at least part of the rampant fraud that will cost Americans well over a trillion dollars will be punished.  

Following up on my post from Wednesday, here’s another issue to bring up when you contact your state representatives and senators. (Hat tip to noneed4thneed.)

Iowa Global Warming is calling on supporters to advocate for at least $25 million in passenger rail funding as part of the huge infrastructure bonding package that is likely to pass. $25 million is less than 5 percent of the cost of the bonding bill.

I’m a fan of calling your elected officials rather than e-mailing this late in the session, because I am not convinced they get through all the messages in their in-boxes.

Iowa Senate switchboard: 515-281-3371

Iowa House switchboard: 515-281-3221

If you prefer to e-mail, Iowa Global Warming has made it really easy for you on this page. They also provide some talking points, such as

– The future of our state economy will be determined by the decisions we make now about infrastructure

– Reliable, efficient and economical rail service connecting Iowa to Chicago and other Midwest cities will ensure that Iowa can fully benefit from the regional economy

Iowa Global Warming has a sample letter ready for you to send, although it’s better to put these things in your own words if you have time.

This thread is for discussing anything Iowa progressives should bring up with their representatives and senators before the end of session. Don’t let anyone tell you elected officials don’t pay attention to how many voters they hear from on an issue.  

Social conservatives made clear at yesterday’s rally against gay marriage that they will try to remove Iowa Supreme Court justices next year:

“This is only the beginning,” said Danny Carroll, a former legislator and now chairman of the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center. “We will remember and we will remember in November.”

Chuck Hurley, also a former legislator and president of the policy center, noted that in addition to legislators and Gov. Chet Culver, three Iowa Supreme Court justices would face retention elections next year.

That includes Chief Justice Marsha Ternus.

“Maybe she will know how it feels after November of 2010,” said Hurley.

Justices Michael Streit and David Baker also will be up for retention elections next year. The Supreme Court struck down the state’s gay marriage ban on a 7-0 decision.

“Three judges on the ballot. We will remember next November,” Hurley said. “You are not fooling anyone.”

In Iowa, judges are appointed through a merit-selection process that was approved by voters in the 1960s. Voters decide whether to keep a judge in office. Supreme court judges are up for retention every eight years, while court of appeals and district court judges are up every six years.

I automatically vote to retain every judge, whether conservative, moderate or liberal, unless I have heard from trusted attorneys that the judge is incompetent or corrupt. In more than two decades of voting I’ve only voted against retention once or twice. I’ve disagreed with some court rulings, just like Hurley and Carroll disagree with the Varnum v Brien decision. But our justice system depends on judges being able to interpret the law without fear of reprisal.

The threats from Carroll and Hurley underscore how extremism has become mainstream for Iowa Republicans. These are not fringe wackos; Carroll and Hurley are both former state legislators.

Marsha Ternus has 16 years of experience on Iowa’s high court. She was appointed by Republican Governor Terry Branstad (as was Mark Cady, the author of the Varnum v Brien decision). Streit and Baker also have lengthy and distinguished legal careers. Yet that means nothing, because social conservatives want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone.

We’ll need to remember to tell our friends to vote yes on retaining all judges in November 2010. Many people never bother to fill out the back side of the ballot.

Thursday was a great day for marriage equality in Iowa. All but two Iowa House Democrats stood firm against Republican efforts to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the House floor.

The same day, the Des Moines Register quoted Governor Chet Culver confirming that he opposes such an amendment:

“I think we have to be very respectful of the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. This court in a unanimous decision has stated that it is discriminatory to deny people rights that they’re given under the current Constitution,” [Culver] said.

Culver released a statement accepting the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling on April 7, four days after the court announced its decision. Most other prominent Iowa Democrats reacted more quickly, but Culver told the Des Moines Register that he didn’t want to make a “knee-jerk reaction”:

“I think it’s appropriate to take as much time as necessary, and in my case about four days, to thoroughly read the decision. … It’s 69 pages long. It involves a lot of complex legal arguments on both sides,” he said.

