 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Waiting for responsible GOP leaders to say “Enough.”
Last Sunday’s column on Republican Party of Iowa Chairman A.J. Spiker’s call to oust another Iowa Supreme Court justice in the name of cynical same-sex marriage politics drew a little mail.
There was some praise, and some criticism. One reader argued that marriage equality is really just a high-sounding label for “homosexual hookups.” Another argued that if God had created two men or two women instead of Adam and Eve, no one would be here now to have this debate. And, after reading my mail, that thought made me smile.
But one email stood out. It was from Cedar Rapids attorney William McCartan, who took issue with Spiker’s politicized declaration of anti-judicial independence and wrote a letter to the GOP State Central Committee.
“I write to you as a lifelong Republican. I was stunned to see that our party had today issued an official call for the removal of a justice of the Iowa Supreme Court based on a disagreement with one of the Court’s rulings. Our courts protect our freedom from the encroachment of government power. As Republicans, I thought we stood FOR that proposition — not against it,” McCartan wrote, adding “shameful” and “radical” for good measure.
Next morning, he received the first response from committee member Jamie Johnson of Stratford. He insisted that the court, in striking down Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriages, assumed power “that no human government can possess.”
“Their lawlessness was not a trespass against the legislative branch, nor against the executive branch, nor even against the people of Iowa. Their trespass was against God, who created the institution of marriage and defined it as the union of one man and one woman. He did not delegate the authority to define it to any earthly power,” Johnson wrote, throwing in an “abomination” and a “wickedly” for good measure.
Another committee member, Mark Doland, an Oskaloosa pastor, argued that Spiker is correctly assailing the court because its marriage ruling runs afoul of the Republican Party platform and bylaws, along with the Iowa and U.S. constitutions, the Declaration of Independence and the Bible. He also called for fairness.
“It would not be ‘fair’ to allow Justice Wiggins to remain on the bench after his three colleagues were removed for the same infraction,” Doland wrote.
McCartan wasn’t impressed.
“Two days later, I officially changed my party registration to ‘No Party,’ ” McCartan told me in his email. That’s too bad, because one of our only two major parties just got more extreme, less reasonable.
Again, the same-sex marriage issue in Iowa, from a judicial standpoint, is settled. But what’s not settled is whether we’re going to stand by while folks like Spiker and his allies dishonestly bully our courts when they issue rulings based on law, arguments and evidence, but fail to consider the Republican Party’s platform or the spiteful, selective biblical stylings of the righteous right.
Thankfully, there are people such as McCartan who will stand up to it and reject it. But not everyone is as brave.
“My position has always been, as it was in the 2010 election, that this retention of judges is a decision to be made by the voters and that I should not try to influence people’s decision,” Gov. Terry Branstad said last week, refusing to give his own opinion.
“I can tell you I am going to take the same posture I did on the effort to remove the three last time. That is a state issue, and I am going to concentrate on federal issues,” said U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley when asked about the retention issue recently.
I’m not saying these guys have to endorse same-sex marriage. But Branstad has a law degree and appointed scores of judges over the years using this nomination/retention process. Grassley is ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and helped Regis grad J. Paul Oetken become the first openly gay American to be confirmed as a federal judge. I believe, deep down, they both recognize Spiker’s call as reckless folly. They just can’t seem to summon the fortitude to get past the politics.
Maybe they will some day. But we need them now. Responsible, truly conservative GOP leaders need to stand up and say enough.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Spiker said, “Their trespass was against God.” That may be a valid point if we were talking about rules of marriage within a church. We’re not. We are talking about a legal contract that is recognized by the state.
Marriage can be viewed as a religious ceremony and a religious based bond. It is also a legal contract recognized by the state.
The rules that govern how the state acts are spelled out in the constitution. I don’t see how any reasonable person can read our state’s constitution’s equal protection clause and not recognize that a law prohibiting same sex marriage violates the constitution. Directly from the constitution we read, “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
The people who object to same sex marriage have an option. They can try to amend the constitution. It is a long and difficult process – as it should be.
For the leadership of the Republican Party to advocate for the removal of a judge because he did his job and followed the directives of the constitution is a display of ignorance and disrespect for the constitution.
