Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal spoke eloquently today when he refused to co-sponsor legislation that would repeal Iowa’s newly decided marriage equality bill.

Minority leader Paul McKinley who offered the new legislation to ban gay marriage accused Gronstal of “pure obstruction,” while former state legislator Chuck Hurley, who is now president of the Iowa Family Policy Center had this to say:

“He is denying 2.1 million Iowans of voting age of the right to vote on an issue of great importance to 550,000 schoolchildren … Mike Gronstal needs to humble himself and listen to the people.”

Sorry, a little bit behind on the news today… A new job will do that to you.

Republican Vermont governor James Douglas has vetoed the gay marriage bill that recently passed both legislative houses. From his office…

“This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents. Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied , federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont. And states that do not recognize same sex marriage or civil unions will also deny state rights and responsibilities to same sex couples married in Vermont. This bill will not change that fact.

Vermont’s civil union law has afforded the same state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same sex couples. Our civil union law serves Vermont well and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same sex unions. But I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.”

From WCAX in Vermont…

The Senate is expected to override the veto tomorrow morning. It is unclear what the House will do, and is currently shy the two thirds majority required to override the veto. The 11 Democrats who originally voted against the bill now support it, unhappy that the governor announced his intent to veto the bill before they had passed it.

Over at Gay Patriot, a conservative blog that I, unfortunately,  sometimes frequent, the following was featured in a post that I took some offense too…

Here’s why–gay advocates want to undermine the traditional understanding of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship and change it to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They are not trying to be included in the tradition–they are trying to warp the tradition because they believe they are victimized by a cruel patriarchy who uses marriage as a tool of oppression. Attempting to justify their inclusion in an established tradition would be contrary to their desire to destroy that tradition. It’s that simple. Now you know why.

The idea that my marriage to my partner  was out of a desire to destroy traditional marriage forced me to respond…

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. In the wake of marital bliss since the passage of Prop 8 I had forgotten the true motivation behind our marriage: to cheapen, denigrate and ultimately destroy the institution as revenge for years upon years of oppression. And that it had nothing to do with being head-over-heels in love with my partner with whom I’ve enjoyed a faithful 9-year relationship.

I’m sure that the 16 thousand same-sex couples who were married in California last year were similarly motivated, their desire to “warp” the institution of marriage central to their vows of matrimony.

While I encourage and welcome open discourse, featuring Asphenaz’s comment so prominently here, giving it an air of credibility, speaks volumes. And the labeling of those of who dissent as fascist seems de riguer for this site.

Please, don’t generalize and paint with broad strokes my reasons for supporting gay marriage, as I will not generalize that most visitors here are self-hating homosexuals, bent over and enjoying a reach-around by the social conservatives who drive the agenda for their party/movement.

What do you think? Is the gay community’s desire for inclusion in the institution of marriage a want to redefine it  to allow open relationhips with multiple partners? Doesn’t that happen in the straight community as well, and by that argument aren’t they redefining it already?

This of course is just a small smattering…

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action

“Here we go again. While citing the specter of ‘equal protection,’ the Iowa Supreme Court today has unanimously joined a leftist gaggle of ideologically driven judges in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, creating, from thin air, a phantom ‘right’ to the ridiculous, oxymoronic and postmodern ‘gay’ marriage counterfeit… The U.S. Supreme Court long ago rejected the untenable notion that ‘equal protection’ requires two biologically incompatible persons to be permitted to ‘marry.’ Marriage, of course, by its very spiritual, historical and biological nature, requires binary compatibility. It is no more discriminatory to disallow two men from marrying each other, than it is to prohibit a man from marrying his house plant.”

Douglas Napier, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund

“The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled and overwhelmingly supported by Iowans … There was simply no legitimate reason for the court to redefine marriage.”

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said the ruling took his breath away.

“The justices brazenly asserted that their role was not only to redefine marriage, but also to legislate whatever new social agenda they favored, ‘free from the influences’ of a society resistant to such change,” he said. “Such an admission is breathtaking in its arrogance and scope.”

Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action

“We need to remember that the marriage-amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement,” he said. “We urge Iowans to contact their legislators and urge them to move quickly to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage … We hope the Legislature will heed the powerful swell of statewide support for an amendment and reclaim from the High Court its rightful place as the state’s policy-making body.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America

“Marriage is a civilizing institution that brings a man and a woman – two fundamentally different yet complementary people – together in an unparalleled bond that provides children with the benefits of the two sexes, male and female. The Iowa justices in reality regress in their attempt to impose ‘progress’ by destroying the concept of marriage in a naked, self-serving power grab. Claiming that they have a ‘keen and respectful’ understanding of the Constitution doesn’t make it so, anymore than claiming marriage can be complete without one or the other sex.”

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

“If this ruling is permitted to stand without challenge, it will result in the persecution of Christians and anyone else who criticizes homosexual conduct. This ruling will mean that schools will be forced to teach that homosexual marriage is normal – and parents who object will face ridicule and possible criminal penalties against them. This ruling will be used to force pastors to conduct same-sex ceremonies or face penalties.”

Chuck Hurley, Iowa Family Policy Center

Pardon me while I hunt down my extremely small violin.