Culver said he sat down with Attorney General Tom Miller on Monday to talk about the ruling. He had conversations with other “interested parties.” He read many of the “thousands” of messages his office received.

Truth be told, I want to believe Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08’s hunch about the reason for the delay:

Hopefully […] this means they conducted a quickie poll and found little enthusiasm for amending the constitution.

Cross posted at DailyKos:

Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy ruled out of order an attempt by Republicans to bring a resolution to the floor on amending Iowa’s constitution to ban gay marriage. The resolution did not pass any House committee before last month’s “funnel” deadline, so could only have reached the floor if leadership made an exception for it.

I will update this post as more news becomes available. You can read a couple of different play-by-play accounts on the Twitter feeds of journalist Charlotte Eby and Republican Representative Renee Schulte. It sounds as if leadership conferred for a while before Murphy ruled the resolution out of order. Iowa Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal, who refused to let a similar bill come to the Senate floor on Monday, was in the House chamber this morning speaking with House leaders.

Earlier today marriage equality opponents and supporters rallied at the Iowa capitol. I wasn’t there, but Charlotte Eby provided the highlights. Former State Representative Danny Carroll told the crowd that politicians who don’t listen to the word of God should be replaced. Someone doesn’t seem to understand the constitution too well. Unfortunately for Carroll and fortunately for us, the voters of Iowa House district 75 sent him packing in 2006, and voted him down by a larger margin in his rematch against Eric Palmer last year.

One Iowa also had supporters at the capitol this morning. If you were there, please post a comment or a diary about what you saw.

UPDATE with background: The bill in question, House Joint Resolution 6, proposes an amendment to the Iowa constitution stipulating that marriage is between one man and one woman (here is the text). The co-sponsors of HJR 6 are Republican Dwayne Alons (not one of the brightest lights in Iowa politics) and Democrat Dolores Mertz (the kind of Democrat who votes against good labor bills and buries bills that would reduce pollution from factory farms).

The Iowa legislature’s “funnel” date passed in early March. Under the normal rules of operation, bills that did not clear at least one House or Senate committee by that time were dead for the 2009 session.

SECOND UPDATE: One Iowa says this is not over yet and is urging supporters of marriage equality to contact their representatives today.

House Switchboard: 515-281-3221

Tell them to stand firm with legislative leadership and oppose this distracting and divisive move. With all the challenges Iowa is facing, it’s time for our elected officials to get back to work for Iowa families!

The Des Moines Register explains House Speaker Murphy’s ruling:

Murphy’s ruling today stemmed from the fact that the House cannot suspend rules it has enacted jointly with the Senate. House members can only suspend their own rules.

The only way to suspend the joint rules is for someone to introduce a resolution in the Rules and Administration Committee. If it starts in the House, then there’s a vote in House committee and in the full House. If it passes, it goes to Senate committee then a vote of the full Senate.

That explains why Senate leader Gronstal was in the House chamber this morning. The bill is HJR 6.

The Des Moines Register article also makes clear that House Republicans aren’t giving up:

But Republicans hinted that they will make another run at the issue later today.

“We’ll just let the day unfold,” said House Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen of Hiawatha. He later added. “The Legislature has a whole mass of rules and while you can use them sometimes to hide behind, sometimes they work to your advantage in other situations.”

I don’t pretend to know what rules he is referring to, but please tell all your friends in Iowa to contact their House representatives and ask them to respect the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: More drama this afternoon, as Republican Chris Rants tried to attach an amendment banning gay marriage to a bill on health care, according to Charlotte Eby. House Speaker Murphy ruled the amendment out of order, but Rants moved to suspend rules. Eby said “some Ds” voted with Republicans and named Mertz and Geri Huser, but the motion failed. I don’t know whether Mertz and Huser were the only Democrats voting with Republicans on that bill.

If we can’t defeat Huser in the 2010 primary with all the bad votes she’s cast, I don’t know what to say. I am not giving a penny to the House Democratic leadership fund as long as any money could be spend defending incumbents like Mertz and Huser.

