
I figured the moment would come, sooner or later.
It would be that moment when the outraged crusade to deny civil rights to thousands of gay and lesbian Iowans would finally cease to be good politics. Eventually, the misguided campaign to turn back the clock on marriage equality in Iowa would get clocked.
The judge bus would run out of gas. The “Family Leader” would be an also-ran.
I just wasn’t sure when it would come. Turns out it was Tuesday.
Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins was retained Tuesday by a margin of more than 100,000 votes, despite the best efforts of Bob Vander Plaats, his crew of judge-hunters, and their “No Wiggins” bus, fueled mostly by outside bucks. They picked off three justices in 2010 who joined the unanimous 2009 ruling striking down Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriages. But the hunt is over.
Back in 2010, BVP called it a “historic” victory. Instead, it was a big, loud wake-up call for fair-minded Iowans who don’t buy the tired, fearful and distorted caricatures of an activist court run amok. They showed up Tuesday, turned over their ballots and became the real Iowans for freedom.
At the same time, Democrats held on to narrow control of the Iowa Senate, keeping the drive to put a same-sex marriage ban in the Iowa Constitution bottled up for at least two more years, and likely for good. Target No. 1 for Vander Plaats and his allies, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, held his seat, his title and his power to hold off efforts to amend discrimination into the constitution.
Others were less fortunate. Former Family Leader development director Matt Reisetter narrowly lost his state Senate bid, as did Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, who once urged county officials to ignore the court’s ruling and deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Family Leader weighed in to help Bartz and Republicans in several other key Senate races.
Iowa GOP chair A.J. Spiker’s strategy to go all in on ousting Wiggins, with hopes that an agitated base would carry his party to big victories Tuesday, fizzled.
And even if the Iowa Senate didn’t stop it, I bet Iowa voters would. They turned back the anti-retention drive. And after all, our neighbors in Minnesota turned back an amendment banning same-sex marriage ban, while voters in Maine and Maryland voted to make same-sex marriage legal. Another measure in Washington state looks poised for passage. Gay and lesbian candidates won important victories. Our previously “evolving” president, who finally joined this fight, won re-election.
This feels like the turning point, folks. Equality endures. I figured it would.
Let me add that same sex marriage is now supported by the majority of Americans. A June 6th CNN/ORC poll showed that 54% of Americans support same sex marriage against 42% that oppose. At the link provided you can read the history of these polls and note that support for same sex marriage has been growing steadily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
Not everyone is as elated as you are. Two states also legalized recreational marijuana, are you happy with that too? Just because you and Rich think that same sex marriage is alright, does not make it so. Can they procreate? It is against nature, and natures laws and being against same sex marriage is not discrimination. i have had pets that I love also, but I sure would not want to marry one of them. My question to both of you is “WHERE DOES IT STOP?”
Legalized marijuana (are you OK with legalized alcohol?) and legalized SSM are entirely two different issues. Don’t try to lump them together.
“. . . just because . . . think that SSM is alright, does not make it so.” Neither does it make it wrong just because you think it is wrong.
Can they procreate ? No, neither can a couple with a medical condition that prevents pregnancy nor a couple with the female past child bearing age. Would you prevent them from marrying just because they can’t procreate? “It’s against nature.” Well, so is much of modern medical practice and drugs in delaying or preventing a “natural death”. Not discrimination? What would you call it then if a right is denied specifically because of sexual orientation ? The marrying pets argument is a red herring — no one is proposing that and a pet can’t sign a legal form. (But what business would it be of yours if someone did “marry” their pet ?).
Where does it stop ? That question has probably been asked countless times — giving rights to people of color, the right of women to vote, interracial marriage. . . Where does it stop ?
(Begins slow clap)
Well said Cedric, well said.
Marriage equiality is finally taking it’s rightful place in our society … treating everyone fairly. All of our people are to be treated as equals per our important gov laws. All thinking people here want this. Our once great Rebublican party has a lot to learn now … or they will simply go away.
I’m sure there will always be people like Lee Frank who oppose same sex marriage. There are still people who oppose inter-racial marriage. Fortunately, it’s only a fringe group in society that oppose inter-racial marriage. In due time, it will only be a fringe group opposed to same sex marriage.