Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Iowa…One Year Later

Uncategorized

by Brian Leubitz

While we are approaching 2 years from the date the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22, the first marriage ban, Iowa is now getting to their first anniversary. And they haven’t had any plebiscites to strip their constitutional rights.

In Iowa, to get a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot, they have a much more considered rational process. Instead of just having anybody who can muster up a couple million dollars put something on the ballot, they actually give it to their elected representatives. And as of right now, the Iowa Legislature has not found any reason to put such a decisive issue on the ballot.  But that doesn’t mean the Right-Wingers are just rolling over, and dealing with equality. Far from it:

”There’s two lenses here. One’s a biblical world view and the other is basically more of a secular humanist world view, and that’s why there never seems to be agreement,” said the Rev. Pastor Brad Cranston, of Burlington’s Heritage Baptist Church. “They’re not going to be reconciled with one another.”

Seeing the world through the Bible, Cranston said he’s prepared to continue his agenda even though state lawmakers have so far refused to bring forward a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

“(T)his is going to be a fight for the long haul, that the opposition here in Iowa is relentless,” said Justin Uebelhor, a spokesman for Des Moines-based gay rights advocacy group One Iowa. “We’re going to have a presence here for the next few years, making sure that our stories get told.” (The Hawk Eye)

They certainly aren’t likely to give up soon, so One Iowa’s mission of electing legislators who oppose this divisive ballot measure is key. And then keeping up the pressure on them to ensure that they don’t waiver. It’s a lot of hard work.

In Iowa, they understand that in a representative democracy, you don’t simply vote on everything. And in a constitutional representative democracy, you don’t rush to amend that constitution. And when you are dealing with individual liberty, we should be even more concerned.

The right-wing group is now going by the name “Let Us Vote” or LUV…get it? Are you laughing yet? But the concept of a majority voting on a minority’s rights is totally antithetical to the federal and the constitutions of the state.  Eventually, that concept will break through the clutter and the right-wing noise.

We can only hope that the Iowa General Assembly continues their resistance to a vote on our rights. For more information about Iowa marriage equality issues, see One Iowa’s website.

82 Comments

  • 1. Ronnie  |  April 3, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Unfortunately for the Hateros……the LGBTQQIA community is not fighting for LUV……we are fighting for LOVE…..

    "Let Our Voices Evolve"…….<3…Ronnie

  • 2. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 3, 2010 at 5:28 am

    How appropriate that the right-wing group in Iowa has an anagram that was first used to describe the first compact pickup truck Chevy released in the late 70's–the LUV (for Light Utility Vehicle) Seems to fit the fact that they very rarely use their minds for the purpose G-d intended them to be used for–analysis and freedom of thought, rather than just taking what someone says for the total and only truth.

  • 3. Richard W. Fitch  |  April 3, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Would it not be poetic justice if in a decade or so when the the non-white population becomes the majority that the rights of these wingnuts get voted on and they lose. ??

  • 4. Kathleen  |  April 3, 2010 at 5:47 am

    just subscribing

  • 5. Audrey  |  April 3, 2010 at 6:02 am

    I have a piece up on the Ms. Magazine blog about the Iowa anniversary: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/04/02/happy-

    When I was researching it, I found the following point about religious beliefs made by the Supreme Court in their decision that I found interesting in light of the Prop. 8 trial and the anti-gay marriage movement in general:

    "In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.
    The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires." (http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/in-court/decisions/varnum_ia_20090403_supreme-court-decision.html)

  • 6. Ronnie  |  April 3, 2010 at 6:03 am

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/0

    Posted on Advocate.com April 03, 2010
    Vatican Priest: Catholics Being Persecuted Like Jews
    By Advocate.com Editors

    A senior Vatican priest has compared the investigation of sexual abuse claims against the Catholic Church to the persecution of the Jews, prompting a backlash from victims’ advocates and Jewish groups.

    (me) It's official…….. The Vatican and the RCC has lost its ever crazy mind……I'm just saying…….<3….Ronnie

  • 7. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 3, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Wrong, Ronnie. The current regime in Vatican City could never lose their collective minds, because they don't have any minds to lose.

  • 8. Ronnie  |  April 3, 2010 at 6:09 am

    True….maybe I gave them to much credit…you know like a penny worth?…….<3…Ronnie

  • 9. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 6:15 am

    I am almost at the point where I simply don't care about any of this anymore.