FINAL UPDATE: According to The Des Moines Register, the amendment defeated this afternoon

would have gutted a $1.25 billion health and human services bill, House File 811, and replaced it with a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

That amendment failed on a 54-44 vote. Mertz and Huser were the only two House Democrats who voted with Republicans. Shame on them for trying to sacrifice a health care bill in order to pass an amendment that would put discrimination in our state constitution.

If your representative is one of the 54 Democrats who stood firm with Speaker Murphy, please call or e-mail to say thank you. I know that some of the House Democrats are personally uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, but they did the right thing today.

Murphy released this statement:

“The latest political stunt by House Republicans this afternoon proves this is all about politics.  It’s stunning that Republicans would choose to gut health care for our children, veterans, seniors and disabled Iowans to score political points.

Despite today’s political posturing and attempts to circumvent rules agreed to by Republicans earlier this year, my goal is to keep our focus

on helping middle class families struggling to make ends meet and balancing the state budget.

Iowans expect us to work together on the issues that unite us –good-paying jobs, affordable health care and a quality education.”

Even if you don’t like Iowa’s public smoking ban, even if you think the smoking ban is unconstitutional, even if you have joined a lawsuit challenging the smoking ban, the smoking ban still applies to you.

Larry Duncan, owner of Otis Campbell’s Bar and Grill in West Burlington, learned that lesson today when his business became the first to lose its liquor license for failing to comply with the Iowa Smokefree Air Act. State Senator Tom Courtney hailed today’s action by the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division in a statement released by the Iowa Senate Democrats (excerpt):

“This is a great day for restaurant and bar owners in our community who are playing the rules,” said State Senator Tom Courtney of Burlington. “This law protects the health of employees who don’t have a choice when they are forced to work in smoke-filled rooms. The overwhelming majority of employers in the state understand this and have complied with the law.”

The state decision leaves room for the liquor license to be restored sooner if Otis Cambpell’s agrees to the follow the law.

“I think that’s a reasonable compromise,” said Courtney. “It would send the wrong message to law-abiding Iowans if the state ignored a handful of business owners who are thumbing their nose at this new law.”

According to the Des Moines Register, Duncan is challenging the smoking ban in federal court. Other restaurant and bar owners have filed suit in Iowa. I think they are all wasting their money, as courts have upheld other state and local smoking bans, but they have every right to challenge the law. They do not have the right to flout the law in the meantime, though. Last summer a judge denied a request to suspend the smoking ban pending trial.

Share any relevant thoughts and opinions in this thread.

Join the discussion for Rural Progressives on our issues, challenges, and candidates for 2010 at Hillbilly Report. City Slickers are more than welcome too!!

When one thinks about children in poverty in many regions of the country one normally thinks about children living in urban societies. While much child poverty exists in urban conditions the fact is that rural Americans face even a greater challenge uplifting their children from poverty. New statistics are very disturbing for those of us raising children in rural areas of the country.

The 2009 legislative session is ending soon, and if you haven’t contacted your state representative or senator yet, quit procrastinating. I don’t think legislators diligently read every e-mail when the session gets busy, so I recommend calling them.

Iowa Senate switchboard: 515-281-3371

Iowa House Switchboard: 515-281-3221

I encourage you to tell your state representative and state senator that you support the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien and want them to respect that ruling.

Although I haven’t had time to finish writing a post here about the tax reforms being proposed this year, I support most of what’s in the package, including ending federal deductibility. Right-wing groups are urging Iowans to call their legislators about this issue, so if you support the Democratic tax reform plan, please say so. This article describes the proposed changes to Iowa’s tax code, which Democratic legislative leaders and Governor Culver have agreed on.

Please also mention to members of the Iowa House that you want them to reject SF 432 (here’s why) or remove the Liquid Manure division in SF 432.

If you are speaking with a state senator, especially a Republican senator, please also mention that you want Shearon Elderkin to be confirmed as a member of the Environmental Protection Commission. Culver appointed her to that body last year, and she has been a good vote for the environment.

