Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

Cary Gordon speaking the steps of the Capitol for the "Let Us Vote" rally
Cary Gordon speaking the steps of the Capitol for the "Let Us Vote" rally

Gordon: ‘It’s not about hate, it’s about natural law’

Sioux City pastor says two men claiming they can raise a child just as well as a heterosexual couple is offensive to women
By Tyler Kingkade | 03.24.11 | 7:30 am

DES MOINES — Pastor Cary Gordon was sure many of the people who heard him speak last week at the west steps of the Capitol for the “Let Us Vote” rally thought the main reason they were there was to protest same-sex marriage. Gordon disagrees. To him, the larger issue is secularism, which he said is the “root” of all of society’s problems.

Gordon, pastor at the Sioux City-based Cornerstone World Outreach church, claimed secularists want to throw God out of our public policy decisions.

“The natural problem that causes is an overt immorality. The crime rates go up, people suffer, people are stealing and murdering and [doing] all the things morality tells you not to do,” Gordon said in an interview with The Iowa Independent, although he clarified that he did not mean same-sex marriage is the direct cause of all these things.

But other speakers at last week’s rally, organized by the politically influential organization The Family Leader, were willing to make the connection between gay marriage and societal ills.

“No society is prepared to deal with the problems arising out of same-sex marriages — child abuse, adoption, divorce, foster care, alimony, and the list goes on and on,” said former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Moore once wrote in a high court opinion homosexuality was a “detestable and an abominable sin.” He was forced off the bench in 2003 for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments in the judicial building.

“We have an adultery problem, we have an infidelity problem, we have a premarital sex problem — we don’t need to add another problem to a pile of problems,” Gordon said, referring to same-sex marriage.

It comes from the secularism of the French enlightenment, Gordon claimed.

Gordon often referred to France’s government and society and noted an “objectum sexualist” who married the Eiffel Tower. Gordon said he believed the secular path he saw America’s society as being on would lead beyond legalizing same-sex marriages to polygamy, “whole villages getting married,” or grandparents marrying their own grandchildren.

“There’s always been this fight of can you have a free country without God?” Gordon said. “There has been a tendency leaning backwards towards secularism. And so what my point was that gay marriage or any other issues that are detached from the moral foundations of the teachings of Christianity are the result of a vaccum created by secularism.”

Gordon has drawn controversy since he began to actively campaign to oust the three Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010. In a letter to pastors encouraging to violate federal tax law by using the pulpit to advocate for the removal of the three judges for their participation in the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa, Gordon called gay marriage an “injustice” and “ungodly.”

He said at the time he hoped the Internal Revenue Service would come after him for violating his church’s tax exempt status. The church also participated in last year’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday, a national effort organized by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund aimed at convincing pastors to endorse political candidates from the pulpit in violation of tax code.

However, it appears “Project Jeremiah,” the 2010 effort by Gordon to get pastors around the state to campaign against the justices, jeopardized the church’s ability to secure a loan to pay more than $3 million to contractors for a newly built worship center. Cornerstone’s worship center is scheduled to go on the auction block in May, but the church is reportedly considering filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Gordon seemed unfazed by his church’s financial troubles as he took the podium at the state Capitol on March 15 and mocked the IRS, saying they didn’t hire him and wouldn’t be the ones to fire him.

Gordon told The Iowa Independent his outspoken opposition to same-sex marriages is “not about hate, it’s about natural law.” Although he didn’t say how he felt about two men or two women being able to receive the same legal benefits if they were not legally married.

“I didn’t make gravity, no board of three against two on a board of five voted and said ‘let’s have gravity now,’” Gordon said. “And so there are natural laws that men did not make and we don’t have the power to overrule. One of those laws is it takes one man and one woman to make a baby. I didn’t make that law … and that is the logical definition of family.”

He then called children the innocent bystanders of the situation, and said a same-sex couple could never raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple.

“When two men say to the world we can raise a child just as good as any heterosexual couple, I think that’s offensive to women, because you’re saying that a woman, a female, does not bring a unique contribution,” Gordon said.

Gordon added he felt the same way about two women trying to claim they could raise a family without a male presence.

Follow Tyler Kingkade on Twitter


Comments

  • Anonymous

    The Man has SECRET ISSUES..he’s OBSESSED with Gay people…..hmmm,could there be “Skeletons rattlin’ in his closet? He needs to READ the BILL of RIGHTS…….and LEARN about CIVIL LAW. Religion = the Killer of Mankind and the Human Imagination.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARFBEYKMNBSMXN7WGJYDL5G47E JR

      Give it a rest. Not all people who oppose homosexual marriage equality are gay, and to assert otherwise is childish, and belongs on the playground, not in the political discourse of adults.

