Angelo's Eloquence

Back when he was a Republican state senator from Creston, Jeff Angelo was a main supporter of a 2004 drive to put a ban on gay marriages into the Iowa Constitution. It failed by a very narrow vote.

Angelo was also one of the most reasonable and thoughtful members of the general assembly. So it really didn't surprise me last night when he stood up at a public hearing on the latest attempt to pass the amendment to say, upon further reflection, he's changed his mind.

Here's the text of remarks he made in the House chamber:

I see many friends within this chamber tonight. As many of you know, I served 12 years in the Iowa Senate. I, like all the legislators within this Assembly, took an oath to defend the Constitution-an oath that I continue to take very seriously as a citizen activist.During my tenure in the Iowa Senate, I voted for an amendment similar to the one contemplated tonight and was lead sponsor for a similar Constitutional amendment just a few short years ago.But I am here tonight to tell you that I have changed my position on this issue, and to urge a “no” vote on House Joint Resolution 6 and ask that this assembly continue to allow same-sex couples the ability to be joined in civil marriage.Every legislator knows that any discussion of a contentious issue such as this one should begin in areas of common ground before moving to areas of disagreement.I know that we all agree that the purpose of our Constitution is to protect the rights of individuals. It does so by limiting the government's power to control the lives and properties of our citizens.The resolution before you places pro-active, legislative language in our Constitution meant to limit the ability of a select group of citizens to be civilly joined in marriage. It does not restrain government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens and therefore violates the very purpose of our Iowa Constitution.Let me also say that the tenor of the debate has become such that it does not serve the people of Iowa well and is not in keeping with an Iowa culture that is known nationwide for displaying both respect and generosity of spirit.Each day, Iowans worship, work, live with, and love people who are gay. This debate centers around the devaluation of the lives of a select group of people. At its worst, we are asked to believe that our gay friends and neighbors are involved in a nefarious agenda…the outcome of which, supposedly, is the unraveling of society itself.My friends, Iowans are discomforted by this debate, because we know it not to be true.So let me return to my earlier theme of finding common ground within a contentious debate. We all are joined together tonight but our love of liberty. Free citizens are allowed to disagree and live their lives as they choose without fear of government reprisal as long as life and property are not threatened. Countries that seek to use the secular law to enforce religious principle are NOT free.I urge legislators in this debate to “default” to the side of liberty and vote “no” on House Joint Resolution 6.

Jeff and his wife Tara

During my tenure in the Iowa Senate, I voted for an amendment similar to the one contemplated tonight and was lead sponsor for a similar Constitutional amendment just a few short years ago.

But I am here tonight to tell you that I have changed my position on this issue, and to urge a “no” vote on House Joint Resolution 6 and ask that this assembly continue to allow same-sex couples the ability to be joined in civil marriage.

Every legislator knows that any discussion of a contentious issue such as this one should begin in areas of common ground before moving to areas of disagreement.

I know that we all agree that the purpose of our Constitution is to protect the rights of individuals. It does so by limiting the government's power to control the lives and properties of our citizens.

The resolution before you places pro-active, legislative language in our Constitution meant to limit the ability of a select group of citizens to be civilly joined in marriage. It does not restrain government intrusion in the lives of law-abiding citizens and therefore violates the very purpose of our Iowa Constitution.

Let me also say that the tenor of the debate has become such that it does not serve the people of Iowa well and is not in keeping with an Iowa culture that is known nationwide for displaying both respect and generosity of spirit.

Each day, Iowans worship, work, live with, and love people who are gay. This debate centers around the devaluation of the lives of a select group of people. At its worst, we are asked to believe that our gay friends and neighbors are involved in a nefarious agenda…the outcome of which, supposedly, is the unraveling of society itself.

My friends, Iowans are discomforted by this debate, because we know it not to be true.

So let me return to my earlier theme of finding common ground within a contentious debate. We all are joined together tonight but our love of liberty. Free citizens are allowed to disagree and live their lives as they choose without fear of government reprisal as long as life and property are not threatened. Countries that seek to use the secular law to enforce religious principle are NOT free.

I urge legislators in this debate to “default” to the side of liberty and vote “no” on House Joint Resolution 6.

also have a great blog you should check out.