The radical religious regressives can’t seem to separate that which is secular from that which is religious in nature. Further, they refuse to acknowledge that many of us do not believe exactly as they do. They seek to enforce their own version of “Sharia Law” – Abrahamic Law – on all of us. Must disturbing, to me, is their own failure to acknowledge the many variations of marriage as defined in their bible, instead they pick and choose which marriage definitions (as well as many other rules) they follow and which are to be conveniently ignored. I have no time or patience for “Cafeteria Christians” who eat pork & shrimp, wear cotton-poly blends, get tatoos, and discriminate against GLBT folks…that is not what their Christ taught.
Same sex marriage is nothing more than a long term strategy hatched by the radical left in the 1960′s under the Cloward-Piven plan. The end game is destruction of the United States, confiscation of personal property, and the end of capitalist economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
I read the link you provided and did not find any reference to same sex marriage. Is this linkage between same sex marriage and the Cloward-Piven plan another thing that you just made up?
Rich,
Ahart made it up.
These right wingers are following strategy that worked in the days before easy access to the internet. Throw out a sixites era analysis of what might happen if the welfare system were overwhelmed with all the people who were actually eligible for benefits (the hypothesis was that it would force a national approach to ending poverty rather than state by state), blame that analysis for all the evils in the world.
Chances were that twenty years ago virtually no one would have gone trucking on down to the library to look up this stuff. Except these days, a thirty second search and there it is. It’s even easier when people like Ahart include a link to Wikipedia.
Ahart, word of advice
1) stop assuming everyone is stupid
2) stop assuming that none of know how to do a google search
Readers are encouraged to Google and due their own research as to how same-sex and other social issues play into the Cloward-Piven Plan. You are not going to get any truth from Liberal Parrot heads who share the same “imaginary friends” as Harry Reid. Obama did not suddenly wake up one day by Divine Intervention via his daughter to suddenly support Same-Sex. Cloward-Piven are part of Obama’s hard left mentors sharing the same -Columbia University
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-cloward-piven-plan-to-destroy-governments
The is one, and only one, concept I agree with regarding Cloward-Piven as follows:
“In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion”
That’s how the ruling class Liberal Democrats buy their votes to stay in power. Same-sex marriage is part of the divide and conquer mentality.
Like I said, Dave, stop assuming the rest of us are stupid.
First you say that the ruling classes are using welfare to keep them po’ folk quiet so they won’t storm the gated communities and steal all the rich people’s stuff
Then you say that Liberals keep themselves in power by buying the votes of poor people (who, by the way, tend not to vote) by giving them welfare so they won’t storm the gated communities and steal the all rich people’s stuff.
And this whole scam has been dreamed up by radical professors who have been meeting in secret every Sunday for the last fifty years, plotting and planning so that they could groom the Munchurian president and whisper in his ear “same sex marriage will bring on the Revolution and destroy the running dog lackeys of the imperialist capitalist swine”
You see the contradiction in this whole conspiracy you got going?
You don’t?
Doesn’t surprise me
And now, the rest of the story.
I really don’t have a dog in this hunt but thought a different view on this subject was in order. When gay marriage rights are brought up, the left likes to give the impression that it’s only the religious right who are against gay marriage. But everytime states bring it to a vote, it is voted down. Even by notoriously liberal states, like California. There are many of a religious faith that believe marriage is between one man & one women and many of no faith that apparently believe the same. We can trott out the unlikely suspects one way on the issue or we can be totally honest.
Purely by accident I came across an article awhile back that I linked to at the time about a democratic state official that worked to pass a ballot measure on same sex marriage. When it came time to cast her ballot, she voted against it. It appears that many don’t fit the labels when it comes time to actually vote. Labels like, “right wing religious wingnuts” have become so engrained into the left wing vocabulary they believe it to be true.
I could be wrong on this but I don’t believe this issue has been on a ballot in Iowa, ever. Unless Ia. changes it’s constitution, which seems highly unlikely, we can continue this debate. And like it or not, let the voting begin!
Sue: While we are at it lets vote on single payer, (medicare for all) , and whether to raise taxes on the rich. Both of these would pass easily. Let the voting begin.!!
James, Since that is the direction Obama and the socialists want to take this country, single payer for all including medicare, why are you the only one brave enough to admit it?
Sue,
Obama is not a socialist. If you actually knew any real live socialists or anything at all about Socialism, you would know that.
But you don’t and you don’t and you don’t.
