By Emily Geiger

Chuck Hurley of the Iowa Family Policy Center has been in the news over the last few months bringing attention to the need for an amendment to the Iowa constitution defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Despite the fact that polls show a large majority of Iowans support this move, and despite a recent Register survey of the beliefs of Iowa legislators themselves showing another huge majority (82%) also believe in this definition, the Democratic leadership of the legislature (that means Gronstal) have stonewalled and will not even allow the proposed amendment out of committee for a full vote of the legislature this session.

Why? Well, as Hurley has pointed out in the last few days, the answer seems to be MONEY. Hurley and his group have scoured campaign finance disclosure records and found that Iowa Democrats in the legislature have received over $170,000.00 from out-of-state donors who identify themselves as gay-activists and proponents of gay-marriage.

Given the public’s opposition to gay marriage in this state, the only plausible explanation for Gronstal’s (and his puppet, Murphy’s) staunch opposition to letting this come up for a vote is that he has been influenced by this huge influx of money from gay activists who likely have never even stepped foot in our state. Yet, they have more influence with our legislative leadership than we do. If that doesn’t piss you off, you don’t have a pulse.

And what is Gronstal’s response to this? Classy, as usual:

“With this latest publicity stunt, Mr. Hurley has violated a couple of the Ten Commandments and committed at least one of the seven deadly sins," Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat, said in a statement. "But why should this surprise Iowans? Mr. Hurley's real motivation has always been hate-mongering and raising money from hard-working Iowans to cover his salary."

Um, Mr. Gronstal, do you really want to get into an argument about who is sinning more when you’re supporting conduct the Bible specifically says is deplorable? Exactly which Commandment and sins are you even talking about? Way to go all “ad hominem.” Throwing out argumentative fallacies like that is generally a sign of desperation from someone who can’t defend his own position. (Note: Gronstal never actually addresses why he’s taken so much money from the gay marriage advocates… way to avoid the argument.)

Oh, and you want to talk about who’s salary is paid by the people of Iowa. At least Hurley’s salary is made up of money people voluntarily donate of their own accord. Gronstal, on the other hand, has a state salary that is involuntary taken from the people in the form of taxes, which Gronstal himself has a huge part in creating to burden the people of Iowa. Which is more loathsome and morally reprehensible?

Gronstal, you want to go around calling people “hateful?” Why don’t you start by looking in a mirror. And while you’re there, you can ponder “unethical”, “for sale”, “unaccountable to constituents,” and “whore for the gay lobby.” Take your time. I understand it’s going to take a while…

By Emily Geiger

The opponents of the proposed smoking ban in Iowa act like smoking is some God-given right and that we shouldn’t be treating smokers like second-class citizens.

Get real, people! This is not some civil rights issue. This is state restriction on voluntary behavior. This argument should be very familiar to those conservatives who oppose gay marriage and special rights for homosexuals. They argue that homosexuality is what you do, not who you are. Smoking is also something you do, not who you are.

So if you don’t want gays to go around arguing that they should be a protected class because of their behavior, don’t let smokers do the same thing.

By Emily Geiger

Last night, the Iowa Senate passed a version of the smoking ban. The only problem is that the Senate version of the bill differs from the house version in one huge way. Unlike the House version, the Senate version does NOT exclude casinos.

I think the senate has done the right thing. If this is really about public health, which it should be, the health of casino workers should not be quantified and deemed less valuable than the possible (though yet unproven) losses in state gambling revenues which may or may not occur.

The other interesting wrinkle in this story is that the Senate version of the bill, unlike the House’s version, also fails to provide an exemption to allow smoking at the Iowa Veteran’s Home in Marshalltown.

The Register quotes Sen. Larry McKibben (R – Marshalltown) as saying, “I would say shame on the Democrats for doing this to the veterans of Iowa. Frankly, I hope we don't have a whole bunch of wheelchairs barricading doors for what we've done here tonight."

Ok, so this is going to make me really unpopular with some people, but I have to say it. What the hell kind of quote is that from McKibben??? Shame on us for what we’re doing to the veterans? Yeah, it’s really awful that we’re helping them live longer, healthier lives. What are we thinking? Here’s a thought to keep in mind: because of their honorable service to our country, the taxpayers have agreed to pay for veterans’ healthcare. Is it really too much to ask that they cut back on something that has been proven to send an individual’s health care costs through the roof? I don’t think so.

And now for the really interesting wrinkle: unlike the first time the casino amendment was examined in the House, it’s looking like the House members are actually going to have to vote on the record (and therefore, be subject to public scrutiny) on the proposed ban’s applicability to casinos. Remember those 24+ casino lobbyists we talked about before? It’s going to be very interesting to watch Rants squirm as he tries to keep his caucus from defecting and voting against the casinos here. We might just get the chance to openly see how far up the casino-interest’s posterior Rants has crammed himself.

Of course, that’s only if Rants is actually honest with us, which he rarely is. My guess is that Rants will use the Veterans’ Home issue as a front for why he (and whichever other Reps are also firmly embedded in the casino-interest’s colon) will vote against the bill. Don’t kid yourselves… Rants doesn’t really care about veterans’ rights. What he does care about are the big, fat campaign checks he might miss out on from big tobacco and gaming proponents.

Yesterday the Iowa Senate passed the statewide smoking ban but included casinos in the ban. The bill now heads back to the house with the changes and it will be interesting to see what happens with the casinos.

Last week House Minority Leader Chris Rants said that he voted against the bill because of the special exemption in the bill for the casinos. No it looks like he is going to have to support the senate version or come up with another reason to vote against it.

I think it’s a little sad when Sen. Bill Dotzler, a Democrat, defends the small business owner better than Rants did when the bill was in the House.

Senator Bill Dotzler, a Democrat from Waterloo whose mother owns a tavern, argued Iowa bar owners should be able to designate their bars as smoking zones if they keep people under the age of 21 out. "The last time I checked smoking was legal in the United States of America and legal here in Iowa," Dotzler said. "...So ladies and gentlemen if you don't want to discriminate (against) about 18 to 20 percent of the Iowa population and treat 'em like a second class citizen, then at least give 'em a place where they can go socialize."

Dotzler argued Iowa smokers deserved some sort of accommodation, like his suggestion to let bar owners declare their establishments open for smoking. "I believe that this is fundamental to what our countries about," Dotzler said. "And I'm not asking much. I'm just asking that they can have a place to go and people that don't like it don't have to go there."

There are a few Republicans who actually understand the issue.

Senator David Hartsuch, a Republican from Bettendorf, warned the bill would open a Pandora's Box. "If this bill passes, you will see wave upon wave of new litigation going not against tobacco companies but against private owners of property -- apartment owners...bar owners or any other public place," Hartsuch said.