Homosexual Marriage in Iowa

Earlier last month seven Iowa supreme courts justices decided that marriage in Iowa should include same-sex, or homosexual couples, overturning the existing law which said it was between one man and one women. Last week the governor took that court opinion and effectively executed it into law, and there are no restrictions other than what was already available for one man and one woman. So same-sex people can get married here or come in from out of state to get married here. If they come from out of state they may not have their marriage observed in their own state under the Federal DOMA act and the states existing laws (30 have marriage amendments and 12 or so others have DOMA laws still in place). As a US citizen here in Iowa, there are several problems I have with this:

1. As an American Christian*, or one with a dual citizenship in Heaven and in the US, I see the most obvious problem here, the problem with legalizing something that God has called sin or immoral (for more info, see "Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective").

*(If you aren't a Christian I hope you learn more about how and why, and make a decision, click here or contact me, or see Why I am a Christian. Also, if you don't believe in the Bible and it's moral absolutes, I can understand how you can not see the Bible as authoritative. How can it be absolutely true? I plan to blog on this more for you soon but here is a links for your own study: Is the Bible Really True? If you have any questions or want to discuss this more please contact me. )

The courts are operating as a secular institution, and they don't have any moral framework other than their own interpretation of the existing constitution. They are interpreting the state Constitution obviously in light of the existing cultural mandates against discrimination and including sexuality in that. Not sure how they are using case law, but I wouldn't doubt that this is part of the reason for their view of right and wrong. They do not see themselves under the rule of the Creator and have fear of Him. If they did fear God they would want to make sure that God's morality was maintained and instituted. This is what traditional morality is about. They choose to be effectively atheistic or agnostic, and independent of faith. However this was not the situation with the courts traditionally. Coral Ridge Ministries published "10 Truths About Americas Christian Heritage" which shares how the move of the courts to the secular, was recent. "The Supreme Court declared we were a Christian people in 1892 and 1933.". By the way, the US Founding Fathers were mostly Christian, and wanted Christian principles to rule: "Historians have noted that “the Bible, perhaps even more than the Constitution, is our founding document” and the most cited source in Founding eradocuments.". Also "“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people” President John Adams voiced this view of the Founders, further stating, “ It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”" Here is an additional source on the Founding Fathers heritage and Christian views: Constitutional lawyer, and conservative radio host, Mark Levin speaks at the FRC. He sites how the idea of being under God, whom our life and liberty come from, is and was central to our countries foundation and preservation.

Also the court's ruling said they don't choose between religions, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't operate according to a Judeo-Christian moral view. They claimed that there is disagreement within the Christian church, so they used no religious arguments in their decision. It's true there are liberal Christian churches that endorse homosexuality as not being immoral, however, they do not interpret the Bible in the way that is consistent with how it was written, but in another way, as a revisionist and liberally in light of the current culture (with such a bias).

If we are created, then we are accountable to God (see May 3rd, Sermon from my church). If the government, or state, doesn't submit to God, then it will either abdicate its role and allow a moral void that will contribute the fall of our society with no absolute morality, or take the place of him and institute there own corrupt morality. This is a view held by the founders and is backed by the Bible. The whole point of government, according to the Apostle Peter, was to simply keep the maintain moral social order to separate right from wrong (see my blog post on Church and State - for Christians). Also if you don't believe you are created, then I encourage you to check out this: Case for a Creator and consider Intelligent Design with Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

2. The IA Governor simply agreed with the court and chose to implement the court's opinion, which is not how things are to work. The legislative branch passes laws and the courts interpret the laws according to the Constitution. Because of the separation of powers, the courts don't rule over the others. The Governor should wait on implementing anything until the legislative branch can come up with new laws and also let the people vote on a marriage amendment (as there is such interest to protect the definition of marriage, as in 30 other states they have in defining marriage between a man and a woman). By the way, I understand the governor claims to be for traditional marriage like President Obama is, and promised to uphold it in 2008: “We’ll do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman,”. Instead the governor refused to use his rights and responsibilities to the people, to hold implementing same-sex marriage acts until the legislative branch and/or people have a say. Also BTW, Mike Huckabee on his Sunday Huckabee show, said he contacted several top notch constitutional lawyer, in every case they said you don't just have do something because a court made a ruling, you still have the right and responsibility to always make sure the people and their elected representatives are in agreement with it. See this link to his show to the video from the show with Bob Vander Plaats, who is very involved and may run for IA Governor next year.

3. A side note, the Democratically dominated IA congress has blocked the peoples' call for the marriage amendment to come to the house floor recently, so the governor needs to be voted out of office next year to get the executive order to stay same-sex marriage soon. I would support Bob Vander Plaats for Governor to defeat the incumbent, Chet Culver-D, as Bob would execute such an executive stay. The soonest the marriage amendment can be brought up (according to the state Constitution) would be after two sessions where it was voted on in the congress (that equals two years from next year, or 2012). A Constitutional Congress can be enacted in 2010 as well but it's dangerous with a Democratic congress, considering what they might want to put in it, and I don't know how the process works.

4. The legislative branch can impeach judges and the Governor. I would support this, but don't expect it, yet still have asked for it from my representative. I found out about that from Alan Keyes who noted this in his Loyal To Liberty blog.

5. The court decision is not good according to this blogger. I'm no law expert but it makes sense, the courts decision injected sexuality, feelings, and emotions into the marriage contract which originally didn't originally exist, so they are out of bounds. What is the intent of the marriage contract? To allow people to be legally bound, observed by the state, which has nothing to do with sex in marriage.

