Archive for Uncategorized
Don’t believe in free speech? You are not alone.
Original Post (08.07.09):
The Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority on Tuesday removed signs from its buses that featured a religious message. The ads, sponsored by Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers for the entire month of August, stated simply,
“Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
According to IAF President Randy Henderson, the ads were intended to “reach out to non-religious people in the Des Moines metro area as well as the state, letting them know that they aren’t alone and that they too have a community if they want to join it.” IAF scheduled the ads to coincide with the Iowa State Fair, which will take place August 13-23 in Des Moines.
DART General Manager Brad Miller, who made the decision to remove the ads after several people called to complain, claims that the atheist ad had not been granted final approval and were placed by mistake. Suggesting that the atheist ad was offensive, Miller cited a clause in the advertising contract that states, “The text and illustrations on signs are subject to the approval of DART.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa initiated an investigation into the matter yesterday. ACLU of Iowa’s legal director, Randall Wilson, expressed concern that DART may have violated the constitutional rights of atheists. DART does not have a policy of restricting religious advertising and has accepted religious ads in the past.
Iowa Governor Chet Culver weighed in the controversy, stating that he was “disturbed personally” by the advertisement and could understand why others were offended. Refusing to comment on the legal and constitutional issues involved, Culver stated, “I think it’s a great question for the attorney general and for legal scholars to kind of sort through that, that balancing act between free speech and the type of message that is being sent.”
IAF has not determined whether or not they will pursue legal action against the transit authority. The IAF board of directors will meet today to discuss an offer from DART to rework the ad to meet the transit authority’s standards. IAF also issued an announcement on its website requesting support from Iowans to return the ads.
*
Links:
KCCI News in Des Moines interviews IAF President Randy Henderson
WHO TV in Des Moines reports on DART’s offer and public opinion on the ads
The Iowa Independent discusses a 2006 study showing intolerance toward atheists
Atheist Ethicist outlines a proposed response to DART’s offer
Former sex crime convict leads rehab coalition
Former Storm Lake sex crime convict leads offender rehab coalition
Still wrestling with his own demons, should Buena Vista University grad ever regain public trust?
By Dana Larsen
Storm Lake Pilot-Tribune Editor
July 6, 2009
From an inmate to an advocate, former Buena Vista University resident advisor Kyle Payne has been named executive director of the Iowa Coalition for Sex Offender Rehabilitation. Payne is one of the Iowans who in early July will be required to register on the Sex Offender registry, as legislative changes regarding offenders takes effect. He is urging Iowans not to simply ban offenders from society, but to help them reform themselves into productive citizens.
“Over the next few days, thousands of former sex offenders in Iowa, many of whom have served their sentence and worked diligently to make amends, will be scrambling to comply with a wide range of new restrictions on their lives,” he says. “Not because they have been classified at a high risk to re-offend. Not because they pose a legitimate threat to any Iowan perusing the sex offender registry. But, as perhaps we will grow to recognize in the next few years, because we lack a government with the wisdom and courage to address sexual violence through a comprehensive approach.”
The former Storm Lake student admits that he is still working to come to grips emotionally with his own crime. In January, 2007, 22-year-old Payne was serving as RA for Buena Vista University when he attended to an intoxicated 18-year-old female student from Newell in her dorm room. He allegedly partially disrobed and touched the girl while she was unconscious, videotaping and photographing the act and downloading the files onto his computer. He was later arrested, convicted and jailed for six months.
Payne’s case received national attention, as he had been an outspoken feminist at BVU, speaking and blogging to paint himself as a protector of women, an advocate of abuse victims and an opponent of pornography. He had been nominated as senior of the year at the university and chosen as speaker at a community vigil against abuse at the county courthouse. One feminist website termed him “the biggest hypocrite in feminist history.”
Payne was released from county jail in February, subject to terms of parole and probation for up to 10 years. He moved to Sioux City in April, about the time he was contacted by the coalition and asked if he would direct the effort in Iowa. “I wasn’t really interested at the time,” Payne said. “I thought that they were too focused on civil liberties for offenders rather than on rehabilitation.”
The coalition is gradually growing in the state, and involves mostly former offenders and their family members, although Payne is trying to network the organization to work with victims’ rights groups, psychologists and attorneys for a more comprehensive effort to reform past abusers. “The dominant approach with legislation has been to restrict former offenders, in ways that don’t contribute to rehabilitation or necessarily increase public safety. In fact, by restricting offenders’ residency and work, we prevent them from having stability and in some ways may make it more likely they will reoffend,” Payne says.
The goal of his agency is to help find sustainable policies to help sex offenders re-enter society, protecting both their civil rights and the safety of the public. “As a state we have tried to remove them, tried to make them invisible, and it hasn’t worked,” he said. For one thing, society has failed to address popular culture that in some ways makes sexual aggression and predator behavior seem acceptable – in movies, music and explicit materials, he says.
While Payne finds that his own experience as a recovering sex offender has given him credibility with other offenders and their families, he is aware that his crimes will cause others to view him as a hypocrite. He said he is aware he can never count on rebuilding the trust others had once had in him as a male feminist. “I take my own rehabilitation very seriously. There is nothing I can do to take away the harm I have done, and I will deal with that for the rest of my life,” he said. “I didn’t think this situation would lead me to be an advocate, but I would be pleased if there was some way I could contribute to a safer society.”
Regardless of his position, Payne says the rights of offenders will not be foremost in his mind. “Morally, there is no place to even have a discussion unless we put the victims first,” he says. “I can draw upon my complicated history – as a survivor, a former advocate for survivors, and having hurt someone – to foster a new dialogue on sexual violence that doesn’t shy away from the complexity of this problem.”
