Switch to our mobile site

Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

Bill makes Iowa marriage law gender neutral

By Jason Hancock | 03.09.09 | 5:28 pm

Radio Iowa’s O. Kay Henderson has the scoop on a bill proposed by Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, that would remove the words “husband” and “wife” from Iowa laws and replace them with the word “spouse.”

The point of the legislation would be to properly respond should the Iowa Supreme Court rule that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. If that is the case, same-sex marriage would be legal in Iowa and the language in laws would have to reflect that.

According to Henderson’s blog:

I just interviewed McCoy at the statehouse, and he concluded with this statement:  “I think it’s a good bill and it’s something that shouldn’t be controversial. We should just be thinking about how this is all going to work once Iowa becomes a Mecca for gay marriage.”

I immediately asked a follow-up question: “Will Iowa become a Mecca for gay marriage?”

“Well, that’s what [Iowa Family Policy Center President] Chuck Hurley says,” McCoy replied, adding. “I think it’d be good for the economy.”

McCoy, who is the Iowa General Assembly’s only openly gay Senator, introduced the bill last week.

Follow Jason Hancock on Twitter


Comments

  • Peggy2

    Is Matt McCoy denying that every time same-sex 'marriage' is legalized anywhere, the militant gay lobby drops whatever they're doing to get there and get hitched?

    McCoy and anybody else who is PUSHING same sex marriage and other special rights for persons with SSA is wrong. Counter them with science and statistical facts and they dissolve into a heap, offering only derrogatory names in return.

    • mattachine

      What is “SSA”? Social Security Administration?

    • slincoln

      So, could we possibly harness the power of this “militant gay lobby” to help fight terrorists in Afghanistan?

      And no, this isn't “pushing”. The only thing that's been pushed is decades and decades of religion into the political sphere. Civil marriage was a “civil contract between two person” before anti-gay activists changed the definition of legal marriage in Iowa in 1998.

      I'm also curious what your “science and statistical facts” are?

  • GOPer

    Preach on, Peggy2.

  • earlyturd

    Preach is the right word. No science and statistical facts coming from her.

    • Peggy2

      Buy a book, earlyturd (nice moniker). There are oodles of studies out there to debunk the usual gay myths. There is no gay gene and there never will be.

      • GOPer

        Now I can't' back you up on that one, Ms. Peggy2.

        • Peggy2

          Why not?

          • slincoln

            Because the things you claim dont exist.

          • Peggy2

            Can you be more specific?

          • slincoln

            Your “oodles of studies”.
            If you are referring to studies done by scientists who have their results published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals, then I'm not sure that they even exist. Actual peer-reviewed literature, along with virtually every major medical, psychological, and sociological organization, are all quite clear on this matter.

          • Peggy2

            Here's just one study that might be of interest:

            “Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals” was published by Irving Bieber and associates in 1963. This book compared the treatment of 106 homosexual men with 100 non-homosexual men. According to the study, “29 patients had become exclusively heterosexual during the course of psychoanalytic treatment.”

            In his book, “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis,” Ronald Bayer, who, remember, is a supporter of the gay agenda, said that many other therapists, using a variety of methods, also reported successful outcomes.

            We've all heard a person with SSA say, “Why would I CHOOSE to be this way?” If that sentiment is sincere, why would one reject outright the possibility of treatment for SSA?

          • slincoln

            Well, as a scientist, no thats not of interest. If I tried to do a literature review on an evolving topic and turned in a paper from 1963, I'd fail the report.
            Many of these studies/reports from the 1960s and 1970s have been discredited, as they considered sexual orientation to mean behavior. It is now understood that behavior is just a manifestation of an innate, unchangeable orientation that develops in very early childhood or before birth. Your “treatment” of “SSA” is rejected, because it's not backed up by real science, and it causes more harm than good.

            I know several “ex-gay” survivors, and have heard first hand about these “therapy” programs. They are ignorant and harmful. These people are still trying to pull their life back together after the inhumane brainwashing that was forced upon them by people such as yourself.

          • Peggy2

            “What's “not of interest”? A valid study?

            Unchangeable behavior is an oxymoron.

          • slincoln

            It may have been valid in 1963. It's usefulness is low, at best, since it is now 2009. Again, most of the studies from that time period have been discredited.
            In regards to your “behavior” comment, please re-read my statement. It appears that you misunderstood. Sexual behaviors are manifestations of sexual orientation – but they are not the same thing according to science.

          • Peggy2

            For a scientific study to be discredited, someone would have to prove a negative, right?

            Can you point me to studies which have discredited any of the studies I mentioned?