      The First Amendment actually says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      The words “respecting an establishment of religion” have a very specific meaning, that essentially means “no single church may be considered more influential than any other as far as the law is concerned.” This is called “disestablishment”, and was a movement in English legal thought (see “the Chartist Movement” and its precursors).

      You need to read the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which established the pattern under which almost all of the non-original states were admitted to the union. It specifically states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”, which is actually a watered down version of what it originally contained while it was being debated: “Institutions for the promotion of religion and morality, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

      Atheists and agnostics cannot reasonably argue that the Founders intended for the United States to be an anti-religious nation — quite the contrary. The Founders simply wanted a legal level playing field for all expressions of religion and philosophy.

      • Anonymous

        I never said his skeletons meant he was gay…just that he has skeletons rattlin’ around…….he seems extremely OBSESSED.

  • Anonymous

    Gordon’s right: we do want God uninvolved in policy making. It’s called separation of church and state, and it’s necessary to preserve religious and philosophical freedoms.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARFBEYKMNBSMXN7WGJYDL5G47E JR

      ..that’s a leftist canard… sorry.

      All policy making is based on moral decisions. It’s inescapable. As soon as I say “you must do this, or you must not do this” I am forced to justify my assertion, and I justify it based on moral/ethical reasoning.

      So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make policy without appealing to a moral framework to do so. The intent of the Founders was not to produce a so called “wall of separation” between government and religion, because that is fundamentally impossible, and the writings of the Founders inform you of this if you bother to read them. Their intent was rather to prevent squabbling within the halls of the Federal government over which regional religious denomination should hold sway over political thought and thereby force its particular scruples on the People. They were trying to figure out how to produce disestablishmentarianism in the new Constitution, which mirrored events in England at approximately the same time (see “the Chartist movement”).

      So, you see, it’s not a question of separating government from religion as if religion has no redeeming value (which is ultimately impossible, and not really ideal anyway, because it can produce something like Nazism where the government actually becomes a religion). Rather, it’s a question of “How much religion do we share as common ground so that we can make laws that we’re all happy with?” As our society becomes more pluralistic, what _ought_ to be happening is the gradual dissolution of those laws which we can no longer find common ground upon, but the key is “gradual”, because rapid changes produce conservative behaviors, thereby lengthening the pain of those disenfranchised by laws from earlier times of relative conformity.

      • Anonymous

        I’m not advocating the elimination of religion; some people need a framework around which to build their moral sense. I would, however, advocate building laws around a consensus of what is “right” not because a God says so, or religious sorts interpret a God to have said so, but because we determine such laws treat people in a just and fair manner, without prejudice based on personal sentiment or cultural biases. In this way, religion must not be allowed to be the determinant; it immediately open the question of why the non-religious should follow, and what possible authority a god can have.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARFBEYKMNBSMXN7WGJYDL5G47E JR

          See, that’s what I thought. You said: “some people need a framework around which to build their moral sense.”

          It’s not “some people”, it’s ALL PEOPLE. You do it yourself. Your framework is probably something like secular humanism, which is a philosophical framework. It is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate cultural bias or personal sentiment when establishing a law, because all laws are based on some kind of moral framework, and all moral frameworks are based on an ethno/cultural worldview. The idea that there is some kind of “center of the universe” where universally moral law exists is a fanciful Utopian belief. The difference between a Bible thumper and yourself is simply that they readily admit their bias, and you do not.

          You cannot take a system of laws like we have, which has evolved over decades and even centuries when there was more societal homogeneity, and in only a single generation make major changes to that system without expecting conservative backlash. That’s irrational.

          • Anonymous

            I think you’re mixing my use if the term “framework” with “frame of reference”. Perhaps I should have elaborated with “a framework deliberately indoctrinated by an outside entity, endorsed by a higher power, with a clear reward to conformation (i.e. Heaven).” Many of us began within that framework and stepped away from it, finding that our innate tendencies or intellectual training did not allow acceptance of institutionalized injustice…or even institutionalized ritual that served no obvious purpose. Outside of the religion, there is the law (framework, but not necessarily a moral one) and there is culture (our frame of reference). Neither of these sits us down and lectures us on what is morally right, or outlines a process by which we can satisfy ourselves morally and spiritually. You can title the result “secular humanism”, but it’s self-cultured, not indoctrinated.