He said that he has received financial support from the state to continue his own counseling to hope with what he claims was sexual abuse he suffered as a child. ”Leading Iowa CSOR has allowed me an opportunity to continue working against sexual violence, while also recognizing sex offenders as human beings, something I was unable to do as a victim advocate and activist against pornography.”
While working for the coalition, he continues his education part-time, seeking a masters degree in nonprofit management. He has had no contact with his victim, he says, on the advice of his attorney. “I will allow her to initiate contact if she ever wishes to, even if it is just to express the anger over what I have done to her. I would invite that – I believe it would be healthy.” He continues a blog, on which he describes himself as a “Zen Buddhist.”
The issues the coalition is working with stand to have considerable impact in Iowa – there are some 5,000 offenders on the abuse registry right now, and around 100 more poised to go on this month as the regulations change. While the Iowa CSOR has not proposed specific legislation, he says it calls for age-appropriate sex education, material and therapeutic resources for victims of sexual abuse, and treatment programs for sex offenders.
He said he hopes to see the “stranger danger” myths debunked, as statistics show that most sexual abuse comes from relatives or people well known to the victims. “We cannot allow our legislators to continue taking shortcuts,” he said. “We cannot continue to be distracted by the claim that the real problem of sexual violence is a few thousand “bad people,” while we pretend that former offenders are less likely to re-offend if they cannot find a home, a job, or a community that will treat them like a human being.”
Sexual violence demands a comprehensive approach
Picked up by the Fort Dodge Messenger, Storm Lake Pilot-Tribune, Des Moines Register, and Cedar Rapids Gazette.
Over the next few days, thousands of former sex offenders in Iowa, many of whom have served their sentence and worked diligently to make amends, will be scrambling to comply with a wide range of new restrictions on their lives. Not because they have been classified at a high risk to re-offend. Not because they pose a legitimate threat to any Iowan perusing the sex offender registry. But, as perhaps we will grow to recognize in the next few years, because we lack a government with the wisdom and courage to address sexual violence through a comprehensive approach.
With any luck, our legislators will stop labeling and demonizing the tiny fraction of perpetrators who are convicted for their crimes, and who, with the right support and guidance, can rehabilitate. Perhaps then legislators might truly protect Iowa’s children by addressing the circumstances of most acts of sexual violence – when victim and perpetrator are acquaintances, or even family members, when the perpetrator has never been caught, and when the victim is unable to report the abuse. The myths of “stranger danger” and the incurable “sexual predator,” long debunked by scholars, need to finally be removed from our laws.
Make no mistake. Confronting sexual violence in our society is a very complicated mission. And as a result, we cannot allow our legislators to continue taking shortcuts. We cannot continue to be distracted by the claim that the real problem of sexual violence is a few thousand “bad people,” while we pretend that former offenders are less likely to re-offend if they can’t find a home, a job, or a community that will treat them like a human being. As a society, we are responsible for every victim who is unable to leave an abusive relationship, every child whose ignorance about sexuality is exploited, every institution that praises those who exploit the weakness of others, and every perpetrator who is in dire need of rehabilitation. Let’s start acting like it.
Not In Front of the Children: Sex Offenders & Child Endangerment
I read a news story recently about a couple with three children in Arlington, Iowa, who were arrested on child endangerment charges for, as Radio Iowa put it, “letting a sex offender live in their home.” While investigating a theft case involving twenty-nine-year old Julia Rodenberg, Fayette County Sheriff Marty Fisher discovered that Rodenberg and her husband, Ian, were renting a room to a sex offender. Apparently working with a doctored version of the Iowa Code, Sheriff Fisher arrested both parents, DHS picked up the kids (ranging in age from 4 to 10), and the unnamed sex offender presumably has the house to himself.
As reported by Radio Iowa, however, there is no evidence of a crime taking place. It is not a crime to rent a room to a sex offender simply because you have kids in the house. When the law changed in 2005, it became a crime for someone with kids to cohabitate with a sex offender, unless the two are married. While not as clear-cut as one might like, case law on the subject (for example, Iowa v. Mitchell) makes it quite clear that “cohabitation” and “living together” are not the same (and of course, “renting a room” is another step down). And unless there was more going on between either Julie or Ian and their tenant that would constitute cohabitation, then we’re talking about a living arrangement that falls outside the scope of the sex offender provision.
Fortunately, one of the positive impacts of Senate File 340 (Iowa’s Adam Walsh Act) is that now our child endangerment law, notwithstanding other flaws, is no longer wrought with confusing language over “cohabitation” with sex offenders. The new law, which takes effect in a few weeks, amended the sex offender provision, narrowing its focus as to the behavior it criminalizes, while simultaneously expanding whom it affects. Instead of a parent being hauled off to jail for merely “cohabiting” with someone they know to be a sex offender, there must be evidence that they allowed that person “custody or control” of their children, or unsupervised access to them.
The amendment will help prevent more cases like the one in Arlington (again, that’s assuming there isn’t more to the story that would actually constitute criminal activity – perhaps something the reporter could have checked on before publishing the story… just a thought). What is unfortunate, though, for sex offenders who interact with other human life forms (family, friends, co-workers, lovers, etc.), of whom at least a few must conceivably have children, is that the sex offender provision will be a huge headache. That goes for the ex-offender, of course, but also for those other life forms who might occasionally like a babysitter, or at least to be able to step into the next room without committing an aggravated misdemeanor in the process. And while it may protect children in some cases, we can do better than a blanket solution, especially one that alienates sex offenders from one-quarter of the nation’s inhabitants.