6. What is marriage? It's something God instituted for man between man and woman. The courts can't redefine this in the Bible or the Bible believing church. They aren't imposing their views on the church now in IA, but they do muddy the waters with a secular / state understanding of marriage. This will lead to the public educational system teaching the moral relativism that comes from such a ruling. Teaching children that homosexuality is as valid and as moral as heterosexuality. This has been done without and despite parental consent in MA to even children in kindergarten (see this documented case).

7. What does it matter otherwise? It does matter as it affects other case law, and opens the door for legal battles in other states and on the federal level. On a personal note, I got married in Iowa but didn't mind much that Iowa was involved, I would not have cared but I can get marriage benefits on my taxes and they want to know for some reason. The benefits I have would extend to others and thus potential lower the benefits in the future to one man and one women married people.

By the way, some consider divorce more of a threat to marriage than this, like Rick Warren, and perhaps they are right, however, the moral issue here will not go away, and people must speak out against wrong morality with their voices and votes (as they have in 30 other states with constitutional Marriage Amendments).

Federally Funded Embryonic Destruction

Obama issued an executive order to lift the ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research. What is embryonic stem cell research being funded? This is very clearly the type that destroys what can be called human life. See a except here from a medical article (that I don't agree with but it provides the information we need):

"Those opposed to research on human embryonic stem cells say ethics guidelines won't make up for the fact that the research is destroying human life."

"Critics of embryonic stem cells for research say other types of stem cells -- derived from umbilical cord blood, adult skin cells, or other sources -- can produce the same result without destroying a potential human life.

They point to recent advances made with induced pluripotent stem cells as proof that embryos don't need to be destroyed to further research.

Last week, several groups of scientists reported developing human stem cells from adult skin without the risk of disease associated with viral vectors used in the transformation. (See: Stem Cell Research Takes Another Step Forward and Two Teams 'PiggyBAC' Stem Cell Research)

But despite the new advances, embryonic stem cells are the purest and earliest form of a stem cell, and the "gold standard," said Valina Dawson, Ph.D., co-director of the neuroregeneration program in the Institute for Cell Engineering at Johns Hopkins.

"Theoretically, it's like Play-Doh and you can make whatever you want," said Dr. Dawson.

Douglas Melton, Ph.D., co-director of HSCI -- a leader in developing induced pluripotent stem cells from adult cells -- announced plans to seek federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as soon as the Bush order is lifted. "

This scientist consider embryos, the "gold standard" for this research, and now embryos can be destroyed, and even created to be destroyed, for medical research with federal funds.

Do you know that the government has allocated over 1% of the 2009 economic stimulus bill that can fund this type of research! "The recently-passed economic stimulus bill contained $10 billion for the NIH. Comstock Rick explained that $8.5 billion could potentially go toward embryonic stem cell research." Now isn't $8.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and this is economic stimulus, to me it's not ethical, moral, and a deplorable use of our funds (even a dollar would be deplorable but the scale is huge)! This is a huge jump in money, for example, in 2005, only $39 million has been funded by the government (NIH) for Human Embryonic Stem Cell research. That figure is no doubt bigger. The states, have been putting money into it, however. California put $3 billion over 10 years of it's own state money into embryonic research in a bill in 2007, (that $300 million per year). Note: This is from this Wikipedia article.

This research will expect and lead to new lines (getting new embryos to experiment with). How are these lines created?

While the old lines, that President Bush allowed were from lines that were already destroyed, but restricted even taking "spare fertility clinic embryos". Obama allows anything, including "spare fertility clinic embryos" and "left open the creation of cloned -- and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived -- human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts. ". See this article by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post, for more information on the terrible potential for ethical problems Obama created. It ends with this great quote: "Dr. James Thomson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cells, said "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama clearly has not. "

Obama clearly is giving science all the say in the moral questions and undoing what President Bush did, to protect human life. The science industries are not interested in moral questions but focused on the advancement of the science clearly (and are for profit mind you). This is against the "Do No Harm" creed of the medical community. The president, in the executive branch, is to provide protections to humans as the founding documents say. The government is by the people and for the people, and we have protection of our God given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While I tend to disagreement on the lack of discernment in the medical article and the lack of convictions on the person-hood of the embryo of the articles I mentioned, this is even universally accepted by the medical community.

Check this out "TRUTH #1 - It Is a Proven Fact: Life Begins at Conception" (from Coral Ridge - Dr. D James Kennedy's church):

"Sixty prominent physicians made that point with great clarity when they issued a declaration in defense of the unborn in the 1980s. The group included Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and co-founder of NARAL, a powerful pro-abortion organization; two past presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; and the former president of the American Academy of Neurology"

"Thirty years later , we know better. Attributing humanity to the unborn can no longer be brushed off as “mystical notions of religious dogma.” To the contrary, it is a widely accepted scientific fact. After reviewing mounds of evidence, one U.S. Senate committee declared:

physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception … marks the beginning of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. The facts are incontrovertible; the unborn child in the womb is a human child. "

In the embryo "The baby’s DNA (a complete genetic blueprint) is established. This determines the baby’s gender, hair color, eye color, skin tone, height, and more.". Given 18 days, the heart begins to beat... 19, the baby's eyes begin to develop, 4 weeks, arms and legs begin to develop, and so on (see this link for more info.)

There is no need for destruction and/or creation for destruction of human life for this type of research if we have alternatives (like using the umbilical cord, or adult skin cells). We have indeed entered into the dark more so, in this federal government's history that doesn't value the child in the womb. The states can still outlaw it (like OK), and I hope they all do but some are not and have moved in the other direction (CA, MO, and MI).

The President Politicizes Stem-cell Research

President Barack Obama issued an executive order that authorizes expanded federal funding for research using stem cells produced by destroying human embryos. The announcement was classic Obama: advancing radical policies while seeming calm and moderate, and preaching the gospel of civility while accusing those who disagree. . .

read more | digg story