            While I’ll agree that it isn’t possible to erase one’s cultural experience, or develop morality in a vacuum which would necessarily be consistent with what evolves when actions and reactions can be observed (or, if one was not aware of others, would one necessarily identify enough with others to believe that hurting others is wrong?), I will maintain that individual experiences and biases can be acknowledged, assessed objectively, and not allowed to interfere with the development of fair laws that acknowledge commonality even between diverse frames of reference. And while cultures have historically created laws which agree with their cultural sense of ‘fair’, increasingly our cultures overlap in such a way as to create awareness of the unfairness of some of these laws.

            Can we step outside of the frame of reference of being human morally? People try. Those who will not harm animals for their own survival are making that attempt. Is it a ‘fairer’ practice? Maybe. But without the ability to communicate, we’re just guessing.

  • Anonymous

    Well, its a good thing that other states refuse to allow same sex marriage so they can remain free of child abuse, divorce, alimony, etc.

    /sarcasm
    //rolls eyes

  • Anonymous

    When you don’t have a real argument, just elevate your narrow-minded silly prejudices to the status of “natural law”. Get really invective, make sure you insist that Natural Order of Things needs no explanation or justification, because they’re intuitive, self-evident, common sense, and just so… natural!

    Are you sad the Confederate’s loss deprives you of the right to own slaves? Natural law!

    Does the idea of black men dating white women upset you? Natural law!

    Are you offended so many women are voluntarily childfree and make more money than you? What an egregious offense of the Natural Law!

    Having dreams of removing millions of natives from their land and forcing them to walk a Trail of Tears? Don’t just dream, take action and manifest destiny, its natural law!

    Have you ever wondered why peasants just don’t revolt against dictators? Its the Divine Right of Kings, its Natural Law!

    Can’t stand the thought of two dudes kissing and actually enjoying it? Say it with me, Natural Law!

  • Anonymous

    It’s not about hate, it’s about ignorance and/or arrogance. Ignorance because too many people hold terribly flawed and damaging views about same-gender couples (they are all about promiscuous sex, they’ll convert our kids, they’ll destroy America, they are diseased and mentally ill). Arrogance because too many people feel compelled to deny same-gender couples rights and benefits granted to heterosexual couples simply because they are so convinced their personal moral and religious understandings (including the concept of natural law) are perfect and inviolable. And actually, sometimes it is about hate, too.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARFBEYKMNBSMXN7WGJYDL5G47E JR

      I disagree. I don’t think most people who oppose equalizing marriage rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals are doing so out of arrogance. Ignorance might be debatable, but they’re certainly not being arrogant. The fear of change produces conservative behaviors and attitudes. The issue in question has multiple levels of fear embedded in it (including the one I mentioned above about how far removed we are from true ‘natural law’ when it comes to marriage, and how far we’d have to go to square it up).

      • Anonymous

        You make a good point. Many, if not most, arguments on this topic ultimately arrive at a point where people say their understanding of scripture is the only valid one, the only faithful one, the only possible one that a person with any faith and a brain could have. “Natural law” arguments tend to end up in the same place. Many people summarily dismiss factual information, simply because they think they know better than anyone else. I think arrogance is a fair term to apply to folks who seemingly can’t fathom the idea that they may not know everything. But you are right … arrogance and pride are often grounded in fear and insecurity.

  • Anonymous

    There’s nothing Natural about Religion either, in my opinion.

    • Anonymous

      True. The closest we come to a worshipful species is the domesticated dog, and we did that to them with millennia of extensive tinkering. And frankly, even the dogs aren’t always willing to set aside thought (such as it is) for blind obedience. Which kinda makes those dogs more intelligently able to follow free will than some humans….

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARFBEYKMNBSMXN7WGJYDL5G47E JR

      Quite right. Natural law does not mean religion. Religion is called “Revealed Law”. Pastors appeal to natural law because it often supports their revealed law beliefs, however, natural law is not the property of the religious.

      Reasonable (although somewhat tenuous) natural law arguments can be made in favor of equalizing homosexual and heterosexual rights, but if you apply natural law concepts to their ultimate extreme, you realize that marriage itself is not truly a natural law concept. So, all the rules we’ve piled up around it are all tied to revealed law concepts. In effect, what we’re arguing about is whether those revealed law ‘rules’ are fair in a modern pluralistic society, and the plain truth of the matter is, no, they probably aren’t. However, we can’t stop at saying “let’s fix the revealed law mess we’ve created around marriage so it applies equally”, we probably have to pull further back into natural law territory, and get society out of people’s private lives altogether.