*
The Sex Offender Provision in Iowa’s Child Endangerment Law
The two most obvious constitutional problems with the provision are that it appears to violate Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The provision limits a fundamental liberty interest by intruding upon intimate relationships – no matter what one’s opinion of “sex offenders” (as a very broadly-defined group), breaking up relationships and families without a legitimate reason is not exactly a role of our government that most Americans would support. And of course, with regard to Equal Protection, the provision treats married and unmarried couples differently, even though a sex offender’s marital status (if he poses the threat our policies seem to imply he does) is an arbitrary factor to consider when assessing his risk to re-offend. But of course, when due process is skipped over, and the whole business of investigating facts, testing assumptions, synthesizing information, etc., is abandoned, it makes sense that we would end up with weird, arbitrary distinctions in the finished product.
With respect to policy development, it’s worth noting that the 2005 addition of the sex offender provision to Iowa’s child endangerment takes a significant leap away from the intent of the law (and the 2009 amendment in Senate File 340 didn’t help matters). Instead of criminalizing behavior that actually harms children, like hitting them or starving them, or behavior that poses a “significant risk” of harm, like making meth at the dinner table or allowing physical or sexual abuse of the child to continue, the provision criminalizes associating with a sex offender. I’m not suggesting we can’t evaluate risks and develop new policies based on such evaluation – but that process did not lead us to where we our today. Our legislators took a shortcut, intellectually and politically, and equated continuing to live, breathe, and exercise fundamental liberties after being convicted of a sex offense with a form of child abuse.
In the absence of concrete evidence to suggest that the presence of a sex offense on one’s criminal record – and the degraded legal status of “sex offender” – makes one a threat to children, along the same lines as, say, actual abuse, the choice ought to be left to the parent. Allowing someone who has been convicted of a sex offense to supervise your child, while not a choice everyone would make, or ought to make, is not a choice to be criminalized.
Finally, the sex offender provision in Iowa’s child endangerment law got wrong what the 2,000-foot residency restriction and more recent exclusionary zones got partially right. It turns out that not all sex offenders are the same. Not all of them harmed minors (under 18), fewer harmed children (under 13), few commit another sex crime after their first conviction, and very few could be classified in any meaningful way as “predators.” Yet we base our assumptions and our policies on a “worst of the worst” stereotype of all sex offenders – and in this case, restrict ex-offenders from coming into contact with children when their offense had absolutely nothing to do with a child. Residency restrictions and exclusionary zones, while still bad policies, at least are designed to do what politicians tell us they’ll do. The child endangerment law isn’t even logical, which tends to be an important standard for public policy.
*
Conclusion
So, what could be so wrong about enhancing child endangerment law to protect children from the threat of sexual abuse? After all, in the vast majority of child sexual abuse cases, the perpetrator is someone known to the child, usually someone in the home. Why not intervene? Good question.
The fact is, we ought to intervene. We need to intervene. Thanks to feminist researchers like Catharine MacKinnon, Diane Russell, and Mary Koss, and various studies on date rape, domestic violence, incest, and other forms of violence in the last few decades, we are much more conscious of how deeply violence, and particularly men’s violence against women and children, is woven into the fabric of our society. We understand much better today the scope of the problem, and we have the resources and ingenuity to change things.
The bad news is that, while we benefited from what the feminist movement revealed about men’s violence, we stopped short of the radical change, and even the not-so-radical change, feminists have been proposing for years. In Iowa, we never seem to find enough money to keep rape crisis centers open. We balk at the task of ensuring access to mental health resources for survivors of abuse in Iowa’s many rural communities. And when single moms get stuck in a relationship with someone who abuses her children, and perhaps her as well, we are more interested in arresting her and taking her kids away than actually empowering them with the resources they need to survive. In fact, we are so committed to one political strategy over the other that we are willing to arrest a single mom at the mere chance that the mate she has selected could abuse her children.
Yes, we absolutely need to intervene. But we’ve bypassed the policy interventions that would create the solutions we need, in favor of easy answers from white male politicians who cannot muster enough political courage to admit when they’re wrong, when the nature of the problem is such that their leadership is inadequate. What we need, before yet another press conference of men – politicians, county attorneys, and sheriffs – patting themselves on the backs for making our communities safer for kids with more restrictions on sex offenders, is to address the structural inequalities that keep women and children trapped in abusive homes, men trapped in alternating roles of sexual aggressor and sexual protector, and our society trapped in a cycle of responding to complex and challenging problems with easy, ineffective solutions.
Sex Offender Advocacy
The following was published in the April 2009 email digest of the national Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) organization. In this essay, I share the events that led me to get involved with RSOL, and later, to assume leadership of the Iowa chapter, known as the Iowa Coalition for Sex Offender Rehabilitation (mission statement at bottom of post). I conclude with an argument for building broad coalitions to prevent sexual violence in our society.
_____
I never would have imagined just a few years ago that I would ever become an advocate for the diverse group of people we lump together as “sex offenders.” A lot has happened in my life since then, however, forcing me to re-evaluate my plans. While tragic, the changes have ultimately been for the better, and I am pleased to be involved with the Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) organization. In this essay, I will share the events that led me to get involved in RSOL, as a participant and then as a state organizer, and my views on the journey that lies ahead.
My Story
I was the victim of sexual abuse as a young boy. At the time, I was unable to make sense of what was happening, what was being done to me, or what I was being forced to do. I did not possess the combination of mental and emotional capacities to recognize the abuse and then question it. Worst of all, I had no power to stop it. The abuse eventually did come to an end. But simply because particular abusive behaviors ceased did not mean that I regained control over my life.