  • 10. Bob  |  April 3, 2010 at 6:50 am

    Ronnie, you really are a sweet heart !!!!! Let Our Voices Evolve, I love it, you're always one step ahead, your our cheerleader, we need short short skirts and pom pom' s, drums, and well Ronnie, leader of the pack

    Dieter, sounds like you're having a down day, hang in there big guy, I know you'll never not care anymore. The religious crap is just the same stuff, just coming from Iowa, and sounds like they're handling it.

    We do want to get to the point where both sides just don't want to fight anymore, and everyone just settles into equality for all, because not having it is too much effort and work, so have a rest, cause we're going to need ya to kick up some dust again before they reach that point of understanding.

  • 11. Bob  |  April 3, 2010 at 6:57 am

    Thanks Audrey, for your contribution, I love that part "Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected"

    Guess the religious right wing nuts just freak at the fact that they are unaffected, in other words just go off and do your thing, leave us alone, they just can't handle that, it's a lot to take in all at once, may take us a while to drive the point home…

  • 12. Kathleen  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Unfortunately, Bob, I'm not convinced that just knowing their own religious views are unaffected by the law is enough to appease the religious fanatics. I think the real fear, among a sizable group of these people, is that gay people will be presented in the society at large as normal.

    It's not having their own religious beliefs threatened that worries them; they're terrified that they're going to be required to treat gay people with respect when they encounter us in the street; that they can't refuse to let us shop in their stores; that their children, at school, are going to be exposed to our families and be shown just how normal we all are; that their brand of bigotry will not longer be tolerated and they'll have to watch what they say in public, the way racists are expected to in modern America. That's what they really fear.

  • 13. Kathleen  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:14 am

    once again, i failed to close an italics code. sigh…

  • 14. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:22 am

    You are so right, Kathleen. That is exactly what they are afraid of–the fact that they will be forced to see us as normal, rather than being allowed to view us as "the other" as they have been doing up to this point. It is the same fear that isolates them from each other on denominational lines as well when it comes to religion. Oh, well. As Bob so rightly points out, we will just have to keep working at it until we drive the point home to them. One day, my grandkids are going to be able to say "Same-sex marriage? We've always had THAT!"

  • 15. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Actually just saying that because before I moved here to Sacramento..I lived in West Hollywood for 15 years. The whole time I lived there I never knew we were being treated any differently than everybody else. The whole city is gay including the city council, the police and fire department..etc. You are free to be open and hold hands and walk down any street without fear…that was a given. police did not tolerate outsiders. life was good…
    the only reason I even started following all this is because after I moved to Sacramento…I bought a house that was kinda in the middle of nowhere…and now I am surrounded by either fields or one of the 17 churches that have been built on my street. strange since the entire population of my town is 25,000 and the churches have enough space to house every resident in the entire town. all my neighbors are now either war vets or church thumpers. I think I will just sell my house, and go back to Weho where I belong..and go back to enjoying life. I have been here in Sacramento for 12 years. and I have not had so much as a single date since I moved here.12 years is a long time with no physical contact…so all I have is time to sit on these forums and read all the crud. yeah..I think I will just move back home and go back to feeling human again.
    maybe get a hug or a handshake…or any form of contact after these long 12 years….

  • 16. Bob  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Kathleen, I agree, you described what I meant by drive the point home , that's what it'll be like when we're finished, and equality is the norm

  • 17. Bob  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Well bud, before you make the move, or in the process, take a side trip or detour up to Canada, I'd give ya a big hug, oooooooooooooh to long in the wrong place, not good.
    And health issues on top, hope you have some type of support network, chat groups like this are good for that, but we do need physical touch, and companionship.
    I know what you mean, in the sense that I spent my youth,(basically blew my wad) in San Fran, those were the days, I haven't been back for sooooooooooooo long, but now that they lifted that fear based ignorant ban at the border for people with HIV, I've really been thinking about checking out some old haunts.
    guess that's why I'm so into this whole prop8 thing, California was always way ahead, and that's where many of us Canadians found our freedom and sense of self, aaaah the CASTRO, POLK, FOLSOM,
    I just can't believe everything is upside down, wish you could experience what I found, I live in a very small community, on a small island, with probably the most gay friendly community spirit in all of Canada,
    Glad you can identify your feeling of isolation, cause you can work at changing that. sending Love

  • 18. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:45 am

    We may be losing TWO liberal scotus members very shortly…..will Obama replace them with two who will side with us on gay marriage?
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_steve

  • 19. Fierce!  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Did someone say Short Short Skirts and Pom Poms?!!! this one's for you Ronnie!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqv8UJc72SU

    Oldie but Goodie!