            And here's an Iowan's story that might be of interest to you:
            http://www.dmcityview.com/archives/june/06-16-0…

          • Nola225

            Why are any of your studies relevant? Who's been arguing that homosexuality is genetic? Should it really matter? Why should legislation exist limiting an expression of love? Your REAL problem is that you don't believe two people of the same sex are capable of love.

            So let me disclose: I am a man who has had relationships with men and women, I know what it's like to be in love, and right now I am in love with my boyfriend. I would never claim that my sexuality is purely genetic. Nor would I ever say “Why would I choose to be this way?” because saying that is an insult to my boyfriend and our relationship. I may very well have chosen to be gay, but if it's what got me where I am now, than I am eternally thankful!

          • Peggy2

            Who is “limiting [your] expression of love”? And how?

            To the contrary, I DO believe two people of the same sex are capable of love. After all, I love my mother and my daughters!

            Your entire post is nothing less than political posturing.

          • Nola225

            Umm… who is limiting my expression of love? Is this a serious question? The STATE is limiting my expression of love by denying the ULTIMATE expression of love which is MARRIAGE!!

            Also, forgive me for being unclear, but when I was speaking of love in the previous post, I was speaking of ROMANTIC love, not parental, brotherly, sisterly, godfatherly, grandmotherly or any other sort of love. I should have said you don't believe that two people of the same sex are capable of ROMANTIC love, yet here I am to prove you wrong and you accuse me of political posturing.

            Your posts do nothing but beat around the bush on an issue that is important to thousands of people. Can you not understand the desire to get married? You say you have a daughter, can I assume you have a husband? What do you find so offensive about my own desire to have a husband? How does that impact your marriage at all?

            Political posturing? My love and my life is not a political posture, and that's the key difference. Because while to me marriage is a question of living my life to the fullest, to you it is nothing but a question of politics.

          • Peggy2

            You don't have a right to redefine marriage, which is a union between one man and one woman.

            If you can redefine marriage to suit your situation, based solely on love, everyone else would have to be granted the same non-existent 'right' also.

            Will bisexuals be allowed to marry both a male and female?

            Do you think the state should be in the business of endorsing behaviors that present a danger to one's physical health? How can we sanction smoking and enforce seatbelt laws while holding homosexual acts in esteem?

          • Nola225

            You know, your post reminds me of something i've heard before… “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

            That's from the trial judge of the interracial marriage case of Loving v. Virginia. He was arguing that the bible was right about race. Do you agree with that? If not, how do you justify your anti-gay marriage views? That when God created separate races he didn't really mean it, but when he created separate genders he TOTALLY meant it? Come on.

            Also, clearly your post represents a clear misunderstanding of what it means to be bisexual. It doesn't mean you want a man and the woman at the SAME TIME! It simply means you're attracted to both genders. Marriage is all about monogamy. I believe in that. AND I WANT A MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP STATE SANCTIONED AND BASED IN LOVE! Are you going to argue that love shouldn't be a factor in marriages? Are you thus implicitly implying that you think marriages should be made IRREGARDLESS of both gender and love?

            What does marriage even mean to you? Is it just about gender? Do you have any idea how many people have been in destructive terrible marriages because their spouse turned out to be gay? How sad! I wouldn't wish that on anybody!

          • Peggy2

            There still is no evidence of a 'gay gene' so I don't know how you can claim persons with SSA are “born that way,”

            Now, did you CHOOSE your orientation? Probably not.

            You can't equate a behavior with an inherent genetic trait such as race.

            You are aware that the radical gay agenda has long been advocating for the definition of marriage to include numerous conjugal partners, aren't you?

            If the state can redefine marriage for you, they would be hypocritical not to do it for others. Let the people vote!

  • elzhend

    What Peggy and so many others do not understand is this is not to give “special rights” to anyone but to allow ALL Iowans to have the same rights. Currently we are discriminating against the GLBT community. My marriage is in no way made better or worse by allowing others to marry. It is time we offer equal rights to all. Discrimination against anyone does nothing to protect my marriage.

    • Peggy2

      Persons with SSA are just as free to marry as any other qualified adult in this country! What are you talking about?

      • earlyturd

        No, they're not. Sh…..

        • Peggy2

          Yes they are.

          • slincoln

            So are black people. Why would they want to marry white people? Gosh, stupid special rights! </ignorant sarcasm>

      • mattachine

        What is SSA; Social Security Administration?

    • slincoln

      So far the only “special rights” are those afforded to heterosexual christians. It seems as if their interpretation of christian doctrine gets to overtake the liberty guarantees of our founding principles and our constitution.

  • earlyturd

    My moniker is what comes from bugmenot, so don't blame me.

    Also, has the entire human genome been mapped? No? Ok, thanks.

  • boarderthom

    Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.
    Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.
    Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, “That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all.”
    Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.
    Stop gay apartheid.

    • Peggy2

      You're not seriously comparing blacks to homosexuals, are you?

