Speaker of the House Pat Murphy
House District 28
Dubuque
Biography
Pat Murphy was born on August 24, 1959, the ninth of ten children in the family of Larry and Eileen Murphy. He was born, raised and educated in Dubuque where his father worked for U.S. West and AT & T. Pat graduated from Wahlert High School in 1977 and received his B.A. from Loras College in 1980 in speech communication with minors in political science and history.
In addition to operating his own business, he has worked in various capacities at Mercy Health Center, CyCare Systems Inc. as a quality assurance analyst/document specialist, and Hillcrest Family Services as a youth care worker. He most recently served on the faculty at Northeast Iowa Community College.
Pat married Teri Ann Gulick in 1980. They have four children. Pat has been a state representative since winning a special election in 1989. He was the ranking Democratic member of the House Appropriations Committee from 1995-2003 where his responsibility was to oversee the entire state budget for his Democratic colleagues.
He was elected Democratic leader in 2003 after Dick Myers resigned the position, and was re-elected leader following the 2004 elections. As leader of the House Democrats, he directed the 2004 legislative campaign that picked up three additional Democratic seats in the House and the 2006 legislative campaign that took back the majority with 54 Democratic seats.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy
House District 67
Des Moines
Kevin is the State Representative from House District 67. House District 67 covers the East and Southeast portions of Des Moines, all of Pleasant Hill, and a portion of Carlisle. Kevin grew up in Des Moines and attended Lincoln High School. He graduated with a B.A. from Wartburg College prior to attending Drake University Law School. During law school Kevin worked in the offices of Iowa’s Attorney General, Tom Miller. He eventually graduated from law school and went to work for the Tobacco Project in Washington D.C. He currently works in private practice with the Wandro & Baer Law Firm in Des Moines.
Rep. McCarthy was elected Majority Leader in the Fall of 2006 following the Democratic takeover of the Iowa House. While his responsibilities are primarily defined by tradition and House rule, there are certain duties that now customarily fall under the Leader’s control. These responsibilities include the scheduling of legislation for debate and the planning of daily, weekly and annual legislative agendas.
The Majority Leader works closely with the House Speaker to schedule debate on a weekly basis and set the agenda for the session. He is also expected to consult with members to gauge attitudes concerning legislation and communicate the party’s message to the media and public at large.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://iowahouse.org/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Yahoo Buzz]](http://iowahouse.org/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-buzz-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Delicious]](http://iowahouse.org/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-delicious-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://iowahouse.org/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg-micro3.png){kind=icon}
Welcome to the Iowa House Democrats website! This is the first "open source" WordPress blog to be deployed for a political organization in the State of Iowa and we welcome your comments! 
Mr. West: What you refer to as “state-sanctioned sodomy” is more commonly referred to as sex between consenting adults and it has been legal in Iowa since action by the Legislature in 1976. Incidentally, it also decriminalized many sexual activities of heterosexuals.
You then hint that civil rights is only about the immutable characteristics with which one is born, then base most of your argument on Christian beliefs. Many people do not choose to follow the faith in which they were raised. People convert to different religions all the time. Is religion then not a true category for protection of civil rights? Then why do you argue from a theological point of view? And what of the government trampling on the rights of religions to marry whom they wish? United Church of Christ and Reform Judaism, among others, support same-sex unions, yet the law has prevented them from performing legally valid ceremonies. I was always wondering why there was no outcry over THAT governmental interference in religion.
Despite all that, I will take issue to your statement that “…homosexuality is a choice…” You are on the wrong side of ALL modern medical science and social research on that one. Try to find any legitimate peer-reviewed scientific publications to support your views. There are none. You will find only self-published opinions by self-described experts.
But should all of this even matter in the argument? We once prohibited slaves from marrying, then people of different races. We now know that it was just plain wrong to do so. I am sure that the near future will bring a time when denying marriage to two loving people of the same gender will also be widely seen as just plain wrong. I have known the Varnums (named plaintiffs in the Supreme Court ruling) for years. They plan to marry this fall, and I wish them the continued happiness that they deserve.
I strongly urge everyone to read the actual Supreme Court decision (link to it is near the top of this page). While it runs 69 pages, the first 6 or so are a list of all the lawyers and such, and many pages have long footnotes of legal citations that you can skip. It really is a fairly easy read, and those who oppose the ruling should at least understand how the Court reached its ruling before attacking it.
Keep in mind that a constitutional amendment on this subject would be the first in Iowa history to TAKE AWAY, rather than BESTOW rights. How radical would that be?