  • 20. Fierce!  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:59 am

    For Ronnie!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqv8UJc72SU

    (Testing to see if this works.)

  • 21. Kathleen  |  April 3, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Speaking of the court… how scary is this: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/nation/la

  • 22. Bob  |  April 3, 2010 at 8:35 am

    Well hello there Fierce!!!!!! where did you come from??? were you hiding, that video was soooooo coool and even more than I imagined, just what we needed right now, keep it commin, go Ronnie!!!! this site is getting HOT

  • 23. Bob  |  April 3, 2010 at 9:27 am

    bring her on, just another Maggie, Melissa, this one' Virginia, just the names change, but we're getting good at confonting them, we'll just keep whacking away. indiviually with her, and politically to keep the balance justice requires.

  • 24. Kathleen  |  April 3, 2010 at 9:32 am

    I realize there's no prohibition against it, but I think it inappropriate for the spouse of a Supreme Court justice to be so visibly active in politics. I'd be the last person to claim that spouses aren't individuals, but I think that given the important and special roles SC justices have, that it's just not appropriate.

  • 25. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 10:21 am

    This article made me throw up in my mouth a little….
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/ga

  • 26. Kathleen  |  April 3, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Sorry for the cliche, but these people need to get a life.

  • 27. Ronnie  |  April 3, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Another Hatero that WILL be stoned….JMHGO…….<3…Ronnie

  • 28. Ronnie  |  April 3, 2010 at 10:59 am

    So apparently her full name is Sharon L. Kass (Age 55) known Addresses……Takoma Park, MD and Silver Spring, MD…..I googled this B!TCH and apparently she has threatened, with violence, several pro-equality politicians, advocates, bloggers, activists……this Hatero is NUTS……..<3….Ronnie

  • 29. Ed-M  |  April 3, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Unfortunately their religion believes in "bringing every thought into subjection to Christ." If that doesn't mean utter totalitarianism and the prohibition of even the random excitement one feels when seeing a hot man (or woman) while minding one's business then it doesn't mean what it says. no wonder the early depictions of Jesus and the saints depict them as having sucked on and eaten a VERY sour pickle… :)

  • 30. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 3, 2010 at 11:03 am

    That was Fabulous! Glad to see you back, Fierce! !

  • 31. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 3, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Way too scary. And while technically it is not, this just seems too close to being unethical if not totally illegal.

  • 32. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 3, 2010 at 11:33 am

    From the article:

    GayScam Anti-gay discrimination will go down in history as an unprecedented corruption of law, of government, and of the public mind.

    Fixed.

    Real facts—not the rubbish from the American Psychological Association and its fellows

    Have you guys ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? The above illustrates it nicely.

  • 33. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 11:41 am

    Out Wrestler Chris Kanyon Found Dead
    He was only 40.

  • 34. Bob  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Okay, I've been thinking about this theory of there's that I'm choosing to be gay, and if I really wanted I could have therapy to change me!!!!!!!!
    Can someone tell me why I don't do that, straight ally #3008 help me with this one, is it me that's exhibiting this dunning-kruger effect? I'm thinking it's Sharon Kass, but I could be wrong,,,,right!!!
    If in fact I'm choosing to be gay, and having gone as far as considering suicide, choosing to be straight to the point of having sex with a nympho, with a group of buddies in high school, (the first time I couldn't get it up, I was devastated, I was so determined to the point I realized if I fantasized about my naked buddy with the hudge dick I could get it hard and slip it in, so everyone could see I was straight) later dating a girl in college, while drinking heavily all the time to avoid sex, although the odd time I managed I made enough noise everyone in our co-ed house would be sure to know we did it, getting engaged, families meeting, I was so determined to be straight, why wouldn't I partake of this counselling or therapy that would help me to be the way I thought I should be.
    Why am I fighting for the right to be the way I am, as opposed to having therapy and being free of all this battle.

    In fact why doesn' every one of us do that?

    If in fact it were possible don't you think we'd be happily living with other sex attractions and feeling free and alive, no one would have to be fighting with us to do it (the therapy I mean) people with illness usually eventually go for treatment, although some refuse.

    Okay already, what I'm saying is if the therapy works , I'd do it, so show me one that does??????