By the way, single payer does have a lot of support, but I find it hard to believe that many people in this country are actually Socialists.
That aside, are you aware that MediCare with the single payer option (Part B) is more efficient and cheaper than MediCare with the Advantage option. By about 20% with regard to cost
You are aware that MediCare recipients are required to buy a supplemental insurance policy. Which means we have a test case
Sue,
Did a google and found the exact polling numbers when the single payer option was still on the table.
From the Washington Post, Oct 20, 2009, “Most support public option . . ”
Washington Post/ABC Poll Oct, 2009
57% support a public option vs 52% in June of 2009.
76% favor expanded Medicaid (Title 19)
You want to tell me that nearly 2 out of three Americans are Socialists?
Don’t I wish.
Good point, Sue that people of many faiths marry, lncluding Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Atheists. Marriage between one man and one woman is held in esteem across the religious and non religious spectrum for the good of children and community.
Joan,
Check your Bible. Read it. Marriage in Bible times was polygamous. Islam still permits polygamy, although most Muslims prefer only one spouse..
The primary reason marriage did the slow shift from many wives (many husbands is exceedly rare but not unknown) to one is economic. Many wives are expensive to maintain.
One spouse is enforced by law for the same reason. The state doesn’t want the responsibility of taking care of all the many wives and children that the one man cannot support.
Which means that a practical and secular argument can be made for one spouse for the good of the community, but the same cannot be said for the good of the children.
And in fact, your position undermines the good of children in same sex households (I would hope that you are not proposing that these children be taken away fromtheir parents or that LGBT parents be forced to marry someone of the opposite sex for the sake of appearance) by denying these children the acceptance and financial stability children need to thrive.And just to remind you, atheism is not a faith
small editing correction:
“one spouse for the good of the community, but the same cannot be said for the good of the children”
With regard to the good of the children, the same argument cannot be made for one man one woman marriage
Atheism can be viewed as a faith of sorts, i.e., faith in oneself as arbiter of all things known and unknown.
Not at all, Zelezny, “Atheism” simply means that one does not believe in any sort of god. You cannot extrapolate from that any kind of faith in the self as arbitrator of anything
Roberta,
Please stop misrepresenting Christianity. There is a difference between what happened during biblical times and what was “endorsed”. Murder, theft and rape also are in the Bible, but those are not the teachings of Christ. Just because polygamy is in the Bible does not mean Christianity supported it. Jesus’ teachings are clear and the scripture is unmistakable. Please do not parrot the liberal media by misrepresenting the Chrisitan faith.
Mr Foreman,
I wasn’t talking about Christianity. I was talking about Bibilical times.
And if Jesus’ teachings are clear and the scripture unmistakable, why did Christians insist on spending two millenia fighting over it.
You do understand that the officially sanctioned by the Church persecution of Christians by Christians continued into the 19th century.
The peace between different sects of the Christian Church that we live with now is fairly recent.
So based on this long and bloody history of disagreement I would have to say that no, the teachings of Jesus are not clear nor are the Scriptures
You didn’t specifically say Christianity, but your implication was that since it was in the Bible, it was endorsed at one time by the biblical faith.
Ms. Bell, we’re not stupid nor are we interested in your symmantics. Christians fought over scripture for years not because of Christ’s teachings and their clarity, but because of their misinterpretations. Sects/Christians fought (and they still do now, just not as much physically) because of their attempts to interpret scripture as they see fit or to support their secular viewpoints. If we read the Bible and Jesus’ teachings honestly and without a personal agenda it is clear. It is we as humans that have muddied the waters. I would challenge you to read with a clear objective lens and I would venture to guess that you would find it to be the same.
Mr Foreman,
Please do not wonder, ever, why the rest of us find you Christians so irritating
Bertie,
The adult way to respond to someone pointing out the flaws in your argument does not include name calling and offensive generalizations. That’s a characteristic of low intelligence, liberal media hacks whose ratings come in at the bottom of the barrel night after night. Moreover, if having your arguments refuted makes you so irritable, there’s no need to attack people based on their religious beliefs. That’s hatred, bigotry, and bias at its worst. Just don’t distort and manipulate the truth.
Seriously, it is possible to be liberal and not act like the low life liberals in the media and in Hollywood. I suggest you begin trying because as it is you’re just coming off as whiny, unintelligent, and bigoted.