I happen to know Shearon (pronounced like “Sharon”), because we used to serve on the same non-profit organization’s board of directors. She reads widely on public policy and asks tough questions. She also is a good listener and does not view issues through the prism of partisan politics. Even after serving with her for more than a year, some of our board members did not know whether she was a Republican, Democrat or independent. (For the record, she’s a moderate Republican.)

Feel free to mention any other pending bills or tips for contacting legislators in this thread.

UPDATE: Senator Jack Hatch, who chairs the Senate Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, says Gene Gessow’s confirmation as director of the Department of Human Services “is in trouble.” I posted Hatch’s speech calling for Gessow to be confirmed after the jump. If your state senator is a Republican, you may want to bring this up as well.

SECOND UPDATE: 1000 Friends of Iowa sent out an action alert regarding Elderkin’s nomination. I’ve posted that after the jump.

Iowa Senate Majority leader Mike Gronstal is on a tear this week. On Monday he rejected Republican efforts to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Senate floor. Read his remarks here (scroll to the bottom) or watch the video:

On Tuesday Gronstal in effect dared conservatives to push for a Constitutional Convention, which might consider adopting an amendment to ban gay marriage. From the Des Moines Register:

“I’m inclined to hope they succeed, if that’s their strategy,” said Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, who has saluted Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage. “There’s a lot of good, progressive issues that we could pursue: a woman’s right to choose, guaranteed health care for all Iowa citizens, workers’ rights – so if there are people that want to help us get to a constitutional convention, that’s kind of my dream world.”

If Iowa voters approve a ballot initiative next November on calling a Constitutional Convention, the Iowa legislature will draw up rules for selecting delegates to that body. If the convention approves proposed constitutional amendments, a special election will be scheduled, and voters will consider each amendment separately, not as a bloc.

Some Iowa Republicans don’t sound eager to roll the dice on this procedure:

Sen. Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said he will likely vote against holding a convention. “We have bumps in the road but we’re operating pretty well without going in and messing with the Constitution,” Wieck said.

Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley said he will continue to push for a second route toward a constitutional amendment on gay marriage: votes by the Iowa House and Iowa Senate in two consecutive general assemblies followed by a vote of the people.

But McKinley understands why some might have an interest in a constitutional convention.

“I think the reason there is some appeal at least on the surface is citizens feel very disenfranchised from their government,” McKinley said. “Democracies are crazy things. Sometimes the people want to do things that maybe the elites don’t agree with.”

Although I’m confident that over time a large majority of Iowans will come to support marriage equality, I confess that I am a bit nervous about the issue coming to a statewide vote in 2010 or 2011. At the same time, like Gronstal, I can imagine lots of good amendments that might come out of a Constitutional Convention.

Share any relevant thoughts or speculation in this thread.

Governor Chet Culver released a statement today confirming that he will not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Iowa. The governor said his personal faith still holds that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and he emphasized that the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v Brien

reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision does not require that churches recognize marriages between persons of the same gender or officiate over such unions.

After reassuring Iowans that religious marriage is not affected by the ruling, the governor noted:

Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.

“As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

I’ve posted the full text of Culver’s statement after the jump.

Here’s to the governor for doing the right thing.  Republicans will hammer Culver for not doing “whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman,” but they weren’t voting for him anyway.

More important, as Attorney General Tom Miller noted last Friday, the court issued a unanimous “clear and well-reasoned opinion.” Social conservatives don’t have to change their religious beliefs, but their faith-based objections to gay unions are not grounds to deny other citizens the benefits of civil marriage. Marriage equality does not threaten heterosexual marriage in any way.  

I cross-posted my piece on amending the Iowa Constitution at Daily Kos last night, and Daily Kos user InMyLifeIowa wrote,

this weekend I received two robo calls wanting me to call my leaders to tell them not to support gay marriage. I hung up. Not even worth listening to it.

