| March 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
Wednesday, March 16
Odds 'n' Ends
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 16 Mar 2005 01:16 PM CST
 Odds 'n' Ends
There's so much stuff I wanted to write about that I couldn't really sort things out. So, here we go with "Odds 'n' Ends".
[Insert a FoxNews-style "Whoosh" Here.]
Yesterday in D.C., a "Sense of the Senate" amendment was added to a general Senate budget resolution. The purpose statement read as follows:
To
express the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social
Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in
debt.
"Sense
of the Senate" amendments are usually political freebies - they don't
really force anyone into uncomfortable positions and allow for a good
measure of pandering. One might think that this would be a
no-brainer, passing 100-0, saving arguments over "deep benefit cuts"
and "massive increase in debt" for another day.
Guess what? This amendment was defeated.
The roll call vote is here. Evidently, our own Chuck Grassley voted in favor of "deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt."
The Iowa
House Republicans show off their priorities again. Rather than
take up and debate important things that we call "the budget" - it was grandstanding time yesterday.
"We
didn't bring this fight on," said Michael Hartwig, vice president of
Marriage Matters of Iowa. "We feel like the institution of marriage is
being attacked through the judicial body."
No
matter where you fall on this issue, I can tell you that the failure of
this Legislature to take up serious legislation on the methamphetamine
epidemic in Iowa is a direct and real threat to both families and
marriages, not to mention the economic prospects of the next generation.
Instead, the House GOP just wastes everyone's time with this all-too-typical nonsense by using a full day to discuss this "important" issue.
In the
"places to visit" category, there is a rather active little community
posting on politics and other topics at a website called Iowa Underground. I've already pulled a few interesting items from various posters - you might enjoy it, too.
A
final requiem: I have been running a site for a little over
a year called the "Iowa Populist". My posting for Blog for Iowa
and the inevitable "real work" contributed to my not updating the blog
for some time. I took down the website and cancelled the hosting
service last week as my contract with a provider ended.
Thanks to all who read and commented there in the past - I hope you'll continue to read and comment here on "Blog for Iowa".
Friday, March 4
Gay Marriage Ban Moves Forward in Iowa
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 04 Mar 2005 06:38 PM CST
 Gay Marriage Ban Moves Forward in Iowa
The Advocate
An Iowa
house committee has approved a proposed amendment to the Iowa
constitution banning same-sex marriage. Critics said state law already
bans same-sex marriage and saw the proposed constitutional amendment as
political grandstanding. Supporters said they are worried about
"activist judges" who could potentially strike down the law.
"If you
follow the news at all, it's not unusual for courts to rule those laws
unconstitutional," Republican representative Danny Carroll, the main
supporter of the measure, said Thursday. "The institution of marriage
is serious."
[Is
it just me, or is the world turned upside down? If a court might
rule an anti-gay marriage law unconstitutional because it violates our
rights, let's just change the constitution so we don't have any rights
to begin with. Problem solved!]
The
house judiciary committee approved the proposed amendment 13-6,
clearing the way for debate in the full house. Republican leaders said
they have the votes to approve the measure in the house, but its future
in the current legislature is cloudy. The senate is tied at 25-25, and
a similar proposed amendment was rejected last year when Republicans
held firm control of the chamber. Republicans tend to favor the ban on
gay marriage in greater numbers than Democrats.
[Yeah,
Republicans are good at getting their knickers in a twist and avoiding
ACTUAL problems. Distract the constituents with hot-button issues
so they won't notice the state has fallen into the toilet.]
Democratic
representative Vicki Lensing said she was worried the proposed
constitutional amendment would overturn decisions by some local
governments to recognize domestic-partnership arrangements for issues
such as health care. "I don't want to undermine that," Lensing said.
The outcome of the debate won't be clear for years, regardless of the
outcome of this year's debate.
A
proposed constitutional amendment would have to be approved during the
current two-year general assembly, and an identical measure would have
to be approved by the legislature elected next year. If the proposal
wins that approval, it would then go on the ballot during the general
election of 2008, timing that has heavy political overtones because
that's a presidential election year.
(Click here to read the complete article.)
|
|