Its’ difficult to view traditional marriage, with it’s high divorce rate and broken families as a wonderful working model. However, children are deserving of both mother and father. Oftentimes a husband and wife will remain commited for the sake of the children. Can the same be said of a homosexual couple?
Joan, I cannot imagine any scenario where two people who hate each other staying together benefits anyone, much less their children.
As for your question, I can imagine a homosexual couple staying together for the sake of the children as easily as a heterosexual couple.
Although if they hate each other’s guts, what would be the point?
Who mentioned “hating”?
There’s no need to go through the arguments as to why homosexual unions can never be defined as “marriage” because there has no doubt been plenty of past discussion. I will only emphasize that this is not a civil rights issue because homosexuals enjoy the same rights and freedoms of everyone in the country. This is purely a political and an ideological attempt to re-define marriage.
Joan,
Same sex unions may not be recognized as “marriage” in your church, but that’s your business and the business of your church.
As far as the state is concerned—-and, by the way, the state is never ever no not ever going to force your church to recognize anything—-same sex unions are marriage in that the same rules apply.
And there are churches that do recognize same sex unions as marriages, and that is their right and none of your business
Sue, the Iowa Legislature did vote on this, in a way. On July 1, 2007, the state of Iowa can no longer discriminate against sexual orientation. That law was passed in the legislature. Even if a law passed banning same sex marriage, it would be overturned due this discrimination law. The only way to accomplish a true ban would be to repeal the discrimination law. As a person who values freedom and individual rights, I disagree with discrimination in any form.
God tells us to sow the seed of the Word. He doesn’t tell us to force the Word onto others. Free will is God’s greatest gift, and those who wish to force their beliefs onto others are forgetting the true meaning of faith.
On another note, God also tells us that a child does not inherent the father’s sins. What this means is that if a person sins, their sins do not fall upon you. Therefore, a church going person should have nothing to fear from those they believe are committing sin.
The Iowa GOP, oops make that TP is trying to make Iowa into a theocracy. The problem comes when we have to decide who’s god is the ruler. The tp thinks it should be the wasp god. My god disagrees. Now we have a religious debate on a civil problem – equal rights for all. It can be solved. The tp can rule and live in their churches and the rest of us can live in Iowa.
Should the anus be used as a sex organ? Google First Scandal. When you get there, go to the top of the page and click on “Can you explain…” Please note: this website you reach will be deleted on November 1, 2012.
Is what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home any of your business?
That’s funny since Liberals are trying to control what people eat and drink in their home. Shouldn’t you address that in your own party first?
LOL, the only one that’s ever told me what I should or shouldn’t be eating are first, my parents, and second, my doctor. Are you telling me that my parents and my doctor are liberals??
Hagedorn,
Why is that you conservatives cannot discuss homosexuality without getting vulgar.
What is it that you people find so fascinating about what other people do in bed?
The issue at hand regarding the campaign to have the judge voted out of the Supreme Court of Iowa is NOT the same sex issue. The Supreme Court has the sworn duty to uphold the State Constitution and that’s all. They are not to decide guilt nor innocence in a criminal case and they are not to rule for or against a plaintiff in a civil case. They are to JUDGE if there was any action taken that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And that’s what they did. If they rule that some action is unconstitutional, and a large group believes that the action should be covered by the Constitution then that group has the right to campaign for a constitutional change. And in this case the Vander Plootes Group and any others that believe same sex marriage should be banned under the Iowa Constitution they should work to amend the constitution. It makes no sense to work to have the judges removed, they did their job. Instead of personally harming the judge and using such strong armed tactics they should try to amend the constitution. But they take the chicken approach.
Hey you and Savage want scorched Earth well guess what, this is a result. You opened Pandora’s box and now all you LIBs can do is whine about it. Reep what you sow.
Please explain why you want to punish a justice who did what his oath office required him to do, uphold the constitution.
I challenge you and anyone else to provide a reasonable and logical argument regarding how DOMA was in compliance with the constitution. I’ve already quoted the constitution twice and this page. It requires “uniform operation” on all common laws. DOMA said that same sex couples could not have the same rights as opposite sex couples. How can that be “uniform operation”?
Forget your ranting and raving and name calling. Provide the explanation as to how DOMA complies with the constitution.