If you get a robocall on this issue, please do not hang up the phone. Grab something to write with, take detailed notes, and post a diary here afterwards. Be sure to listen until the very end of the call, when they are supposed to indicate who paid for the call and provide a phone number.

Click here for more advice on what to do if you get push-polled on this or any other issue. We need to know what opponents of marriage equality are doing in Iowa.

If you are a respondent for a legitimate survey about gay marriage in Iowa, please write down as much as you can remember about the questions and the firm conducting the survey. Last week I wrote up a Republican poll on the 2010 gubernatorial race in Iowa. If you write up a current poll in that level of detail, I will promote your diary to the front page of Bleeding Heartland.

I just spoke to my wife, and she agreed to allow me to post her entry from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism today.

Since she is a law professor, I thought her take on this might be of interest to some.

Sally Frank is a member of the Union for Reform Judaism’s Commission on Social Action and a Professor at Drake University Law School.  All views expressed are her own.

Last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned Iowa’s ban on same sex marriage in a unanimous opinion authored by arguably the most conservative Justice on the Court.  It is obvious in reading the opinion that the Court is anticipating the negative reaction it will get from some.  After describing the ordinariness of the twelve plaintiffs and how they stand out only because of their sexual orientation, the Court went on to give a civics lesson.  It reminded its readers of the roles of each branch of government and that it was fulfilling its role in determining the constitutionality of a statute.  The Court then summarized its history of leadership in civil rights issues.  The first case in the territorial Iowa Supreme Court ruled that no one could be property and therefore refused to allow the return of a fugitive slave years before the Dred Scott case, it outlawed school segregation and ruled against separate but equal in the late 1800’s.  It was also the first state to admit women to the bar.

Another important aspect of the ruling was that it analyzed discrimination based on sexual orientation with heightened scrutiny.  This is the level of scrutiny used when reviewing laws discriminating on the basis of gender.  To pass this scrutiny, the government had to show that the law was closely related to a significant governmental interest.  The Court held open the possibility of analyzing future cases involving sexual orientation under the even higher test of strict scrutiny which is the test used for race discrimination.

Once the Court determined how to review the statute, it analyzed every argument raised to support the marriage ban and found all of them lacking.  It then addressed the unstated argument- – the objections of some religious groups to marriage equality.  In a footnote, the Court specifically referred to Reform Judaism’s support for marriage equality.  The opinion clearly stated throughout that the issue before it was civil marriage.  In this section of the opinion, the Court made clear that religious marriage is up to each religious group and would not be affected by this ruling.

Lastly, the Court ruled that Civil Union or any other attempt to address the ruling without having civil marriage would fail constitutional tests.  This ruling, as with all rulings from the Iowa Supreme Court will be effective in twenty-one days, unless the County seeks further review.  The County Attorney has said he will not do that.  Thus, we in Iowa are ready to welcome our own residents and those from around the country to come and get married starting April 24.  (There is a 3 day waiting period from getting the marriage license to getting married, though.)

I was in the County Courthouse the morning that the ruling was issued and the excitement was palpable.  Several people were stopping by the courtroom of the judge who issued the ruling that was upheld by the Supreme Court.  He quickly told us that the cake we saw sitting there was because it was his birthday not to celebrate the ruling.  Modestly, he said merely that he was glad that the Supreme Court had found his reasoning sound.

Friday night, there were celebration rallies throughout the state.  In Des Moines, about 1,000 people came for a rally that lasted just over one hour.  Many had tears in their eyes as we greeted the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and those from organizations supporting them.  Des Moines’ mayor also spoke.  There were similar rallies with hundreds of people all around the state.  One speaker mentioned discussing with a California chapter of her organization how to celebrate Iowa.  She announced that there would be popcorn on the street of the Castro that night. After the rally there was a party celebrating the ruling, which was widely attended.  The joy is still palpable today.