  • 35. Kathleen  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Have you guys ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

    I had not, or at least never knew it was a named phenomenon. It's something I'd observed in the world, at least wrt people's opinions of their own intellect. Interesting. Add it to the things I've learned on this board.

  • 36. Ronnie  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    "Can someone tell me why I don’t do that"

    That's simple….because therapy can not and will not change what is in your DNA…..a fact the Hateros are just going to have to DEAL WITH!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 37. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    And the latest in the WTF!!! category within the RCC. This is a SUPREME Shanda !http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100404/ap_on_re_us/us_church_abuse_levada

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    I hope the above link works. If not, it is on Yahoo News from the AP.

  • 39. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Until your post, Straight Ally #3008, I honestly had never heard of it, but it does seem to fit the profile of our trolls on here, as well as MagPie G, Andy Re-pug-NO! and General Sheehan, among others, doesn't it?

  • 40. bruce daves  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I just wonder why, that 1 state south they feel so differently? I, as a gay man, feel no need to tell anyone else what they can and cannot worship. I'm perfectly fine with my neighbor worshipping a head of cabbage, if that is what it takes to get them through the day…..I spend no more time wondering what they do in bed, than I do wondering what they had for breakfast.
    As an American who beleives in the seperation of church and state, and an individual with a strong belief in privacy, i would never vote to ban anything, unless it was harmful to ALL my nieghbors.

  • 41. Ronnie  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    I have a message for Sharon Kass and all the Hateros of the USA……

    My name is Ronnie Mc and I am a Fortunate 25yo Homosexual American Male…….I will NEVER be heterosexual……I will NEVER settle for less then 100% of everything I know I deserve…….You will NEVER force my stop…..You will NEVER force me to be straight……As of right now your only options are……

    "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH" – Patrick Henry ~ ca.1775….

    GOT IT?!!!……SO DON'T FU<K W/ME!!!…<3…Ronnie

  • 42. bruce daves  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Hypothetically…my local Congressman ( who has received a large contribution from HIS states largest manufacturer of steak-knives) decides to make an ammendment…..urging that all infant toddlers should have a steak knife in their mouths when learning to walk….it's silly I know….. but, not so far off from what actually happens everyday.

  • 43. Ronnie  |  April 3, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    such denial and delusion within the Vatican and the RCC…..not very healthy….no no….um..um…not at all…..so sad….an over abundance of self Pride and no humbleness……one of the seven deadly sins…..what's the phrase?….."Pride cometh before the fall"……and nothing to break it…….really so sad…..<3…Ronnie

  • 44. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 3, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Bob, the very fact that you're thinking carefully, and humbly, about your position exempts you from the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Prop 8ers and their cronies don't think that people choose their sexual orientation, they think that everyone is born straight and people choose to be different. Now, I would need to check the literature (see, I won't fall victim to the D-K effect either!) but as far as I know homosexuality has never been classified as a choice (before 1973 it was classified as a disease by the American Psychiatric Association, but not a choice). The Religious Right is obsessed with calling it a choice because they feel that if it's a choice and not an intrinsic trait, it's fine and dandy to discourage it and rail against it (and raise lots of money to do so).

    Bottom line: be who you are. Since I'm a sci-fi geek, I'll let John Barrowman sing it:

    [youtube =http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IHtIhVOPEo&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0]

  • 45. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    well ya just gotta love all this "straight guy" traditional family values news we keep hearing every day.:

    TRENTON, N.J. – Two men and three teenage boys were charged Saturday with gang-raping a 7-year-old girl who was sold by her 15-year-old stepsister during a party at a crime-ridden apartment building in the state's capital, police said.

    Details of the arrests were announced at a Saturday evening news conference outside police headquarters. Police Director Irving Bradley said detectives had been working around the clock since the crime was reported March 28.

  • 46. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    I guess it's better than if the child was in a home with 2 gay parents who loved her…you betcha

  • 47. G Rod  |  April 3, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    @dieter
    Not many who feel a sense of alienation from their surrounding community [as you write below] would have the motivation to regularly contribute to a site like this.

    Bob, also writing below, encourages you, saying: 'I know you'll never not care anymore.'
    My comment is that I find your comments thoughtful, either providing new information or a helpful perspective. Thank you for taking the time to regularly do so. When you don't agreed or follow a commentator's line of thought, you let them know in a sensitive fashion.
    Keep reaching out to others as you regularly do here.