Herlen,
I heard where the judge had ruled that homosexuals could marry and that marriage is not between a man and a woman. I think that it should be brought to the people to vote on a marriage amendment and let the people decide who can get married and who can’t get married.
Thanks, Cindy Howey
Mr. West you put this so well. IT IS NOT A MARRIAGE with two persons of the same gender. The Lord created us, made us different as male and female for a reason. If everyone chose to be homosexual the population would no longer be. The people who are fighting for this should maybe fight a little more for themselves and their reason for being homosexual. Everyone has rights, rights to their own opinions but when it goes against our creator you might be walking into the pits of “hell”. If that is what you want, it is your right. If churches are sanctioning marriage they are going against the word which is in the Bible I would hope they use for shepherding their congregations. Most of your fathers would not wish “hell” for their children and I don’t think that is what you want either. If it is just a matter of being right – be right. But, in your heart be sure that you want to give up eternity for it.
Mr. Porterfield,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I agree with you on many levels, especially the point about how amending our constitution would be removing rights. I will be sending a personal email to Mr. Burt to voice my support and jubilation in the Supreme Court’s ruling, but I also wanted to comment publicly. I am concerned that some folks here are using the Bible and eternity references to make their point. Separation of church and state is important, and it protects our citizens and our churches. From my perspective, the church does not have a place in this argument. In my ideal society, every couple would be granted a government-sanctioned civil union, and then those couples could seek a religious marriage if they chose. We do not currently have that option in our state, so this is the only way to provide equal rights for all couples. This, to me, is the civil rights issue of our time. Gay rights are human rights. I also urge those opposing the ruling to read the decision and really think about the marriage rights that many of us (me included) have taken for granted.
It is important to recognize the hypocrisy in labeling homosexuality a “choice.” Let’s consider the implications… If it is a choice, Mr. West, is it an option you would consider? Calling it a choice seems to acknowledge that every individual has the option to live as a homosexual or a heterosexual. Perhaps a more relevant question for you to consider is why is it YOU have made the CHOICE that you have? Be realistic. Nobody would choose to live with the harassment and discrimination a homosexual feels.
Next, using what you probably have as your answer to my previous question, why is it okay for you to push your religious beliefs onto me? I’m not saying your religious beliefs are right or wrong, but how could you possibly defend an argument rooted in religion in a nation that was formed on the grounds of never letting that happen again? Religion is not the basis for morality and how I “choose” to live my life really has no effect on whether you go to Hell or not, so let me be.
In the context of what the Iowa Supreme Court has decided, marriage is not an institution of the church. I have no desire to be married so that your god may recognize my marriage. I believe each individual church should decide whether or not they would like to conduct marriage ceremonies on an individual basis. If a church does not believe in gay marriage-then gays do not need to get married in that church.
We are not all the same. Sameness is debilitating. Respect and appreciation are all it takes to make a happy Union.
state, county and city levels can create more income by not suspending the fines on court cases. sorry if you cant afford the fines, then dont do the crime! DUH!
I appreciate all the comments on my initial comment. I don’t see the initial comment on this page anymore, someone must not like to see God’s word in print. Must part of the “tolerance” practiced by those who preach that we all should be able to practice our “rights”.
Yes, this is a free country. We have God-given rights, as per the Declaration, and the Constitution. Included in those rights is the right to be wrong. None of what I said would prohibit anyone from practicing homosexuality, but God , in His word, condemns it, as per the verses I quoted. So, if you don’t agree, that’s fine, but you’re arguing with Bible and the One who wrote it, not me. Just remember what Romans 3: 4 says: “let God be true, but every man a liar”. Argue with Him if you will, it’s your choice.
Homosexuality is a sin per the Bible, but it is important to note that it is no worse than any other sin, such as adultery, stealing, murder, envy, hatred, and lying, etc., etc. It must always be remembered, that while God hates the sin, He loves the sinner, and I do , too.
Even though I don’t agree with the practice of homosexuality, what folks do privately is their own business. However, when the state sanctions marriage of homosexuals, then the basic unit of the home as God intended it, is gone, which will adversely impact our society. After homosexual marriage is allowed, then why not having more than two married at one time – what’s wrong with a little bigamy? What if you want to marry your dog? What’s wrong with a little bestiality? Where does is stop?