For those wondering about the possibility of an amendment to the state constitution, nothing will happen soon.  A letter was read at the rally from the majority leaders of our state assembly and state senate hailing the ruling and saying that given the short time left in this legislative session and the pressing budget issues facing the state there would be no reason to waste time debating this issue.   A constitutional amendment in Iowa has to pass two separate legislatures before it can get on the ballot.  This is the first year of our current legislature.  Thus, no amendment can pass for at least 2 ½ years.  The momentum may not be strong to amend the constitution either.  Even a conservative columnist for the Register suggested that people look at the tourist dollars the ruling will bring before they get too upset and try to overturn the ruling.

To read the ruling of the Court, go here

and click on ruling.

Posted by Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism on April 6, 2009 4:55 PM |  

There’s nothing opponents of marriage equality can do to stop gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Iowa starting on April 24. Over at Daily Kos, Wee Mama posted information about getting a marriage license in Iowa for those who live elsewhere. If you would like to have a religious ceremony, I recommend contacting The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa for help in finding a sympathetic officiant, most likely to be from a United Church of Christ, United Methodist or Unitarian Universalist congregation. Couples wanting a Jewish wedding should contact Rabbi David Kaufman of Temple B’nai Jeshurun in Des Moines, if at least one partner is Jewish and the couple is open to raising children as Jews. Rabbi Kaufman has officiated at a same-sex commitment ceremony and published this blog post on Friday demolishing the arguments against legalizing gay marriage in Iowa.

The political battle over marriage equality will go on for a long time after wedding bells start ringing.

After the jump I will bring you up to date on prospects for amending Iowa’s constitution and the latest statewide opinion poll on same-sex marriage.

UPDATE: Scroll to the bottom of this post to read a very strong statement Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal released the evening of April 6.  

UPDATE: According to Food Democracy Now, the relevant USDA official’s e-mail inbox is full and bouncing back messages.

Please send you comments to: Dan McGlynn via Mara Villegas at: mara.villegas@wdc.usda.gov

[…]

At this point you can do 1 of 3 things:

1. You can resend your comments to mara.villegas@wdc.usda.gov

2. Fax the letter in at: (202) 690-2130

3. Go to Regulation.gov and send your letter in using that website form.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdm…

If you go to Regulations.gov please realize that it is a several step process in order to submit your comments.

We have provided the proper steps to follow on our website.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.or…

Thanks again for all you do, we appreciate your continued efforts on this important subject.

I received an e-mail alert from Food Democracy Now today, informing me that the public comment period for a proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture rule on farm payment limits ends at the close of business on Monday, April 6.

President Barack Obama promised during his budget speech to a joint session of Congress in February to “end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them.” Food Democracy Now’s action alert noted,

As part of his 2010 budget, the President proposed phasing-out direct payments in an attempt to save $9.8 billion over 10 years. Currently direct payments, which total $5.2 billion a year, are paid regardless of crop prices and are not tied to need.

This means: Even in times of high commodity prices, corporate farmers still get a paycheck from the government.

End Unfair Subsidies Now!

In mentioning unfair agribusiness subsidies, the President let supporters and agribusiness know that he’s serious about defending the rights of family farmers and giving them access to fair market conditions.

Today’s current subsidy system allows large corporate farms to take advantage of subsidy loopholes that place independent family farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage.

Because of loosely written management and labor requirements in the Farm Bill, corporate farmers are allowed to use multiple partnerships, passive investors and sham “paper” farms to funnel huge multimillion dollar annual subsidy payments to corporate entities that don’t do any real work on the farm, but use the ownership as an entitlement to bilk payments from the government.

As a result, giant corporate millionaire “farmers” are driving independent family farmers off the land, using their ill-gotten gains, supplied courtesy of taxpayers, to outbid small, midsized and new farmers who want to buy or rent new crop ground.

Food Democracy Now provided a sample e-mail that you can cope and paste into your own message. I’ve posted it after the jump, and you can also find it here.

If you can put the message in your own words, that’s wonderful, but any comment you can send by the close of business on Monday is better than nothing.

However you write the main text of your message, put this in the subject line:

Comment on Farm Program Payment Limitation Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 23, February 5, 2009