Videos: Reps. Schultz and Windschitl Hate Gay Students Because They Hate Gay Marriage

Reps. Schultz and Windschitl Hate Gay Students Because They Hate Gay Marriage

9 February 2010

ZJ: Well, I've received a response from Iowa State Representatives Jason Schultz and Matt Windschitl regarding their bill, H.F 2291. This measure would amend Iowa's Safe Schools Law so that schools are no longer required to explicitly prohibit bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity. I asked them why this is necessary, and their responses were largely similar.

Both of them affirmed that bullying is already wrong, regardless of whether these specific provisions are in place. And while this is true, it does not explain why they would only seek to remove the provisions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. Schools would still be required to prohibit bullying based on other characteristics included in the law, such as race, gender and disability. H.F. 2291 would not remove any of these—only sexual orientation and gender identity.

Windschitl described this as "removing unnecessary language". But why are mandatory policies against bullying due to sexual orientation any less necessary than policies against racist bullying? This would seem to say that while bullying based on race or gender is so unacceptable that schools must have policies against it, bullying based on sexual orientation does not merit the same degree of attention. It's just not that important, and schools shouldn't have to prevent it if they don't want to.

H.F. 2291 would mean that anti-gay harassment is not quite as unacceptable as other forms of harassment that are expressly forbidden. But why should bullying be taken any less seriously just because it's due to sexual orientation? That is what Schultz and Windschitl are proposing here.

As it turns out, they may not actually care about any of this—big surprise there. In the latter part of their responses, they explain what they really take issue with: gay marriage. Both of them object to the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Varnum v. Brien, which overturned the statute prohibiting gay marriage. Schultz described this as "an earthquake". Wow, that must be even worse than a "Gathering Storm".

So how is this ruling connected to the Safe Schools Law? Schultz and Windschitl claim that this and other laws have designated homosexuals as a "protected class", and that these laws were cited by the Supreme Court as part of their ruling.

However, the Safe Schools Law does not mention homosexuals. It only includes sexual orientation. It does not specify which sexual orientation, it covers any sexual orientation. If this makes homosexuals a protected class, then it also makes heterosexuals, bisexuals, and everyone else a protected class as well. It is selective and misleading to claim that this law grants a protected status to homosexuals.

Schultz and Windschitl intend to repeal protections for sexual orientation in order to undermine the court's decision in Varnum v. Brien. In essence, they're trying to retroactively weaken a case that's already been ruled on. But this wouldn't actually change anything. Even if they were successful, gay marriage would remain legal. Legislative support for protections based on sexual orientation was only one small part of the ruling. Its absence would not have proven fatal to the decision when it was issued, and it obviously wouldn't affect the ruling now.

If Schultz and Windschitl want to ban gay marriage all over again, this would require an amendment to be approved by two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly before it could be put to a popular vote. And given the current legislature's opposition to such an amendment, it seems unlikely to pass.

Perhaps the most notable part of their responses is what they did not say. Neither of them actually bothered to explain what makes gay marriage so undesirable. Of course, the usual flimsy arguments make an appearance: appeals to history, references to God, pejorative use of the term "lifestyle"... you know the drill.

And yet, they completely neglected to cite any actual ill effects that have resulted from gay marriage. They presented nothing that would justify going so far as to weaken protections against bullying in a farfetched attempt to stop gay marriage. The only thing they offered that was even close to an actual reason was quite simply: "We don't like it." Well, that's wonderful, but as the Supreme Court found, banning gay marriage serves no legitimate government interest, and violates the state constitution.

Schultz and Windschitl's rationale for the necessity of H.F. 2291 is thoroughly unconvincing. This measure would accomplish nothing that they've intended it to, and it's even more outrageous that they're willing to risk the safety of students to pursue such an unworthy goal. All that this bill has to offer is election-year pandering at best, and reckless, mean-spirited homophobic spite at worst.

← Video archive