  • 48. Kathleen  |  April 3, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Someone here questioned what the Plaintiffs in the case thought of the delay the discovery dispute is causing. I found a brief filed with the 9th Circuit on 3/26. (shows you how exciting Saturday night is here in casa kathleen)

    Technically, it's a response to the ACLU’S and Equality California's motion to expedite [the discovery appeal].
    Keep in mind this is an official position they're taking with the court and doesn't necessarily reflect what the lawyers' candid opinions are about the process.

    Basically, they ask the Court to expedite the appeal because, "[p]laintiffs will be irreparably harmed by any further delay in this case—which was tried over two months ago but has yet to be decided because of this discovery dispute—because they are being denied the fundamental right to marry.

    "The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction primarily because the parties committed to bringing this case to trial on a most expeditious basis. In a matter of months, Plaintiffs completed all necessary fact and expert discovery and prepared for and conducted a three-week trial in an effort to reach a speedy resolution of their claims. Yet now, more than two months since trial, closing arguments have not been scheduled because of the delay caused by Proponents’ belated discovery requests. Indeed, the two months that this discovery dispute has consumed since trial is approaching nearly 25% of the entire time that elapsed between the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion and the commencement of trial. Because the State of California has admitted that Proposition 8 continues to violate the constitutional rights of tens of thousands of Californians every day, it is critical that this appeal respect the expedited schedule set forth by the district court."

    They go on to offer an alternative–well established–procedure, wherein the third parties could refuse to comply with the discovery order, be held in contempt, and then appeal the contempt citation.

    Anyway, thought I'd let you know that Plaintiffs aren't entirely silent during this dispute.

  • 49. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Thanks…(although I don't ALWAYS respond in a sensitive manner)…when someone randomly attacks me or my posts..I bite back…HARD!

  • 50. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Same day..and yet another straight guy family values kidnapping…..

    Police halted a train late Friday night to intercept a California man accused of absconding with a 13-year-old Long Island girl he met on the Internet.

    John Vertrees, 22, was hauled off a western-bound Amtrak train in Rochester, N.Y., after 11 p.m. and was charged with unlawful imprisonment, police said.

  • 51. Billy  |  April 3, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    OT

    Both my friend and I are in school for different fields (mine being Mental Health & Substance Abuse Social Work), but we both have to take many of the same psychology and human services classes. Tonight, we met up at the local truck stop on the Ohio/Indiana border late to talk about various stuff; its been a while since our last conversation, and we wanted to catch up. One of the various conversations that came up concerned Kinsey and the Kinsey Scale, homosexuality in general, the origins of sexual identity, origins of sexual orientation, etc.

    During our discourse, one of the truckers sitting in a nearby booth, who had been a quiet observer during our entire discourse, spoke up as we were about to leave: "Excuse me sirs, I was wondering… do you think homosexuality is more nature or nurture?"

    Both my friend and I were sitting there stunned for a brief second, but then we started talking with this random trucker more. We ended up staying another 5-7 minutes or so, conversing about our various opinions. The three of us had a very pleasant conversation, and it just goes to show you that despite how people may appear on the outside, you can't judge a book by its cover.

  • 52. dieter  |  April 3, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Well I also have an acronym for those loving Christian freaks:

    Stop
    All
    The
    Asenine
    Nonsense

    or:

    S.A.T.A.N.

  • 53. David Kimble  |  April 3, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    "Believe it or not, California law requires health experts fo find cure for homosexuality – Institutions Code Section 8050.

    We can delete this code. We will. But first, we should know how it got there.

    This 60-year-old relic was not some gay-baiting prelude to the McCarthy era. It came, rather, in response to public outcry over sex crimes in California, specifically the molestation-murder of a 6-year-old Los Angeles girl. The murderer was not a gay man. There was no connection between the crime and homosexuality at all.

    Even so, before the dust had settled, well-meaning California legislators passed a law that not only required health officials to seek "the causes and cures of homosexuality" but likened people who are gay to child molesters. Amazingly, it's still on the books. You might call it "Linda's Law."

    Linda Joyce Glucoft went out to play after dinner on Nov. 14, 1949, and never came home. She was raped and murdered by the grandfather of one of her playmates, a repeat sex offender who offered no resistance when arrested in a downtown bar. He admitted to the gruesome slaying, to wrapping her body in a colorful blanket and hiding it near an incinerator. He told police he was acting on an indescribable compulsion and that he hadn't made her suffer long. He was the personification of what was then called a sexual psychopath.