One of the major issues that is not being strongly discussed, is that the Judicial Branch cannot legislate. However, with the legislature and the executive branches rolling over, that’s exactly what is happening. This is a dangerous precedent. Just because the Judicial Branch says a legislative law, signed by the executive, is unconstitutional, does not make a law! It is up to the legislative branch to create bills, that when signed by the governor become law.
Thus, if the leaders of this state trust the good citizens of Iowa, they will not stand in the way of allowing an effort to amend the Constitution, so that the people can have a voice in this matter. Unless of course, the legislative branch and executive branch don’t trust the citizens they represent, which means our democratic republic is doomed.
Let us have a voice.
Mick,
Just wanted to let you know that we support the supreme court decision to allow same sex people to marry. I get tired of hearing about the sanctity of marriage while living in a country that allows and encourages divorce through the courts. If marriage has to do with religion, and I believe it does, then the the legal side of marriage is not to do with religion. If the churches want to refuse to allow gays to marry in the church, the state should stay out of it. If the courts want to allow gays to enter into a civil union, the church can stay out of it. I see a lot of gay couples provide a loving home for their children. And I see a lot of straight couples tearing their sanctioned marriages apart and destroying families. If it takes lawyers and a judge to dissolve a marriage, this is a legal contract.
I hope the churches and Christians out there can figure out a way to keep straight couples married. In the meantime, please don’t be a part of the zealots that want to prevent loving people, no matter what their sexual preferences, from knowing the legal security of our state marriages.
If you want to verify our beliefs, feel free to contact me at 832-3524.
Hope you can keep church and state separate.
Sincerely,
Dick and Crystal Griffith
And we did vote for you.
I’ve been watching this comment string, and noticed that the website has deleted Mr. West’s original message, and his latest message that was posted last night.
This is curious, since it indicates a relunctance of this website to allow differing opinions and open discussion.
Seeing the messages that are left actually reference to Mr. West’s original message, this makes this website appear one-sided and scared of all sides of an issue.
Pretty easy, save A LOT… Stop Mowing!
Cut down on the number of state vehicles. There are a number of people that drive state vehicles to and from their homes every day. Why is this necessary? Use state vehicles only for state business and not for personal! This could save a lot of money and cut down on the number of vehicles taxpayers have to pay for.
Dear Sir, Once again you have chosen to not listen to the people of Iowa. We want the opportunity to vote on our feelings about gay marriage. you have the chance to stand up for the people you represent and let their voices (not your feelings) be heard.
Well, now the Fed’s have added more tax to cigarette’s. The smoker’s(by choice) of Iowa are being taxed to death. Well, drinker’s of alcohol (by choice) appear to be getting a great deal. They still buy the product with no added taxes, then can get free services for being a drunk, they drive drunk, and kill people and sometimes themselves. I say add a larger tax to the purchase of all alcoholic beverages, and use it to put back into our Schools and maybe roads. Tax at the time of purchase in stores, and tax what bars and restaurants purchase for their business. More money for our schools and maybe less drunks on the roads. And maybe less drinking overall. We have fewer smokers now, because of the taxes.
[Post Deleted by Admin due to profanity]
Posts are edited for spam and deleted (or edited with a notation) if there is content that is inflammatory, derogatory, or just plain nasty. We welcome reasoned, compassionate, and honest discussion of issues – from all sides. We do not edit comments based on political opinion.
-Admin
All Goverment assistant should be Public record!
4-20-2009
Mark,
I am very concerned about the Iowa Supreme Court decision that ruled the current Iowa law regarding gay marriage as unconsitutional. The timing of this ruling in relationship to the November, 2008 elections is interesting. The next chance to vote at a regular election is 19 months away. The timing of this ruling could be construed as politically motivated.
I am also concerned with the partisonship that has come to light with this issue. If gay marriage is right for Iowa, LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. This is a major issue. One party wants to let the voters decide & the other party continues to block this. This is not what Iowa voters want from ur elected officials. The Democrats have become bullies because of there larger numbers & are not looking at what is best for Iowa.
I don’t know what your position is on this issue & it does not really matter. It doesn’t matter what my stance is either. What matters is what the voters of Iowa want. The timetable of allowing gay marriage needs to be delayed until the voters of the Great State of Iowa have spoken. It is the voters right & this right should not be blocked by partison politics. If the voters vote in favor of gay marriage, then move forward with expediency. If the voters vote against gay marriage, then we need a law that is constitutional & cannot be overturned by the court.
I am not accusing you of blocking this vote. I am writing you as my local representative at the State House.