      There is no 'gay gene' – but that doesn't also mean that persons with Same-Sex Attraction “choose” their condition.

      There are many factors that enter into the equation but it's also been proven that therapy has proven successful among persons with SSA.

      • slincoln

        “Therapy” is not supported by any major medical, psychological, or sociological organization in the United States. In fact, most scientists believe that this is actually physically and emotionally destructive. This is why many such “therapeutic” facilities have lost their ability to dispense medicine. You will just not find much evidence to back up your claims in any of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature.

        • Peggy2

          In the early 70's, therapists treating homosexuality as a disorder – with significant success, I might add – became the target of the militant gay lobby.

          As author and supporter of the gay agenda, Ronald Bayer, put it, the status of homosexuality ceased to be a psychiatric problem and became “a political question” requiring “a political analysis.”

          Bayer himself revealed how gay activists pressured the American Psychiatric Assoc. to remove homosexuality as a diagnosis from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) – THE handbook for mental health professionals.

          In 1970 and 1971, gay activists protested noisily and disrupted the APA's annual meetings, shouting down speakers and accusing therapists of oppressing them.

          Therapists successful in treating persons with SSA held their ground and provided legitimate studies to back up their claims; one psychiatrist argued that the declassification of homosexuality was NOT COMPASSIONATE but would create “MORE DESPAIR THAN HOPE.”

          Nevertheless, in 1973 the APA caved to the pressure and removed homosexuality from its DSM.

          Persons with SSA have been sold out by the militant gay lobby which offers no hope, no way out . It's sad.

          • slincoln

            “Persons with SSA have been sold out by the militant gay lobby which offers no hope, no way out.”

            No “way out” is required.
            As you might have noted, you talked about anecdotes from the 1970s. This is now 2009. Please cite some recent scientific studies. “Cite” means provide links to the sources of your claims. As you may have noted, 30 years has passed, and the APA has maintained their position.

          • Peggy2

            Your language is indicative of your dishonesty.

            I did not “rant”, nor did I provide “anecdotes.”

            Here's the name of the aforementioned study once again: “Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals,” published by Irving Bieber and associates in 1963.

            The date of the study, unless science subsequently DISPROVES the results (which it hasn't), is irrelevant.

          • slincoln

            Well you can chose to believe what you want regarding my honesty. That says more about you and what you want to believe than it does about me.

            More recent scientific studies have occurred. If they had not, your 1963 study might have had more validity.

          • Peggy2

            More scientific studies have occurred. Yes, but they seem to be automaticall discounted just because the APA removed homosexuality from its DSM. Political correctness trumps science.

            Would you like to discuss the studies of Simon Levay (1991) or Dean Hamer (1993), both self-identified gay men whose findings have been debunked?

            I hear their studies are favorites of those who claim there is a 'gay gene.'

  • slincoln

    Go Senator McCoy, Go!

    Marriage Equity is on it's way to Iowa!

  • slincoln

    McCoy statement about the economy reminds me of the economic studies that were done in at attempt to quantify the increased revenues from marriage equity. If I remember correctly, the numbers were in the 10s of millions for a state that has equal civil marriage but is touched by several states with restricted civil marriage.

    • Peggy2

      Since less than two percent of the U.S. population identifies as homosexual, I don't see how legalizing same-sex marriage could be a boon to any economy, especially if every state in the Union is doing it.

      The gay lobby is notorious for fudging the numbers and making up 'facts' – I wouldn't expect the economic impact study to be any different.

      • slincoln

        Marriages cost money, Peggy. And spending money creates tax revenue. And the actual number of gays/lesbians/bisexuals is closer to the 3-5% range, based on the latest scientific estimates.

        The study you rant about was not conducted by any agency known as “the gay lobby”. It was actually conducted by a an economic organization. Conspiracy theories are not evidence.

        • Peggy2

          Can you please cite your source for that 3-5% statistic?

          • slincoln

            As with any somewhat subject scientific statistic, the best estimate likely tends to be an average of the available data and surveys. Surveys that ask respondents about their sexual attraction range from 5-10%, which includes the controversial Kinsey studies. Then there are the studies that ask about sexual behavior, which seem to be in the 1-5% range, which include The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior and The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States. Since sexual orientation exists regardless of the behavior, figures on attraction should generally be used. Many of the studies in this area have been shown to have controversial samples, and therefor in many places you'll find the upper range of the behavior studies cited.
            One might also suggest that you visit your local library's psychology or sociology section for more information on such statistics.

          • Peggy2

            “The controversial Kinsey studies” have long since been discredited AND they were done in 1949, so they couldn't possibly be valid. Right?

Categories & Tags: Blog| Civil Rights| | | | | |

Switch to our mobile site