There is good reason why many victims of abuse describe being given a “life sentence” while their abusers appear to go free. It’s not just fancy rhetoric. It is one of the few ways that victims have found to express what it means to be used as an object, to be dehumanized, and to forever struggle to rebuild what has been so savagely stripped away. For me, the abuse stopped long ago, but my recovery is just beginning.
Without the necessary support and therapeutic resources, I coped in precisely the same way many victims cope – pretending that it never happened. And fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), I had a lot going for me as a young person – I was smart, mature, outgoing, and heavily involved with activities at school and in the community. So, it was easy to get by, or at least give the impression of being okay.
In college, I joined an advocacy organization that provided support to survivors of sexual violence; I later became a head advocate, a role in which I led peer education efforts, while also training and supervising other student advocates. This work led me to women’s studies in which I did research on sexual violence, the “rape culture,” and pornography; I received awards for my research and became the first male student to graduate from the women’s studies program at my university. I also served as a resident advisor in an all-male residence hall, which exposed me to the inner working of men’s violence and aggression in ways no research project could possibly reveal. All of my involvements were rooted in a passion for feminist (or feminist-inspired) justice work, and my experiences laid bear the harsh realities of men’s violence in our society.
My college experience was successful by traditional standards, but I was a complete wreck under the surface, struggling with depression and chronic anxiety. What I didn’t realize when I first began advocacy for survivors is that I wasn’t doing it simply to help others. Clearly that played a role, and I am pleased to say that I was able to make a difference. But advocacy, as well as my justice work overall, was part of a losing battle to cope with my own experiences of abuse.
Working against men’s violence gave me a feeling that the suffering – my own, or that which I witnessed on a daily basis – could be stopped. Not reduced, not coped with – stopped! But the more aggressively I pursued this cause, the more I began to see how deeply embedded violence is in our cultural norms and values, which led to a cycle of hope and despair in my life. One of the effects of this cycle is that I refused to face up to the fact that I am just as capable of the sort of violence, domination, and hatred as those men who have haunted my nightmares and those of people close to me. Despite everything I knew about the propensity of men as a class, by virtue of their social conditioning, to commit violence, I could not accept the notion that I was capable of such a thing. I was wrong.
While assisting a female student who was heavily intoxicated (in January 2007), I felt an urge to expose the woman’s breast, and I acted upon it. I photographed her breast and briefly took video with a digital camera. I didn’t think about what I did. I didn’t reason my way through it ahead of time. And I certainly didn’t think about the consequences, either for the victim or myself. My actions were abusive and extremely hypocritical, raising serious doubts about my ability and willingness to live according to my professed values.
The images and video files were later discovered on my computer by campus security in April 2007, which led to a police investigation and criminal charges in February 2008. Wishing to take full responsibility for my actions, I pleaded guilty to invasion of privacy, a serious misdemeanor, and felony attempted burglary (since the incident took place in the student’s dorm room) that summer. I was later sentenced to six months in county jail and a period of probation. I was not, however, required to register as a sex offender because my offense did not meet the legal criteria. I have dealt with very serious consequences for my actions, and I feel safe in assuming that many more lie ahead.
I was released from county jail in February and am now living and working in northwest Iowa. I am taking much better care of myself and pursuing the necessary therapeutic resources to cope with my past and live a responsible and healthy lifestyle in the future. I am also exploring different ways to contribute to our society through service, activism, and community organizing, including my involvement with RSOL. I approach this work with the recognition that current sex offender laws, in addition to being ineffective and unjust, create serious obstacles for offenders who are seriously committed to rehabilitation. In the interest of addressing these problems, I am pleased to serve as a state organizer for the RSOL chapter in Iowa, the Iowa Coalition for Sex Offender Rehabilitation.
Our Journey Ahead
None of us really have the answers we would like to have to the problem of sexual violence in our society. Politicians “get tough” on sex crimes, instead of “getting smart,” by treating everyone convicted of a sexuality-related offense as a sexual predator, stripping away their dignity and civil liberties. Reporters push misguided messages about the danger of “the other” across town, ignoring the fact that the more significant threat is inside the home. Law enforcement officials warn us about the threat of sex offenders in our community, while the majority of sex crimes go unreported, and the majority of abusers are never held accountable. And as citizens, we seem fixated on the easiest answers to the most complex and difficult questions. We in RSOL, for instance, sometimes focus so much on the needs and interests of sex offenders that we forget who ought to be the central voice in this debate – victims of sexual violence.
I think there is a great deal RSOL can do to resolve these problems, in concert with other groups such as victims’ advocates, public health officials, and spiritual leaders. Those of us who have hurt someone can demonstrate how to take responsibility for our actions, make amends, and move forward to live healthy, productive lives. We can also shed light on the lived experiences of sex offenders and their families, raising awareness about the challenges of moving forward under a system that restricts offenders into the perpetual role of “predator.”
By working together, we can say goodbye to the illogical and dehumanizing rhetoric about sex offenders that has pervaded the public discourse for the last decade. We can develop comprehensive, well-reasoned, and sustainable policies that actually prevent sexual violence in our society, while protecting the rights of all our citizens. And on a spiritual level, we can break the vicious cycle of violence and domination in our relationships, our families, and our communities. But we will accomplish nothing without working together and forming broad coalitions. Sexual violence touches all of our lives, and we all must play a role in putting a stop to it.
_____
The Iowa Coalition for Sex Offender Rehabilitation (IA-CSOR) promotes responsible public policy for sex crimes and sex offender management by facilitating public discourse, research and policy development, and advancement of therapeutic resources, while also providing support for sex offenders and their families. Specifically, we are interested in addressing policy measures like sex offender registration, residency restrictions, and civil commitment laws to ensure that rehabilitation for sex offenders is a serious priority. We are a broad-based coalition that counts among its members sex offenders and their families, victims’ advocates, spiritual leaders, therapists, attorneys, as well as medical and public health professionals.
