Written by Randi Shannon, Iowa Senate Candidate District 34
Recently a survey of several Gazette questions came out to all the candidates running for Iowa House and Senate seats. As you may know I’m running for State Senate in District 34. I spent a lot of time answering them for the Gazette and even more so for the voters. I noticed that my opponent, democrat Liz Mathis, did not answer the survey, even though the Gazette endorsed her last fall for having excellent communication skills. The Gazette has said nothing about Liz Mathis’ failure to communicate, which must sting the Gazette considerably.
One of the 3 part questions was "Should voters be allowed to decide whether to amend the State Constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman? Do you support the April 2009 Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage or do you oppose such unions? Should the Legislature impeach the four remaining justices who supported that unanimous decision? In response to the questions, I decided to help educate the voters on just how marriage licenses came to be. I think it's rather fascinating and it's a part of history that no one talks about.
After the civil war, the white southerners wanted to prevent mixed-race marriages, so they passed local laws requiring a license for all black people to get married, but of course licenses for mixed-raced marriages were never granted. Within a short time, it became illegal for the clergy to marry blacks without a license.
The license required a fee of course, and this worked so well that it wasn’t long before the licensing requirement was extended to everyone. The politicians realized that it was a wonderful source of revenue.
Within a few decades, corrupt governments all over the world were requiring people to get marriage licenses. Now, more than a century after marriage licenses were conceived, the clergy, who fear the government more than they fear God, refuses to marry anyone without a license. I personally believe that marriage should not be a source of revenue for government.
Please note, that God gave us the right to be married and it is an unalienable right of the likes of which is mentioned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. (Unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.)
Iowans should be granted the opportunity to vote on this issue! They should be given the facts and then the opportunity to have their say. As I’ve clearly shown here, marriage licenses are a government overreach born out of the love of money, which is the root of all kinds of evil.
What say you?
I am very open and work very hard to clearly communicate situations and positions on them. I appreciate feedback that I can learn from. Any remaining disagreements will be resolved at the polls. Three Iowa Supreme Court justices learned that people do have a say about how things ultimately get decided. I strongly support the people’s right and responsibility to have their say. Joe, I look forward...
Wow, Randi, I was appalled when Obama renewed the Patriot Act, dislike his close association with the financial industry, he has been far more aggressive militarily than Bill Clinton, especially in his use of drones as instruments of assassination, and I disagreed with his dithering on abolishing "don't ask-don't tell" and defense of same-sex marriage, so "like" is hardly the word I'd use to describe my attitude towards the man. I'm not the one running for office, you are, so why the interrogator's tone? You presented what I consider a sophistic argument which obscured your opposition to same-sex marriage, and your commentary here has continued to dodge the question. If you oppose same-sex marriage, and will work to outlaw it, then say so. Barack Obama has nothing to do with this debate which, coincidentally, you started...
I'm "friends" with many of 'em on Facebook, subscribe to their email newsletters, and show up for on-line forums. Do you only interact with them in what they might perceive of as negative contact such as complaining or challenging them regarding their stance on a specific issue? Do you ever contact them to thank them for positions with which you agree? Do you ask them to explain why they have a given viewpoint, and do you respectfully listen to their answers? Do you provide credible, verifiable supporting materials when you seek to educate them on a given issue? I find that most politicians and candidates for elected office are much like me, people with a desire to make the world a better place. They have much the same hopes and fears, dreams and desires. I may not agree with them on any given position, but I do respect them for getting out there and trying to make a difference.
Folks God Bless You all! I wish you all the best and I thank you for a
Randi, your contention about the origin of marriage licenses is irrelevant to a public policy discussion. I would be surprised if, should you be elected and should the GOP take control of the Senate, the party would make it a priority to end Iowa's issuance of marriage licenses. You have fallen in line with the evangelical wing of the Iowa GOP by demanding "let the people vote," which is code for opposing same-sex marraige. You have made clear your assertion that marriage is a "religious institution," even though there are civil legal and tax implications for being married, and even though many people, including me and my wife of 31 years, never set foot in a church. I guess, in your mind, I'm not "married," since my wife and I were married by a judge in the Johnson County courthouse. Randi, a gay or lesbian couple being able to legally marry does no harm to anyone. Denying them that right harms them and the society, by declaring them second-class citizens. That's why I become frustrated with this continuing debate: the only arguments I have seen opposing same-sex marriage are either sectarian (like your "marriage is a religious institution"), based on homophobic prejudice, or sophistic (like your origin story).
You never answered the Gazette's questions about same-sex marriage and the Iowa Supreme Court's Varnum v. Brien decision. I repeat: Iowans may have a "right" to vote on amending the state's constitution, but I reject the proposition that they should vote whether or not to deny gays and lesbians the civil right to become married. Majorities have quite frequently been wrong, whether on allowing interfaith or interracial marriages, allowing women the right to vote, or ending de facto segregation. I'm not "rude," Randi, just direct. I think you have been equivocating here by refusing to give any of us simple "yes" or "no" responses to the Gazette's questions. Do you support same-sex marriage? Do you support the Varnum v. Brien decision? Will you work to pass a constitutional amendment to strip gays and lesbians of the civil right of marraige? Do you support impeaching the remaining four justices who delivered the Varnum v. Brien decision? You owe us straight answes, since you seek elected office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/the-gops-gay-trajectory.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120610
I am active in the Johnson County GOP. I have "interacted" with candidates there. I was CoChair of Ron Paul Johnson County leading up to the Iowa Straw Poll. I worked with our local GOP through the delegate slate process-- very cordially-- as a matter of fact most of the other counties look at the work and cordiality done in our county as an example of how the process SHOULD have went in other counties who had difficulty. I do have a house, a wife, a yard, a dog, and a career which requires ongoing education. Im not retired. I dont have time to rub elbows at events that only happen every few years when someone wants to get re-elected. I do have time to help grassroots activists.
The statement stands. Where are their blogs? It is a great platform, facebook, and the internet. How many of them use it to speak with their constituents, WHILE in office-- not while trying to get elected? Here is one, and THIS is what that looks like in REALITY. https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash Congressman Amash, agree with him or not, updates his facebook daily and explains EVERY vote he has cast and why he voted the way he did. I dont have time to be pandered to during election years. Maybe once I retire I wont have anything better to do.
Again, I am sorry you read my questions as something other than intended.
FTR, you cannot treat people equally & deny gay couples the right to marry. Nor do gay marriages pose any threat to heterosexual marriages. Those who support banning gay marriage are supporting blatant bigotry. States Rights is such a disingenuous dodge...It's nothing more than an attempt to deny &/or limit personal liberty under the guise of protecting the 'rights' of voters to decide deeply personal issues that s/b outside their purview. Individuals can & should make such decisions without the unholy interference of pandering politicians & a judgmental, paternalistic populace.