    The rape and murder struck a nerve. There had been nine such slayings in Los Angeles in the 2 1/2 decades before Linda's murder. But in the following week, police fielded 25 reports of molestation. Public outcry grew. It took just days to gather 10,000 signatures on a petition demanding action from Sacramento.

    Sacramento was ready to oblige. Even before the killer had been sentenced to death, Gov. Earl Warren called a special session of the Legislature to deal with the issue of sexual predators. Experts flocked to the state capital with explanations and solutions.

    Judge A.A. Scott, presiding judge of the Juvenile Court in Los Angeles, complained that the state lacked tools to address the problem. "The weakness," he said, "lies in the Department of Mental Hygiene. There is no program under which to treat these sexual psychopaths."

    Scott would soon get his program. Aside from beefed-up enforcement policies, lawmakers sought an academic approach. They would order the state's mental hospitals and its universities to solve the problem.

    It was at this step, as the Legislature defined the role of science in solving the "sexual psychopath" problem, that gay people — simply because they vexed the psychiatric profession — were swept up in the net.

    In 1950, homosexuality remained, officially, a mental disorder. So when the Legislature promised funding for a study into the causes and cures of sexual deviance, it was, tragically, natural to add homosexuality to the list.

    So, in April of that year, almost exactly 60 years ago, one of the bills Warren signed to combat the scourge of child molestation included a command that the "Department of Mental Hygiene plan, conduct and cause to be conducted scientific research into the causes and cures of sexual deviation, including deviations conducive to sex crimes against children, and the causes and cures of homosexuality, and methods of identifying potential sex offenders."

    You don't need a law degree to see that homosexuality was shoe-horned into a sentence otherwise focused on the task at hand.

    Over the decades, a huge volume of sex-offender law has replaced this old statute. But the call for a cure to homosexuality, and the suggestion that it is somehow linked to child molestation and murder, has survived many rounds of revision. As recently as 1977, the code was moved rather than deleted, and the language tweaked to add a "shall" here and a "to" there. It lives now as Section 8050 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

    That code is like the old race restrictions on property deeds. The fact that it came more from ignorance than hate might excuse its enactment, but it doesn't relieve us of the duty of blotting it out.

    Assembly Bill 2199, which faces its first hearing Tuesday before the Public Safety Committee, would undo 60 years of libel and give California a set of law books that reflects science and values that were sadly absent in 1950.

    Bonnie Lowenthal, author of AB 2199, represents Long Beach, San Pedro, Signal Hill, the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Catalina Island in the Assembly."

    Good morning everyone – it's very early in California, where I am – nausea again – oh well…
    I was looking at the LA Times this morning early (Online) and found this article.

    <3 David

  • 54. Billy  |  April 3, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    I say we ban Mann Coulter :D

  • 55. Straight Dave  |  April 4, 2010 at 12:41 am

    OK, this one made me chuckle this morning, if only because of its unadulterated lunacy.

    Gay sex "more costly to society than smoking".
    “The secondhand impact of gay marriage", he whines. What secondhand impact?!?!?! He doesn't say, just hoping the listeners might imagine some.

    I hope this guy gets laughed out of what seems to be a safe and sane Iowa. He should be publicly shunned by all.

    I think one secondhand impact might be that society becomes more accepting and fools like him are put out of business. Hmmmm, maybe that is what he is griping about.

  • 56. Straight Dave  |  April 4, 2010 at 12:41 am

    Oops- forgot the link http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=5513&amp;…

  • 57. Jake  |  April 4, 2010 at 12:58 am

    The best part about amending Iowa's constitution is the fact that an amendment has to pass the legislature twice before it can be put on a ballot or Iowa's voting public. Thus, the earliest we could possibly see a vote on this in Iowa is 2014 if we even see a vote. Iowa's majority leader has stated they will block any attempt to get discrimination on the ballot.

  • 58. Sagesse  |  April 4, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Kathleen,

    Thank you for tracking this for us. I must have missed it… can you clarify when the proponents first asked for the No on 8 third parties to disclose their correspondence. I'm puzzled as to why this discovery was still unresolved at the conclusion of the court phase of the trial. Judge Spero hadn't even heard the matter, let alone ruled on it.