Fundamentalist Christianity and benevolent heterosexism
Comments on the way…
For now, check out a clip of Anderson 360 featuring Tony Perkins, who is president of the Family Research Council, and Mel White, a gay reverend and author of Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America. Have fundamentalist Christians lost the culture war on issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research?
Adventures in student government
I spent some time in student government during my junior year at Buena Vista University, serving on several committees, managing the Student Senate website, and most notably, being a thorn in most everyone’s side as a progressive voice that asked a lot of questions. I opposed giving $8,000 (of the university’s total bill of about $30,000) to the “drunk bus,” which transported students to and from the local bars three nights a week – this contribution, which was later approved, bankrupted Student Senate for most of the academic year. I challenged Student Senate leadership when they tried to pass a “student activity fee” to pay for the drunk bus, lied to the student body about what the money was for, and threatened to punish any senator who would not stand behind the lie.
I proposed holding regular open forums to discuss students’ concerns, one in particular to explore alternatives to the university’s policy prohibiting coed living arrangements. I criticized proposals to lower academic eligibility standards for student athletes. I supported increased funding for community service projects, multicultural groups, and “alternative” programming for party nights. And as you’ll see below, I called out Student Senate for being secretive and treating students as if they were stupid.
I wish I could say I did more. But frankly, we wasted a lot of time on Student Senate. The hardly revolutionary rap sheet above was enough to provoke an impeachment attempt. The claim was that I misrepresented my constituents when I voted against the drunk bus, but that fellow senator dropped the complaint when he discovered that I had in fact represented my constituents fairly and accurately, and had actually done more to solicit input than most senators.
As one of two resident advisors (RAs) on Student Senate, I apparently had some hand in provoking a long series of attempts to ban RAs from serving in student government. The argument was that students serving in residence life and student government were making and enforcing the same policies, thus creating a conflict of interest. There is not enough space here for a full explanation as to how insane that argument was. I believe the actual concern, revealed time and time again in senators’ rhetoric in support of a ban, was rooted in the assumption that RAs are somehow inherently anti-alcohol, and are generally incapable of thinking outside the stereotype of their RA position. In any event, we spent a significant chunk of the year discussing those proposals, without so much as a valid argument to support them, if that’s any indication of the group’s propensity to waste time.
At some point in the spring of the year, the question was raised, under what circumstances should Student Senate use roll call voting, enabling students to see how each senator votes? A lively debate ensued, during which I was told, in no uncertain terms, that BVU students don’t care and are too dumb to make sense of the results of roll call voting. It seemed that many senators worried that students would be unable to infer, for instance, that there might be complex reasoning behind a senator’s vote.
So, given that logic, if Senator A voted against giving money to a student organization that provides free daycare services for non-traditional students with children, students would inevitably infer that Senator A hates babies, shortly thereafter concluding that Senator A eats babies for breakfast, and that Senator A probably makes other babies watch – and the inevitable conclusions just flow from there! Students would be incapable of considering that maybe Senator A voted against the proposed funding because the group did not give a clear idea of how the money would be spent, in which case they could easily present their proposal at the next meeting and secure funding. Student Senate passed a motion prohibiting the use of roll call voting, presumably for the entire academic year (though, given our lack of organization, it’s certainly possible folks had no idea what they were really voting on – it wouldn’t have been the first time).
While I didn’t care much for roll call voting, and I didn’t find it necessary very often, I was very concerned that Student Senate would reject the practice outright, especially with such an arrogant rationale. So I organized a petition asking Student Senate to reconsider and got a few hundred student signatures (at a campus with just over a thousand students). I also debated the issue with another student in the campus newspaper (see below). I went to the next meeting prepared to present my petition, but that was thwarted by the student body president who facilitated a “punish the disobedient” session. Everybody got a shot at me, and in response, I calmly suggested that we ought to be open to criticism as an organization, including criticism from our own members.
The Student Senate censorship fiasco marked the beginning of the end of my experience with student government. Shortly after the point/counter-point exchange, I ran unopposed for secretary on a platform of improving our communication with students and providing more accurate and detailed information about what goes on in Student Senate meetings. The student body president then extended the deadline to run for office, and miraculously, the secretary position became the most sought after position on Student Senate, drawing an unheard-of five candidates. I lost that election, but thanks to support from progressive and multicultural groups on campus, was elected as a senator.
I was ready to have another go at student government, recognizing that it would still be an uphill battle, but at the very least, one for which I would be more prepared this time around. In the end, though, I decided that I could make more of a difference on campus outside of student government. I resigned at the first Student Senate meeting the following fall semester, and after the initial shock of hearing my resignation, I would guess folks were glad to see me leave. Below is the original point/counter-point from April 7, 2006, with a brief follow-up comment at the end.
*
For Roll Call Voting – Kyle Payne
It is discouraging to see that such a fundamental democratic right has become a subject of contention in our student government. However, I also recognize that there are concerns about the impact of allowing students to see how their individual senators are voting. So I think it is important to state the case for roll call voting and address some concerns.
The primary reason I see for supporting roll call voting, when necessary, is that is supports fundamental purposes of student government – representing students while promoting citizenship and democracy. By informing students, we hold senators accountable to their constituents and ensure that students have the tools they need to make informed decisions during election time.
Before I address arguments against roll call voting, I should mention that roll call voting is not always necessary. However, the almost unanimous vote from Student Senate last month did not suggest reserving roll call voting for appropriate occasions – it threw the idea out completely. Second, roll call voting is only one of many ways Student Senate can and should fulfill its responsibilities of keeping students informed.
