A controversial piece of legislation that would allow businesses and organizations to deny services to married homosexuals was denied entrance to the floor for a vote in the Iowa state legislature.

While an Iowa House judiciary subcommittee struck down the bill last Wednesday, a statement was made that it could resurface shortly. Similar legislation is being pushed in Louisiana, North Dakota and Colorado.

Civil rights advocates have characterized House Study Bill 50, also called the Religious Conscience Protected Act, as “legal discrimination.” Under the bill, employers would be allowed to deny jobs, and landlords or hotels would be allowed to deny housing to same-sex couples if the couple’s marriage violated the institution’s religious beliefs.

In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor legalizing same-sex marriage but stated that no church, synagogue, temple or religious institution is required to perform or even recognize same-sex marriage. So what this bill would be saying that it is OK to discriminate against homosexuals under the pretext of religious liberty.

Iowa Governor, Terry Branstad said, “What it does is protect people who want to exercise their moral and ethical rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

While I believe that everyone has a right to express their opinion on gay marriage (although some people tend to get a bit vulgar), I fail to find where in the Constitution it says that a someone can deny another the basic necessities to live, like a source of income, a home and admittance to their spouse’s healthcare plan solely on the basis of who they marry.

Representative Rich Anderson (R-Clarinda) is the bill’s sponsor and claims that his reasoning for drafting this piece of legislation is that, “Homosexuals couples cannot produce children. Heterosexual couples can. That’s what marriage is.”

Now there have been a plethora of definitions cited in the debate of whether same-sex marriage should be legal. A hefty majority of those do not state anywhere that the ability to have children is a requirement.

So where do heterosexuals who don’t want to have children, but want to spend the rest of their lives together because they love each other fit into this logic? Should they be able to get married because they have the ability to have children but don’t want to? Are infertile heterosexual couples allowed to get married? What about those who are too old to have children? Should we just force them to get divorced after they have surpassed their period in which they are physically able to have kids?

I might be able to believe that this was the logic that was used when drafting this bill, but later in the bill it says that institutions can deny goods or services to interracial couples of different faith backgrounds. I’m pretty sure that being a different race or religion than your spouse doesn’t magically prohibit you from having children.

My final question is where does it stop? With this logic, why don’t we just take away homosexuals’ right to vote or better yet the right to have food or breathe? It is a slippery slope once you get started and the idea that they are just going to allow blatant discrimination is absurd. The fact that this bill was almost put to a vote is infuriating and very scary.

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_58906390-33a9-11e0-be37-001cc4c03286.html

http://www.americanindependent.com/168748/iowa-house-bill-allows-organizations-to-discriminate-against-gay-couples