The State of the Union speech was last night. Rest assured, that is not what this editorial is about. Instead of talking about how President Obama plans to get his Bill Clinton on and fix the economy, we are going to address something we feared would happen.

House Joint Resolution 6 is, “A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa specifying marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union that is valid or recognized.”

Specifically, H.J.R. 6 wants to add a new section. The new section would read, “Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.”

There it is, plain as day. The repercussions of Iowa’s Supreme Court justices being voted out are visible in H.J.R. 6; what is also apparent is that Republicans don’t know their own ideology.

You see, Republicans should want smaller government. What seems to happen though is that they forget this when they want to push a standard of morality on everyone else, or have the desire to undertake an exercise in imperialism in far off places.

When they get this urge to regulate the lives of others, they find it acceptable to expand government power to do so, forgetting that they should be for a small government.

Where does this standard come from, you might ask. Is it from Plato, or Socrates? Does it expand on democracy, and take into account the liberties of others?

Some would say yes. There are many that say Judeo-Christian religions were meant to promote peace, unity and love.

Taking the role of the “other” was commanded by Jesus when he said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Jesus wasn’t just issuing a blanket command of warm fuzzy feelings. In order to love someone as yourself you must take into account how you love the “self” and apply it to the understanding of the intimate needs of the “other.”

What we are illustrating is that not only do some Republicans go against their own ideology, but their religion as well — of course, this does not include Republicans that do not believe in a Judeo-Christian faith, just to be clear.

We aren’t surprised by this. After watching the oral debates that went on at our Supreme Court building concerning Judge Robert Hanson’s decision to return the LGBT community its right to be married, is anyone really surprised that the people against LGBT marriage are done giving reasons?

We will be watching for a repeat of a phenomenon that happened right before the judges were voted out.

A great many people that were, or had been, identifying themselves with the libertarian ideology called for a vote against the judges on the basis that the state had no business dealing with marriage in any sense, even to deregulate it.

If voting against government involvement in marriage was right then, shouldn’t it be right at this time as well? Will these people step forward and raise a voice of dissent now?

Ideologies aren’t ideologies unless they hold some kind of congruity, a consistency that serves to help guide decision making.

Politicians that have jumped on the tea party-esque band wagon of fiscal responsibility and bearing arms ignore something that was arguably a huge part of the tea party movement in it’s infancy. The socially progressive part of the coined phrase, “Fiscally conservative, socially progressive,” still exists.

LGBT rights are just that, rights; rights that are unalienable, inseparable and granted as soon as a person comes into existence.

Using faith-based arguments concerning what a creator would want has never been, nor will it ever be, a valid argument to control the lives of others.

We have often called for the people of this campus to support LGBT rights, to support the ability of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people to enjoy marriage.

We now call on you to do something very different; and for some of you an idea that is radical.

If your political parties ideology doesn’t stand firm in support of LGBT rights, then abandon it.

If you believe your party is one that supports the rights and liberties of the individual and you hear something leave the mouth of a peer that is contrary to this, then it is up to you to immediately correct them. If you do not then you allow another standard to be set.

Instead of standing in unity with those who compromise your beliefs, stand in solidarity with those who refuse to take part in political organizations promoting social inequality and bigotry.