You are welcome to look up my political affiliations, there are none. I do not belong to either party & have voted for the candidate of choice at every election regardless of party. I am as neutral a voter as you can find.
I thank you in advance for your considertion of this matter.
this bill need s to have assurance that the credits will remain if a long term commentment from the mall owners and the film industry is to be finalized.
it is a good opportunity to bring new jobs and new skills to the des moines work place.
movies like “ticket out “had ALL the right people in ALL the right places and put a lot of ideas into motion.
ticket out shot in IOWA over the winter …to be released in the FALL of 09
5 different county and many towns saw this production unfold right before there very eyes.
great blog and interesting articles ive added your site to my rss reader…thanks a bunch
Finally this bill passed although it does little good for the individual homeowner and shabby contractors know this, all this bill did is help the AG’s office….not the average homeowner.
Far too long IA homeowners have been scammed by rogue contractors and we do not have a chance fighting them court because no attorney will take the homeowners case. There is no money in it for them, now that the homeowner can sue for attorney fee’s perhaps more attorneys will be willing to plea their case.
For over 2 yrs I wrote emails, I called and contacted every lawmaker in Iowa many times after I was scammed by a plumber from Indianola who not only caused damage to my home but did not do what I hired him to do. After he became very verbal abusive I fired him and locked him out of my home. I found out soon afterwards that this plumber did the same shabby job to homeowners in his home town of Indianola just before scamming me. So I was told he has to drive to Des Moines to get work and find his victims there.
We lost our case in court because we had no one to fully ‘represent’ us and since this plumber has a money hungry clever attorney we never had a chance. No attorney wanted to help us and would not bother to take our case we may as well say we went to court without ‘any’ representation so I am out several thousand dollars that I had to pay to this corrupt attorney. Also I had to pay the plumber thousand of dollars that I did not owe him and yet today I have to live with the damage he caused to my home and I have the burden of a heavy debt since I had to borrow the money to pay as this corrupt attorney was licking his chops wanting to foreclose on my home.
If that nightmare was not painful enough, I was then told by other attorney’s afterwards that I can not appeal because of my attorney that just set in court and did nothing.
How shameful for Iowa that homeowners experience such terrible injustice and then can not even turn to the AG for help when we file a complaint as we are told the Ag’s Consumers office that they only take multiple case’s as this rogue plumber would have to scam hundreds of homeowners before they can help. I was told they cannot represent just a couple of complaints filed with them as that would take up too much of the AG’s time”….
But still, shame on lawmakers for dragging their feet for so long and shame on the AG’s office for allowing rogue contractors to continue to be licensed and so they can continue to scam individual homeowners…..one at a time.
i believe gay marriage is wrong because sex should be between a man and a women not 2 men or 2 women.[...edited for offensive content...] I fully believe this is wrong.
Good Post here… by the way I want to express my unhappiness over FAKE ID’s Last summer a punk kid ran over my sister and she was hospitalised for 2 weeks!
Sounds great but why will the government have to pay if it’s such a great idea and economically feasible. The government doesn’t need to be paying for this!
Same reason the government pays for roads and airports. BTW, wouldn’t you like a choice when gas hits $4/gallon again?
Hi, Excellent post, some really useful environmental information here and well worth knowing about.
Thanks
Very good information. Thanks for letting me know about this to help me in my environmental studies.
This is a test of Facebook Connect! Trying to integrate the House Democrats website with Facebook!
The State Government Reorganization Committee will be meeting to discuss ways to find more “efficiencies” in the provision of state services. Please watch the website for further developements
Congratulations Curt!
Great work!
My husband and I oppose this bill – and my husband was in the military.
Anyone that joins the military realizes that they will be moving from place to place at the military’s demand – and possibly deployed! Their spouses also know this. It is an inappropriate use of the state’s unemployment fund to pay for a spouse to quit their job! This will not only contribute to higher costs for all businesses but will encourage spouses to quit their jobs – and to stay unemployed until their unemployment expires. (You know this will happen with some!)
Stop trying to create another bill that adds a burden somewhere that it shouldn’t be added! State government is out of hand!
I support the bill, as should anyone who claims to support the troops. Our nation is at war, and so very few of us are having to carry the burden for all of us. Our military families have a very difficult time as it is, and rates of divorce and other problems is quite high for these families. Helping ease the financial difficulties they face while simultaneously helping them stay together is good for our national defense.
In short, to quote former president G.W. Bush, “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” Either you stand with our troops, or you’re not fit to polish their boots.