I wonder why does same sex marriage bother Mr. Vander Plaatz and Mr. Spiker. Why do they think they are threatened by it? Or perhaps they are jealous….
When you legislate by lawsuit it should make no one happy. I find it funny that you can’t understand that a line was crossed. Sit back and see the repercussions. Things don’t happen in a vaccum, the sooner you realize that, the better off you’ll be.
“Legislating by lawsuit?” Please point to the section of the Iowa Code that was created as a result of said lawsuit. The “legislating by lawsuit” canard has no basis in fact.
And yes, a line WAS crossed but it was back when the unnecessary (and unconstitional) Iowa DOMA law was passed. This was a classic overreach on the part of the state’s bigots: had it never been passed, it could not have been overturned, and the status quo could probably have been preserved indefinitely.
Abernathy,
Brown v Board of Education (1954) was legislating by law suit. So was Plessy v Ferguson (1886).
So what. Or are you arguing that we cannot seek redress of grievances through the courts?
Mr. Dorman..
No matter what your position may be concerning gay marriage or what the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on the issue.. Under our current laws and Constitution…Iowans only have ONE course of recourse towards the judicial system–that being the retention vote.
Unlike the federal government–where judges are appointed for life–Iowa judges are ultimately accountable to the people.
If the people of this state feel that a judge is acting outside the bounds of their duties as a judge–then they have every right to vote against their retention.
What is disturbing is that you and other pundits seem to believe that the retention vote should simply be a “rubber stamp” to give another 10 year term to a judge.
We do not have lifetime appointments for judges in this state. Quite frankly, what Iowa has..is in my mind–the best way to handle judges. Not being given a lifetime appointment, but also not being directly elected every 4 years like we see in states like Missouri.
As for gay marriage–it would seem based upon the retention vote in 2010–that the majority of people in Iowa want to have their say on the issue.
So, lets put forth a constitutional amendment proposal and let the people vote. If gay marriage is ultimately to be legal in Iowa–let it be through the will of the people. Not through the will of a judge.
It seems like the people who favor retention wanted the Supreme Court Justices to violate their oath of office. They took an oath of office to uphold the constitution and that’s what they did, unanimously. How can these people justify voting these Justices out of office for doing what their oath required them to do?
The constitution is very clear. The key part reads as follows: “All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
I have asked before and never received a response but I will ask again. Can anyone provide a reasonable and logical explanation of how the DOMA law was in compliance with this provision of the constitution? The DOMA law denied same sex couples a right that opposite sex couples enjoy. How is that “uniform operation”?
Todd acknowledged that the constitution does not permit DOMA when he acknowledged that the constitution needs to be changed.
Gay marriage is legal in Iowa. It could be made (perhaps temporarily) illegal, I suppose, through the device of a state constitution amendment. But voters passed on that opportunity in 2010 by allowing the Senate to remain in Democrat control. Those pesky Democrat/Independent voters- they consistently foil the will of the GOP minority!
In 2010, Iowa voters also passed on the the once-a-decade option of approving the convening of a state constitution convention. That seems like it would have been the ideal venue for the “majority” to codify into state law anything it felt like. But voters blew off the opportunity. This tells me that the interest in changing things is not high enough to actually make it happen.
The retention vote is not intended to remove judges because of unpopular decisions to which they might contribute. It is designed to allow removal of specific individuals who might have besmirched the office in some personal manner, but whose misdeeds don’t rise to the level of impeachable offenses. Note that I said “specific individuals” and not “entire sitting courts” or “members who joined in a majority opinion”.
The GOP leadership is leveraging a cynical vendetta fostered by its extreme right wing and it will come back to bite them in the form of a voter backlash from the independents and moderate Republicans who see this as exploitation of the foolish for political gain, and who find it dispicable.
Mr. Lorenz,
You are utterly incorrect in your claim that the retention vote system was designed ONLY to remove judges who have “besmirched the office in some personal manner”.
Voters can vote not to retain a judge for ANY reason whatsoever. Iowa does NOT have lifetime appointments for its judiciary. As I stated above, ultimately, judges in this state are held accountable to the PEOPLE of Iowa. If people wish to vote against a judge because they do not agree with a judicial decision–that is THEIR right to do so.
You bring up the Constitutional Convention question that was on the 2010 ballot..and there was a reason why that route was not taken.