      • Anonymous

        Interesting. May I ask, what’s your background? This is a new facet to this debate…

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARFBEYKMNBSMXN7WGJYDL5G47E JR

          My background? Well… I’m a member of the ISBA, but I’m not a practicing attorney right now… I ended up making more money partnering with a friend as a technology entrepreneur.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J3FGJ6LOGTJYGQG7EJYYJSTB6M stacy lynn

    Well then, hetero couples unable to have children ‘naturally’ shouldn’t break the ‘natural’ law and adopt, foster or get fertility treatment. Obviously God is trying to tell them something. While we’re at it, let’s choose one religion to base all the laws on. What would you like it to be? I’m going to go with Roman Catholic. My apologies to those of Jewish, Muslim, Athiest or other faiths.

    Sarcasm. Just a little.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARFBEYKMNBSMXN7WGJYDL5G47E JR

      Ugg… such a tired canard…

      “Natural law”: 1. (Philosophy) an ethical belief or system of beliefs supposed to be inherent in human nature and discoverable by reason rather than revelation

      “Nature”: 1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

      You can’t use a word out of context and pretend two different ideas mean the same thing. Attack the merit of his argument, or go away.

      In other words, a hetero couple that has trouble having children isn’t violating a “natural law” — the reasonable belief that males and females (in every higher species) form a part/counterpart pair, and thereby represent something inherently appropriate (and conversely that male/male and female/female pairs do not).

      There are a number of reasonable arguments one can make against this position, but “hetero couples who have trouble creating children are equally ‘unnatural’” is a canard, and needs to be put out of its misery — it’s a pathetic argument that makes no sense.

      Pastors appeal to natural law because they feel it supports their revealed laws, but anyone with a brain can (and should) appeal to it.

  • Anonymous

    How did we get to be so stupid?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARFBEYKMNBSMXN7WGJYDL5G47E JR

      We decided it was a good idea to get all twisted up in each others’ personal business… the history of democracy is a long tortuous story of how we’ve tried to balance personal freedom and collective responsibility.

  • http://www.eddiecaplan.com/ egc52556

    Nah, it’s about hate.

    BTW, it’s easy to recognize natural laws: people and things behave according to them regardless of what the legislature (or church) decides. Gordon’s beliefs are NOT natural laws. We can tell because people and things are NOT behaving according to them despite what his church or various legislatures decide.

    In short, natural laws need to enforcement by man.

  • http://www.eddiecaplan.com/ egc52556

    Nah, it’s about hate.

    BTW, it’s easy to recognize natural laws: people and things behave according to them regardless of what the legislature (or church) decides. Gordon’s beliefs are NOT natural laws. We can tell because people and things are NOT behaving according to them despite what his church or various legislatures decide.

    In short, natural laws need to enforcement by man.

  • http://www.CoreyMondello.com/ Corey

    this man will be caught with a male prostitute someday soon.

    Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of the U.S.A.’s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all those in it’s way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us this. James Madison, the “Father of the U.S. Constitution”, along with many founders of this country, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations, knew keeping politics and religion separate not only preserves each, but helps them flourish: “The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State.”

  • Anonymous

    he said this offends women? he lumped us all into one category and spoke for all of us? excuse me? I am all for two gay parents raising wonderfully healthy happy children. I would rather have had two moms than the parenting i got.
    Since when have heterosexuals raised the happiest normal well balanced children? I sure haven’t see it…there are some heterosexual familes that have yes..but i would not say or include all of them as doing such.

  • http://en-gb.facebook.com/onanov Donald Baxter

    Witless drivel he speaks; but his hair is *fabulous!*

  • http://profiles.google.com/dmillerparker Dave Parker

    it’s about hate.

  • http://profiles.google.com/mikerioshbg Michael Rios

    Natural law… huh? First off, can someone please inform him that hundreds upon hundreds of different species of animals have not gotten his memo that being gay isn’t natural…

    Next, can someone please inform him of the MANY studies which have proven that same-sex couples raise children just as well as their heterosexual counterparts? Is this man living under a rock?

  • Anonymous

    “It’s not about hate, it’s about natural law.”

    Gordon sounds a lot like Philadelphus Van Trump, editor of the Lancaster (Ohio) Gazette and Enquirer, arguing in 1866 against letting blacks vote: “Pseudo philanthropists may talk ever so loud and eloquently about an ‘equality before the law,’ where equality is not found in the great natural law of race ordained by the Creator. That cannot be changed by statute which has been irrevocably fixed by the fiat of the Almighty.”

Switch to our mobile site