Concerns with roll call voting seem to be that students will misunderstand the information and jump to conclusions. This is a legitimate concern since roll call voting does not tell the whole story. However, we are fortunate to have a student body that can understand this basic fact and look for other sources of information to fill in the blanks.
While I sympathize with these concerns, I am troubled by the picture other senators have painted for me, suggesting that students are incapable of handling basic information or making informed decisions. I do not share in that dreary outlook on our student body.
There is a wealth of information available and necessary to support democratic discussion – the answer, then, is not censoring information, it is giving students enough information to use.
*
Against Roll Call Voting – Taylor Jones
The issue of roll call voting in Student Senate is not as simple as some woudl make it seem. Many student who were asked to sign a petition recently to force full-time roll call voting were only told it would hold senators accountable. Students were told roll call voting would help students make more informed decisions. Sure it was easy for students to accept this as the solution to problems, but unfortunately they were not told the full side of the story.
First, roll call voting, despite the rumors, is not forbidden in Student Senate. According to Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary style Student Senate follows, a roll call vote can be requested by any voting member at any time. This is not a regular practice, as it creates a lot of unnecessary paperwok. Roll call votes are generally only used in voting decisions that are very close as a means to double check for ties or possible changes to the accepted decision.
Second, there is a reason why roll call voting would cause mroe problems than it would solve. Students would see certain decisions made by senators and not fully understand the decisions made. For example, a senator may decide to vote against suggested funding for a group because he or she feels the group deserves more than the proposed funding. Unfortunately, with roll call voting, students would only see the “no” vote, and they would not get the full explanation of why the senator voted in such a way.
One of the arguments in favor of roll call voting is the idea that students on campus do not care about anything and that roll call voting will open their eyes to decisions being made. This sort of action not only belittles the intelligence of the BVU campus but appears to be the final solution on a list that was never fully explored.
Roll call voting is an unnecessary evil that will only hinder the process of Student Senate making their job more difficult.
*
FOLLOW-UP (because I can): The purpose of the petition, as well as every statement I made on the issue, was to ensure that Student Senate could not ban the use of roll call voting for the entire academic year, which is precisely what the original motion was that passed. I never supported, or even mentioned, forcing “full-time roll call voting,” but insisted that roll call voting be an option when necessary.
Also, Taylor’s second-to-last paragraph is inaccurate, though I do give him credit for being creative. He took a criticism of my petition (“Students don’t care”) and my response to that criticism (“If that’s true, providing more accurate and detailed information may help students understand what is happening in Student Senate and their stake in it”), and re-packaged it to look like it was my original argument, i.e. “Students are dumb – let’s try to educate the poor, illiterate fools through roll call voting.” And far from a “final solution,” I intended occasional roll call voting to be a small part of a comprehensive plan to help students stay informed about student government and hold their senators accountable.
Taylor did not, as far as I know, go on to work for the McCain-Palin campaign.
Why Iowans should not get to vote
Update (04.14.09):
I left out a couple option opponents to same-sex marriage have to overturn Varnum v. Brien, though not because I overlooked them – I simply believed that no one would go to such extremes. Perhaps I was being naive.
Citizens of my my hometown, and perhaps elsewhere in Iowa, have set up a petition to pressure Iowa Gov. Chet Culver to issue an executive order. Presumably the order would direct county recorders not to enforce the Varnum v. Brien ruling. An extreme measure, and an unlikely one, given Gov. Culver’s support of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.
The other option I left out of the original post would be to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, as the New York Times indicated on Sunday, it seems likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would keep its distance. It’s also questionable, since the Varnum v. Brien case dealt with a state constitution, whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court could take on the issue.
*
Original Post (04.12.09):
Iowans who are unhappy with the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v. Brien, which overturned an 11-year-old ban on same-sex marriage in the state, have two options to overturn the decision. They can a) ask their legislators to approve a constitutional amendment (twice, in two separate legislative sessions), which could then be put on the ballot as early as 2012, or b) vote in 2010 for a constitutional convention in 2011, which hasn’t been done in over 150 years and opens the door for other changes conservatives would prefer not to see.
Well, there is also c) go on living a happy, healthy life, and let others do the same.
I guess we can hope for that.
Neither of the first two options has any guarantees, and neither one could restore a ban on same-sex marriage for at least a few years. So, it would seem that time is on the side of same-sex couples. With plenty of time to plan weddings, same-sex couples in Iowa have ample opportunity to begin alleviating their critics’ irrational fears about the destructive effects of same-sex marriage.
Given the limited time available for conservatives to disrupt the shifting tide of public opinion, it is no surprise that the Iowa Family Policy Center and other absurdly-named conservative groups flocked to the Capitol on Thursday to push for a constitutional amendment. They left disappointed, as House Speaker Pat Murphy rejected Republican Leader Kraig Paulsen’s attempt to force debate on the matter, calling it “out of order” based on a joint rule between the House and Senate. With the legislative session wrapping up later this month, the consolation for same-sex marriage opponents seems to be, “There’s always next year.” Hopefully that sentiment provides comfort – they’re going to hear it a lot.
I disagree with the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, not because I disagree with amending the constitution, but because I disagree with scribbling all over it out of prejudice.
Upon reviewing opinion pieces in several Iowa newspapers and blogs, I have been amazed at the diversity of arguments presented in favor of same-sex marriage. Many speak of their experiences, direct and indirect, with same-sex partnerships, emphasizing how beautiful and special these relationships can be. Other writers note that they personally disagree with same-sex partnerships (for any of a variety of reasons), but they agree with the Supreme Court’s assertion that same-sex couples ought to have the same rights as opposite-sex couples. And others speak from a religious perspective (most of them Christian), arguing in support of same-sex marriage and urging others to appreciate love in all its forms.