  • 59. Wade MacMorrighan  |  April 4, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Unfortunately, one rep. nominee for gov. (yes, a Rep.) has declared that, if elected, he would, on his first day, sign an executive order ceasing all clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the public gets to vote on the dignity of our lives!!! View the article, or watch the vid., here:
    http://www.whotv.com/news/who-story-same-sex-marr

    >>>In Iowa, they understand that in a representative democracy, you don’t simply vote on everything. And in a constitutional representative democracy, you don’t rush to amend that constitution. And when you are dealing with individual liberty, we should be even more concerned. … The right-wing group is now going by the name “Let Us Vote” or LUV…get it? Are you laughing yet? But the concept of a majority voting on a minority’s rights is totally antithetical to the federal and the constitutions of the state.<<>>Eventually, that concept will break through the clutter and the right-wing noise.<<<

    Sadly, I don't see it, because no one seems to be SELLING is to the masses that voting on someone else's CIVIL liberties is ALWAYS wrong and ought to be condemned with scorn and shame!

  • 60. Wade MacMorrighan  |  April 4, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Hell, I explained to a bunch of Iowa opponents to marriage equality once that there are (and were) many societies and cultures across the planet that allow people of the same gender to marry; and how in many culture (and every culture on earth at one time in their history) Gay men in particular held a distinct place of honor as a High Priest/ess or shaman. I was scoffed at for declaring those examples when several members balked, "Those don't COUNT as REAL marriages!" Why, because they're not Christian?! Oh, I would LOVE to see one of them make this same comment in a VERY public manner!!!

  • 61. Bob  |  April 4, 2010 at 2:53 am

    Love it Billy, great story, thanks for sharing, I like that "you can't judge a book by it's cover" it's really important for these conversaitons to be going on , who knows, who else was listening and what they might have learned. We have the greatest impact in our own circle of influence.

    I read somewhere that if a person is willing to enter dialogue about their beliefs, that person is open to change, the problem with strongly held religious beliefs is that the people holding them, will not dialogue with someone with opposing beliefs, because the act of dialogue itself is a threat.

    Good job guys

  • 62. Ronnie  |  April 4, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Happy Easter/Peep Massacre/Zombie Jesus Day…….<3…Ronnie:

    Here's a great video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iWfKim-RtA&pl

  • 63. Bob  |  April 4, 2010 at 3:13 am

    Thanks so much for the video, I felt my spine straighen up, and my head lifted while I listened, as a few tear drops expelled pent up toxins from my night of wallowing.

    See, you have that scientific view, I've never quite heard the argument posed in that way before, and yeah it gives me something to research, how did they make the leap from illness to choice. We got to hit them with that one.

    The other thing I was thinking .> is Sharon Kass an ex lesbian, then I might pay her some attention, but it seems that , the Sharon's /Maggies/Melissa's, (A) are trying to convince us (B) that we should become ex-gay (C), in this triad, who represents (C),

    So let me put a call out for anyone consuming/lurking who might be a (C) you got to step up to the plate here. PLEASE in order to make the case or support the belief of Kass, she must parade the (C"S) and now would be the appropriate time.

    Lord know's Ronnie has done a great job of parading all the (B"S) so recently coming out …with GLEE

  • 64. Bob  |  April 4, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Holy crap, it's just hilarious how all these laws were created from ignorance to quell fears/////////
    Great to hear from ya, Dave, I was beginning to think we'd need to send in a rescue to get you out from under the covers, are you taking anything for the nausea, I forget what the pill was that I took for that, candied ginger, or ginger tea, ginger ale, can be helpful.

  • 65. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 4, 2010 at 4:18 am

    Glad to, Bob, and glad you were also moved by it. The radio show This American Life – one of my all-time favorite programs – actually covered the subject of how the APA changed its decision in 1973 in a show called "81 words," which you can listen to here.

  • 66. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 4, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Bob – argh, posted in the wrong place – see my post just above the video for a show on This American Life that discusses how the APA changed its policy.

  • 67. Kathleen  |  April 4, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Sagese,

    The history of this discovery conflict is really complex. There's a pretty thorough summary in one of the court filings. See Doc 488, filed 1/19/10 by the third parties, available at the link below. I suggest downloading the PDF; it's easier to read that way. Read the section titled "Relevant Background"
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-cou

    If you have any questions after reading it, let me know.

  • 68. Bob  |  April 4, 2010 at 9:15 am

    WOW, EVERYONE, READ THE STORY OF 81 WORDS, posted by Straight Ally #3008 @40 amazing, and told like a story, soooo amazing, two sides remain arguing as we still are both from scientific viewpoints, I think, working from within, and activists from outside, how it came to pass,

    Please listen, I've got to go meditate, this one left me tooo open

  • 69. JonT  |  April 4, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Oh – that was fantastic :) Thanks!