If such a convention had been called–any issue would have been on the table for consideration. A convention would have turned into a virtual three ring circus with little to nothing being accomplished.
You also talk about how the Iowa Senate remained in Democratic Party control–you also forget to mention that the Democrats lost 6 seats in that election and now only maintain a slim 1 seat majority in the State Senate–a majority that could very well evaporate in 2012.
It would seem to me Mr. Lorenz..that the people of this state want their say on this issue and they will hold those who want to deny their say accountable at the ballot box.
I would think that if the issue of same-sex marriage was the hideous appartition that the GOP right-wingnuts purport it to be, they would have stopped at nothing to get it overturned- constitutional convention included. However, a few of the smarter rabbits in the state GOP recognized that if a CC were convened, it might not go the way the larger party wanted… so they opted for promoting the stupidly (because of its futility) punitive tactic of pushing to “dump the judges” .
If the people of this state want their say on this issue, let them do so in the statehouse and senate candidates that they elect. Any other approach is unacceptable to those of us who value the rule of law over the rule of political crackpots.
Mr. Lorenz..
Again..it would seem very apparent from election results that the people of the state of Iowa want to have their say on this issue.
2010 saw the largest turnover in modern Iowa history in the Iowa House, a 6 seat turnover in the Iowa Senate, and an incumbent Governor defeated handily.
Your claim that the retention vote is “unacceptable to those who value the rule of law” is without merit.
The retention vote is a legal method established by Iowa law to hold judges accountable to the public. Judges may not be retained by the public for ANY reason they choose.
Mr Johnson,
The retention vote, and your defense of removing judges because their decisions displease people, is argument sufficient to get rid of the retention vote option.
We are ruled by law, not by mob. The courts are our last line of defense against the mob.
Sorry about the negative connotations of the word “mob”, but that’s how this issue was discussed in the 18th century when the Founding Fathers set up the system. That’s why federal judges are appointed for life and can only be removed through the due process of impeachment.
Be prepared for a long wait Todd.
I intend to vote no on Justice Wiggins because he is a below average performer and I do not believe he reaches the high standards of the citizens of the State of Iowa. It is my constitutional responsibility and right. Those of you who would attempt to eliminate my right are undeserving of respect or recognition. You are uncivil, undemocratic and unAmerican.
Fine. The reason that you have stated is perfectly reasonable in the context you have specified. You dislike the individual because you feel that he is “a below average perfomer”, you don’t vote for his retention. But who the hell are you to call anyone uncivil, undemocratic, or unamerican to decry voting against a judge for the reason stated by the head of the Iowa GOP?
I know it would take an amendment to our constitution to accomplish this, but I think it is time to eliminate the retention vote in Iowa. There would still be a process to remove a justice who is unfit to serve, impeachment. However, that option would only apply to justices that have committed an impeachable offense. That’s as it should be.
Iowans have had the opportunity/responsibility to remove judges for whatever reason and they have misused that opportunity and removed justices for purely political reasons. The judiciary should be above politics.
“I know it would take an amendment to our constitution to accomplish this, but I think it is time to eliminate the retention vote in Iowa.”
I have a better idea richie let’s prevent liberals from voting.
Or maybe wingbats…
Rllis,
How kind of you to come right out and let us know how you and others of your ilk intend to shove your agenda down all our throats, yet still manage to call it “democracy”
How refreshing it is not to have to second guess you guys all the time
Rich,
Why should the judiciary not be accountable to the people? Many would argue that lifetime appointments for judges at the federal level places too much power in the judiciary’s hands.
i believe Iowa’s system provides the proper balance, Rich.
By not directly electing judges as many states like Missouri and Texas do, but by having a check in place that the people of a state can remove a judge from the bench if they feel that the judge in question is no longer right for the job–provides that level of accountability to the public.
Mr Johnson,
Read the Constitution. For a change.
The courts are there to ensure that neither the executive nor the legislative branches overstep their authority.
The legislature can nullify a court ruling by passing a replacement law modified according to the court’s instructions. The executive branch, which is charged with administering the law, can override a court ruling by how it chooses to administer the law in question. The executive branch can also nullify the court by ignoring its rulings, as has been done on occasion. Or the executive can turn to the legislature and ask for a modified version of the overturned law.