On the other hand, arguments from the other, allegedly “pro-family,” side amount only to a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong and sinful, and a socially conditioned uneasiness toward homosexuality. (Neither argument, as indicated in the Iowa Supreme Court opinion, is relevant to a legal debate.) Opponents to same-sex marriage also present an implicit assumption that there is something inherently better about opposite-sex couples, whether of divine inspiration or a result of withstanding the test of time historically (assuming, I suppose, that same-sex partnerships are a recent innovation). But until we can prove that same-sex marriage poses a serious threat to society (to justify banning it), these claims are purely anecdotal. And in that regard, opponents to same-sex marriage have a lot of explaining to do before they even consider a constitutional amendment.
So, as far the discussion in Iowa is concerned, it appears that opponents to same-sex marriage are not the least bit ready to have a serious discussion on the subject. But assuming they could develop a reasonable legal argument against same-sex marriage (saying what exactly?), the nature of the proposed constitutional amendment is such that it’s not a question for “the people” to answer. We know what the Constitution says on the matter, as unanimously interpreted by the Iowa Supreme Court (you remember, those leftist hippies pushing their secret gay agenda?). Perhaps we ought to start the discussion there, and actually delve into the merits of the Supreme Court decision, before we run all willy-nilly into mob rule.
It’s been claimed in various comment boards to which I’ve contributed that I fear democracy. And at first, perhaps because it is often couched with a range of other claims that are actually derogatory, I was offended. Democratic values have always been very important to me, and virtually every political activity with which I’ve been involved has reflected those values. But I fear democracy? How could someone even suggest that?
Well, as it turns out, I do. I fear democracy of a particular sort. I fear democracy when it is applied in such a way that furthers oppression and injustice. If I was gay, I would not like the idea of my neighbors voting on whether or not I could marry my same-sex partner. Similarly, if I was black, I would not like the idea of the white folks in town voting on whether or not an employer could fire me based on my skin color. The very notion of voting on same-sex marriage suggests that there is some legitimacy to arguments against it. And frankly, I haven’t seen reasonable legal arguments against same-sex marriage, nor has the Iowa Supreme Court. So, in the absence of solid reasoning, something opponents to same-sex marriage don’t appear to be interested in, a constitutional amendment seems like it ought to be the last thing on our minds.
Whatever the next few years has to bring for same-sex marriage in Iowa, I can’t help but be pleased that fifty years from now, when I’m old and decrepit, we will no longer need to engage in this ridiculous “debate.” And I can share with my grandchildren distant memories of prejudice and anti-gay fearmongering from “back in my day.” I look forward to hearing them laugh at my stories, convinced that no one could possibly be that foolish.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Same-Sex Marriage
Update (04.13.09):
—–> .pdf copy of an anti-SSM petition from today’s meeting <—–
During another town hall meeting today, I followed up with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) regarding his verbal attacks on the Iowa Supreme Court. Specifically, I asked if he felt it was responsible on his part to call for the resignation of all seven justices, in addition to calling on Iowans to rewrite their Constitution (banning same-sex marriage), when he had not yet fully read and understood the court’s opinion in the Varnum v. Brien case. Mr. King clarified that, at the time he made those comments (April 3, shortly after the ruling was announced), he was relying on the advice of legal counsel on his staff, who had reviewed the opinion.
Mr. King personally demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of the Varnum v. Brien opinion in today’s town hall meeting, as compared to last week. When a woman in the audience proposed a separate “cohabitation contract” for same-sex couples (which I presume is what we call a “civil union”), Mr. King clarified that the Supreme Court foreclosed that option, concluding that it posed similar problems as excluding gays and lesbians from state-sanctioned partnerships altogether. He also discussed in greater detail the court’s conclusion that “equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.” Mr. King’s skepticism about such claims was clearly still apparent, but he understood the arguments better, which I appreciate.
In the end, I could take a more radical stance and unleash a verbal attack on Mr. King – others certainly have. But I just don’t feel like that would be productive. (To be fair, there is an element of “heterosexual privilege” at work, leaving me less compelled to take more aggressive steps.) I am pleased to see so many Iowans taking an interest in this debate over same-sex marriage, but I hope we can do the necessary mental and emotional work to ensure that our debate is informed, productive, and civil. As I indicated in the following email message to Mr. King’s office, I believe elected officials play a vital role in that effort:
I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. King for taking my questions recently at two separate town hall meetings, in Sioux City and in Ida Grove. Our views on marriage and family life are very different, and I don’t expect that to change anytime soon. However, I value the opportunity to open up a dialogue, in this case regarding the recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.
In the future, I hope Mr. King will look for opportunities to engage others who think differently than he does, particularly those whom he represents. We can all benefit from such a dialogue. Plus, I believe this pursuit of common ground sets a powerful example for young people, demonstrating that civil discourse can truly make us better thinkers, better citizens, and better people.
Mr. King’s recent attacks on the Iowa Supreme Court, which occurred shortly after the Varnum v. Brien ruling was announced, did not reflect an appreciation for civil (or informed) discourse, nor did his actions encourage such appreciation among others. Instead of setting a positive example, Mr. King encouraged Iowans with similar views to merely parrot his rhetoric and ignore the importance of asking questions, checking for understanding, and dare I say it, actually reading the Supreme Court opinion. I ask that Mr. King keep that in mind as he continues in his political career, especially when he expresses his views publicly.