  • 70. Happy One Year. « a&hellip  |  April 4, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    […] Check out more info here and here. […]

  • 71. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 4, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    And while it is not legally recognized in North Carolina, or even at the federal level, MY marriage is MORE REAL that MagPie Gallagher's m"marriage" is. After all, I wear my husband's ring, and I go places with my husband, and we are seen in public together. Where is MagPie's husband when she is running all over the country supposedly promoting marriage? And why is hse not wearing his ring on her hand?

  • 72. Jake  |  April 5, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Vander Plaats knows his executive order plan is a load of unconstitutional BS. He'll do anything for votes.

  • 73. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 5, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Yes, but what about the current cgovernor, who I think is running for re-election. He has promised that nothing is going to change. Maybe we should all go to Iowas and work in his campaign? Or if we can't get there personally, we could all take shifts on the computer and work for his campaign that way, by flooding Iowa with the truth.

  • 74. Jake  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Richard, I was unable to reply directly to your post. The only problem with your idea is that Chet Culver is pretty much done in the state of Iowa. He pretty much Bushed our budget and a lot of people here are rather upset by that. I do agree with flooding Iowa with truth, however. Especially in the bassackwards parts of the state: Western and Southern Iowa.

  • 75. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Jake, are you on FB? If you are, friend me there,. I am also part of the P8TT group on FB, if that makes it easier to find me. Then we can get a group up on FB for all those who want to flood Iowa with the truth, and work on the game plan from there.

  • 76. Tigger  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:46 am

    Who's the other one?

  • 77. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:54 am

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There has been speculation about her retirement for health reasons for quite some time.

  • 78. Tigger  |  April 6, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Although we never have had or will have Uncle Thomas's vote, this to me creates a huge grey area of ethical concern.

    But, my solution is to let's ole Ginny do her good work and to make sure there aren't any issues, Justice Thomas should retire so he can help the 'little woman" as they say at the Republican County Club. I will even throw him a retirement party. I just hope the Southern Repubs don't refer to them as the help like they tend to do sometimes. That would be embarrasing.

  • 79. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 8:19 am

    Actually, Tigger, if the Southern Republicans were to refer to the Thomases as "the help" it might help bring Clarence down off his high horse, and show him and Ginny what they are trying to do to us. You know, give the "doctor" a taste of his own medicine. I think it would be funny.

  • 80. Carvel  |  April 6, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    If as the conservatives state, I can change my sexual orientation, then presumably they can change their sexual orientation. Until some conservative right-wing bigot changes his sexusl orientation and lives as an openly gay person for five years and engages in gay sex and then switches back will I be convinced. Then I will be convinced that for them it was a choice.

    I always ask them, at what age did they choose heterosexuality and what factors lead to their choice. They can not answer that question because they will say that they have always been heterosexual or they were raised by heterosexuals. (Hint, so was I raised by heterosexuals)

    The problem is that they just don't get the point and they think that we are this way just to defy them. They don't understand that this is who we are and this is not a choice. It can't be a choice because who whould choose to be a menber of a discriminated minority which membership until 2003 was illegal.

    Their reasoning is that because they don't like it and that they are not naturally this way, that you are this way by choice and any attraction to persons of your own sex is something wrong within you.

    I believe that this narrow minded acceptance of their standards of behavior and belief that their beliefs are right and should apply to everyone is the very definition of the term biggot. Sorry if the shoe fits, but they are the ones wearing the shoe and trying to kick my ass with thte same shoe and screaming biggot when I oppose their religious teachings being made into law.

    Everyone should read the Iowa Supreme Court Decision in its entirity. A very well written and reasoned decision. Lays to rest most of the challanges against SSM.

  • 81. Carvel  |  April 12, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    America may believe in separation of church and state. However, AMERICANS only believe in separation of YOUR CHURCH from THEIR STATE. Meaning they want their church to be the state church and they take action to make their religious beliefs into law and they oppose your church beliefs being made into law.

    We are not narrow minded. We are just plain bigots. We believe that our rules, standards and practices should be and do apply to everyone and what anybody else things is simply not important.

  • 82. comparable boots to uggs  |  November 10, 2011 at 4:40 am

    strongzz Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!