Iowa Civil Rights Bill FINALLY Hits House Floor

In the 2007 Iowa legislative session, the Democrat Majority stood up for human corpses, protecting them from mutilation. They took a stand against the widespread epidemic of flag desecration, amending Iowa’s unconstitutional law to make it less unconstitutional. And just yesterday they vowed to protect “sleepy smokers” from burning to death, while sleeping when they enacted legislation that would mandate self-extinguishing cigarettes.

And now, FINALLY, after considerable pressure from civil rights activists, the Iowa House is going to debate SF 427 today. The amendment will extend rights to gays, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals, protecting them from discrimination in employment, housing, education, credit, and public accommodations. The amendment will add “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” to the existing law. The amendment defines these terms as follows:

"Gender identity" means a gender=related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior of a person, regardless of the person's assigned sex at birth.

"Sexual orientation" means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

Despite these proposed changes, some members of Iowa congress still have some reservations, hence the prolonged procrastination of the long-overdue debate on the House floor. Why the delay is dumbfounding, but not surprising -- given the new Democrat Majority’s Trifectaphobia. Apparently, protecting one’s political longevity trumps the protection of one’s human dignity. Lawmakers had no problem adding “sexual orientation” to the Bully Bill, which already passed with flying colors, but extending the same protections beyond the K-12 classroom walls ran into some roadblocks.

Besides, homophobia and the closeted fear of committing political suicide, the amendment ran into a few other obstacles, especially from members of the business community. The last barrier lawmakers had to break down, thus paving the way for today’s debate was what I’ll call the “Klinger Conundrum.” Employers wanted to maintain sovereignty of their “dress codes as they see appropriate.” Imbibed with watching too many M*A*S*H reruns, employers had unsubstantiated fears that the amendment would lead to a surge in cross-dressing at the work place.

The Klinger Conundrum: Posterboy of Homophobia in the Work Place?

Even in the closeted Underworld of Homophobia, I guess you have to draw the line somewhere. Right?
________________________________
Stop the Fallout NOW!...

Move to Act (Bleeding Heartland)

Civil Rights Bill Update (J. Deeth)