The courts, no matter what you may think, are never the last word. Our government is set up based on the idea that discussion, negotiation, and compromise are the best ways to govern
Those denouncing any postition other than gays being awarded protect class status. I thought the words of a Supreme Court decision that doesnt reference religion would be appropriate.
” That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. –(states) cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.”
And guess what, Antony, with reference to your last sentence, no one has been able to find any reasons for the promoting of marriage as exclusively heterosexual beyond moral disapproval of an excluded group
Read my post. These are not my words they are the words of Justice O Connor. For those that understand simple language, she states that preserving traditional marriage is a legitimate, and constitutional interest of the people.
Antony,
Lawrence v Texas (2003) was about sodomy and had nothing to do with marriage.
That O’Connor would reference “marriage” in her opinion is, for all practical purposes, a non binding statement.
FYI, Mr Antony, the US Supreme Court will likely take up the case of same sex marriage in late November of this year. Unitil the Court issues a ruling, citing past rulings—particularly in cases where marriage was not the issue—is irrelevant
I’m sure even you dont buy into your own thinkng. The opinion of SCOTUS decisions are used constantly by SCOTUS and lower courts. Read any SCOTUS decision and you will find dozens of cites. Its called precedent. Judges can use previous rulings or something as absbtract and irrelevent as, say, a personal letter, to base their ruling on. Judges can do whatever they please.
As far as Justice O’Conor stated, in her constitutional opinion, the people do have constitututional basis to preserve traditional marriage. I brought that up because you keep repeating ad nauseam that only those that hold religous standards support traditional marriage. Justice O Conor demonstrates how wrong you are.
Antony,
Rulings by lower courts since 2003 have rendered O’Connor’s one line in a case about sodomy, not marriage, irrelevant.
Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise when the issue comes before them at the end of the year.
O’Connor aside, what, exactly, is the people’s interest in maintaining traditional marriage?
Roberta you are clueless. That doesnt stop you from spouting of about your ignorance. Lower courts do not define Superior courts decisions. O Connor’s site is relevent because she put marriage in her decision, Your asinine assertion means SCOTUS decisions are mindless and irrelevent.
Here is some more SCOTUS ruling concerning Homosexuals and their relationship with the govt. In short, the govt cannot be force to formally recognize homosexual relationships
” The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”
It would seem that the Obama administration abolished DOMA as a political move, quite confident that activist judges would then decide in favor of homosexual “marriage” against the overwhelming will of the people.
On the other hand, it might be that most Americans simply don’t have the prurient curiosity about same-sex relationships that others seem to have
I don’t give a hoot about what goes on in your bedroom, Ms. Zelezny. I don’t give a hoot about what goes on in ANYONE’S bedroom other than my own. Why should you or anyone else be so interested?
I can assure you, Mr. Nunn, that my thought is for the championing of marriage between one man and one woman, all the while recognizing the rights and dignity of homosexual people outside of this one unreasonable and false demand in the name of civil rights.
Joan,
I can’t think of any reason you would say that same sex marriage is an unreasonable and false demand in the name of civil rights other than you’re not comfortable with the idea based on your religious beliefs.
Sorry, but that doesn’t cut it with those of us who do not share your religious beliefs
Is there any legal/civil law or reason to prevent 2 people of the same sex to marry? Have they broken any civil laws? Does either the state Constitution of Iowa, or the Federal Constitution grant marriage privledges to heterosexual couples only? Is there anywhere that says marriage is a privilege and not a right? I would love to hear what you may have to say Thanx!!!!!
Todd,….the last responsible republican was Jim Leach, but he was voted out a few years. Too bad as this democrat really respected him.
There is this thing called “freedom” and part of the constitution says you have freedom of religion, but it also implies you have freedom from religion as well. So, with that consideration in hand, why is it so important how things are done religiously in marriage and why does that matter? The Supreme Court of Iowa ruled on the constitutionality of the question: do people of the same sex have the same rights as people who just happen to be of male-female persuasion, all things being equal? Since this simply was a contract between two people they saw no problem and voted that way, ALL OF THEM. There was no desent because they ruled correctly. I support the lawyer who withdrew his affiliation with the Republican Party simply because he is absolutely correct in his thinking. The rest of you who want to believe in state religion should go to Pakistan and try it on for awhile, maybe you will come to appreciate what “freedom” really means. You also will be given about as much respect as you give people of the same sex variety since you won’t be in the majority.