*
Original Post (04.09.09):
I don’t expect my representative, Steve King, to be an expert on constitutional law. I don’t expect him, as a heterosexual Christian man, to understand all the issues and challenges faced by gays and lesbians in our society, or completely understand all the reasons they often find what he says to be offensive. And I certainly don’t expect him to spend huge chunks of his time on a single issue – if the range in subjects discussed at today’s town hall meeting in Sioux City is any indication, it’s pretty clear Mr. King has a lot on his plate in Iowa, as well as in Washington.
What I do expect, however, is that Mr. King not attempt to speak authoritatively on an issue, as a representative of Iowans, when he doesn’t have the slightest idea what he’s talking about. That is irresponsible and embarrassing. And as we found in today’s meeting, it really makes debating important issues painfully difficult.
On the drive over, I contemplated the comments that Rep. King made almost immediately following Friday’s announcement of the Varnum v. Brien ruling, legalizing same-sex marriage. King called the ruling “unconstitutional” and “another example of ‘activist judges’.” For allegedly “molding the Constitution to achieve their own personal political ends,” King called for all seven Iowa Supreme Court justices to resign.
In a previous post, I criticized Republican leaders in Iowa, Rep. King in particular, for attacking the Supreme Court’s decision so quickly and without engaging the reasoning presented. I praised Gov. Vilsack, on the other hand, whose initial statement was fairly reserved, emphasizing the need to carefully review the decision before stating his position. Gov. Vilsack later, with guidance from the Iowa Attorney General, released a statement backing the Supreme Court decision, in spite of his personal beliefs against same-sex marriage. I find myself less concerned with what conclusion an elected official reaches and more interested in what route he or she takes to get there. And unfortunately, in Rep. King’s case, it seems like nothing but shortcuts.
As it turns out, I wasn’t too far off when I guessed that the Republican leaders hadn’t actually read the full 69-page opinion before condemning it. Rep. King openly admitted today – six days after his initial criticism – that he hadn’t read the full opinion. Maybe a third of it, he estimated. Later, when a member of the audience raised concerns about his tax money supporting marriage benefits for same-sex couples, Rep. King actually joked about having not read the opinion, asking, “If I read the rest of this, I’m really gonna be wound up, aren’t I?”
Yes, Mr. King. If you read it.
But frankly, I think more Iowans ought to be “wound up” by Rep. King’s willful ignorance. Don’t get me wrong – I appreciate the charm of down-home, folksy anti-intellectualism, but not when we’re discussing serious political issues, especially when they involve discrimination. So, after scratching off my list the questions pertaining directly to the court opinion Rep. King didn’t bother to read, I gave him an out. Before and after my question – short and sweet, “What is the legal basis for your argument against same-sex marriage?” – I encouraged him to withhold comment if he would prefer to read the entire opinion first.
I would have been okay with, “You know, I’ll have to take a closer look at that and get back to you.” I even would have gone for the cop-out answer of, “I believe that question deserves a more detailed answer than I can provide in the time remaining.” That’s cool. But it was not Rep. King’s day to be humble and think carefully about what comes out of his mouth.
Rep. King summarized the Supreme Court decision as asserting their role to “protect constitutional rights that were once unimagined.” I assume, based on the gasps from others in attendance, that Rep. King implied this to be some sort of outrage, judges overstepping their authority and such. In any event, this interpretation of Varnum v. Brien was enough for Rep. King to call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Iowa, along with a residency restriction. The full paragraph from which that snippet derives is as follows (full 69-page opinion here):
Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time. The framers of the Iowa Constitution knew, as did the drafters of the United States Constitution, that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.
Even without the full paragraph, the notion of rights that were once unimagined being protected under the law is not exactly a radical idea. In fact, if you are reading this (and are a U.S. citizen), you are living and breathing the benefits of such protection. As I pointed out to Rep. King, just to give a couple examples, if we as citizens could only count on rights that were imagined centuries or even just decades ago, we would very likely still have legal racial segregation, and perhaps even legal slavery (I emphasize legal here because we still have illegal varieties of both in the United States). And of course, this question of whether or not a right is imaginable seems irrelevant to the process of judicial review. If it’s brought up in a lawsuit, consider it imaginable.
Rep. King referred to a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases, most notably Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which overthrew a Texas anti-sodomy law, and expressed concern about a “progression” of cases that undermined the government’s ability to legislate morality.When asked if he was concerned about the Iowa Supreme Court setting up a “slippery slope,” paving the way for legalizing currently illegal pairings (e.g. polygamy, incest), Rep. King responded, “The Iowa Supreme Court has declared they can imagine anything to be a right.”
That’s right, folks. Anything. Better scrap the judicial branch altogether, eh?
Regarding Varnum v. Brien, Rep. King told his audience that the Iowa Supreme Court declared that Iowans (presumably just the heterosexual ones) have “no vested interest in protecting marriage.” For this comment, I will commend Rep. King for at least getting it close to right – having not read the opinion, he made a good guess. The Iowa Supreme Court did not declare that Iowans don’t have a vested interest in protecting marriage; in fact, it’s not far off to call the Varnum v. Brien decision a protection of marriage (injustice puts a damper on things), as well as a protection of the Constitution. They did, however, assert what I can only hope Rep. King will soon realize – excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not “significantly further any state interest.”
Rep. King will be stopping in my hometown next week, and I look forward to visiting with him again. I hope, if he plans to discuss same-sex marriage at all, that he will have read and understood the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion in Varnum v. Brien. That foundation will make a world of difference for those in attendance, and it might stir up some provocative dialogue. Perhaps most importantly, it will help Rep. King send a message to his constituents that, in addition to being a charismatic and talented public speaker, he cares about their concerns enough to get informed and come to a town hall meeting prepared.
