This afternoon, in a vote of 62 to 37, the Iowa House passed House Joint Resolution 6, effectively overturning the state’s 2009 unanimous Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriages. The bill also eliminates civil unions or any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples in the state. It now heads to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) has vowed to “fight attempts to pass the amendment.”

Throughout today’s emotionally-charged debate, the bill’s Republican supporters attempted to portray the resolution — which would strip civil rights from gay and lesbian people — as a Democratic initiative that would give a voice to the people of Iowa. But when opponents prodded Republicans to explain if denying gay people the right to marry undermined the Iowa Constitution, they demurred. In one exchange, Rep. Nate Willems (D) pressed Rep. Erik Helland (R) on the specifics of the court’s decision. Helland was unable to explain if the resolution complimented the equal protection clause and admitted that he has not read the Court’s decision:

WILLEMS: Have you read the Varnum decision?

HELLAND: You know, I have not read it word for word, I’m familiar with the gist of it [...]

WILLEMS: Does it sound familiar that the Iowa Supreme Court found that the current law violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution?

HELLAND: Again Rep. Willems, you have the opinion in front of you, I do not…

WILLEMS: Well, Rep. Helland, let me read for you word for word Article 1 Section 6 of the Iowa Constitution, which is Iowa’s equal protection clause. It says, “all laws of a general nature should have a uniform operation. The General Assembly should not grant any citizen or a class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms should not equally belong to all citizens.” So, representatives do you agree with that piece of the Constitution? [...]

HELLAND: Do I agree with that section of the Constitution? [...] Yes I do. [...] I agree with that theme, theory, idea, constitution, that basic premise of democracy.

WILLEMS: Rep. Helland, I guess my question is how do we reconcile the equal protection clause with House Resolution 6?

HELLAND: I think that rises to a question that is frankly difficult for this question to address because the question then becomes, what is a protected class, how do we define that protected class…[...]

WILLEMS: Is it fair to say that House Resolution 6 carves out an exception to the equal protection clause?

HELLAND: The bottom line is, I don’t agree with you. I don’t think this is an exception we are carving out…

Listen:

During another portion of the debate, Rep. Mary Mascher (D) had Reps. Kraig Paulsen (R) and Dwayne Alons (R) agree that the Constitution protected minority rights, and then pressed them to explain why they only approved of some rights, like freedom of religion, but denied others. “I asked you, which provisions in our Iowa Constitution, do you protect for the minority in our state? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion? Are you picking and choosing? I want to know!,” she insisted, before saying, “You’re picking and choosing certain rights for minorities”:

MARSCHER: It’s interesting that we are picking winners and losers here. So you have the right if you’re a minority to practice your religion…but you don’t if you wan to get married. [...] So there is a precedent in terms of protecting the rights of the minority. Because Rep. Alons, I would be the first to defend your right to practice your decision. If somebody came at you and said, ‘I think we should put Rep. Alons’ religion on the ballot. Let’s put a constitutional amendment to deny him his right to practice that religion.’ I would be the first to vote against that. Because that’s not right….we believe in equal protection, even if I don’t agree with your religion, I will defend your right to practice it.

Listen to the full exchange HERE.

ThinkProgress interns Paul Breer and Kevin Donohoe contributed research to this post.

The only thing more surprising than Judge Roger Vinson’s decision to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act on the basis of a single provision that does not got into effect until 2014 is his reliance on the Family Research Council’s brief to do so. The FRC has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and if Vinson is using their rational in this case, he should at least be aware of group’s history of questionable legal conclusions and anti-gay bigotry. Below is only a partial sampling:

- CRIMINALIZING HOMOSEXUALITY: “I think the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place in this country for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.” [Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg]

- GAYS MOLEST CHILDREN: “Tony Perkins, President of the FRC, claimed that ‘the research I overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children.’ Perkins cited the American College of Pediatricians in doing so. But the American College of Pediatricians is actually as breakaway faction of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the official 60,000 organization representing pediatricians. The American College of Pediatricians requires that members “hold true to the group’s core beliefs…[including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.” [Southern Poverty Law Center]

- GAY PEOPLE SHOULD MARRY STRAIGHT PEOPLE: “[T]here is no evidence that Proposition 8 was “motivated by sexism in general or a desire to disadvantage men or women in particular”….”Proposition 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Homosexuals may marry someone of the opposite sex, and heterosexuals may not marry someone of the same sex.” [Prop 8 Brief]

- GOD SHOULD INTERVENE AGAINST GAYS: “Scripture warns that the shedding of innocent blood (e.g., abortion) and perverted sexual practices are abominations that call for Biblical judgment…..May God’s people have faith to believe that laws giving those who practice homosexuality special rights, protections and privileges can be reversed! May the Lord supernaturally intervene to do so.” [Prayer Update]

- PERSECUTING GAY PEOPLE’S SEXUAL ACTS: “The critical difference upon which the legal distinction rests is not the raw physical behavior but the relationships: same-sex deviate acts can never occur within marriage, during an engagement to marry, during a courtship prior to engagement, or within any relationship that could ever lead to marriage.” [Lawrence v. Texas Brief]

The brief’s author, Ken Klukowski, has his own questionable history. He is the coauthor of The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, has called on the Justice Department to probe ‘child porn’ allegations on the MTV show Skins, accused the Federal Reserve of waging a war against Christmas and attacked Obama for trying to “control” children’s minds.

Meanwhile, FRC President Tony Perkins is taking credit for his organization’s influence on Vinson. In a statement released yesterday, Perkins pointed out that “Judge Vinson quoted Klukowski (pg. 32 and footnote 27 on pg. 64) in his opinion. Judge Vinson wrote that he borrowed ‘heavily’ from FRC’s amicus brief and said the brief ‘quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability.’”