Rants Rattles Democrats With Marriage Amendment
- Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 4:30
- Iowa, Top Story
- 1,489 views
- 64 comments
State Representative Christopher Rants is once again attempting to attach an amendment to a piece of legislation that would define marriage as the union between one man and one woman; this time the language would only deal with Iowa’s tax code.
Tomorrow, the Iowa House is scheduled to debate House File 807, the repeal of federal deductibility. This week marks the third time that the Democrats have attempted to move this piece of legislation, but opponents to the bill have been successful in creating a number of road blocks that have caused Democrats to go back to the drawing board more than once.
Last week, we were told that legislative Democrats and Governor Culver had come to an agreement on federal deductibility, yet the bill was not debated last week, and Democrats continued to tinker on it to try and get the 51 votes necessary to pass it in the Iowa House.
The latest attempt to find additional support of the tax increase is an amendment filed by Rep. Paul Shomshor, the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Shomshor’s amendment (1484) increases the size of the standard deductions for various tax filers, including a husband and wife who file a joint return.
Rep. Rants has filed an amendment (1534) to Shomshor’s amendment that simply adds, “Husband and wife means one man married to one woman.” This means that all House members would have to vote on an amendment that recognizes traditional marriage.
The move is brilliant on multiple levels. First, it allows all legislators the opportunity to vote on marriage, which is the last thing Speaker of the House Pat Murphy wants to see happen. We have already heard the Democrats say that last week’s vote on Rants’ motion to suspend the rules was a procedural vote and not a vote on marriage. If Rants is successful, House Democrats could no longer make that claim.
The other reason why this amendment is brilliant is because it could prevent HF 807 from finding the 51 votes required for it to pass. Rants has the Democrats in a really tough spot. They either have to vote down Rants’ amendment, or Shomshor has to withdraw is amendment. Neither of those two options are good for House Democrats.
The problem for the Democrats is that Shomshor’s amendment is critical in getting enough Democrats on board to pass the entire bill. When the Chair of a particular committee is the sponsor of an amendment, it is widely understood that it is a critical change to the bill, and it also indicates that the majority of the House Democrat caucus also support it.
Tomorrow we will see which is more important to House Democrats. Are they so afraid to take a vote on gay marriage that they yank a critical amendment and surrender their assault on federal deductibility until next year? Or does Speaker Murphy let his members vote on Rants’ amendment because they need to raise taxes to be able to balance their budget?
Either way, Rants’ amendment allows Iowans the chance to see where House Democrats stand on two very important issues, marriage and taxes.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
64 Comments on “Rants Rattles Democrats With Marriage Amendment”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
We need more just like Rep Rants & we need to show the democrats for what they really are with their continued blocking of the voting rights of every Iowan. Just remember how these democrats are voting when it is election time and vote them out of office!!!! LET IOWANS VOTE.
A very shrewd move by Rep. Rants! This guy is like a pit bull when crossed, would somebody please explain why he isn’t minority leader?
Rants is not the Minority Leader because every election cycle under his leadership resulted in fewer and fewer Republicans in the Caucus.
When you keep on doing the same thing over and over again, you get the same results over and over again. It was time for a change.
“The move is brilliant on multiple levels.”
It’s brilliant if you consider pointless saber rattling brilliant. It’s brilliant if you didn’t realize that the “one man/one woman” language is already in the Iowa Code. It’s brilliant if you also didn’t realize that the Varnum decision makes such language unconstitutional. In sum, it’s brilliant if you think hissy fits are brilliant.
Why is Rants not the minority leader? Why are Republicans a minority? Because of their brilliant moves.
How is this “saber rattling” Mike C? If the Democrats won’t give the people of Iowa the opportunity to VOTE on what should be defined as marriage in this state–then the Democrats shouldn’t afraid to be put on the record as to WHO among them supports traditional marriage.
Plus, the Varnum decision would have no bearing on Rants’s amendment. Our tax code gives deductions for some groups of people and not for others. That’s been ruled legal time and time again in court.
Rants’s amendment simply defines who should get a particular tax deduction.
Once again, the Democrats have opened the door…right into their own faces.
The only way to overturn the court’s ruling is with a constitutional amendment (I have a feeling I’m going to be leaving a similar comment on a BVP story a little bit later). Rants is only doing this for the appearance of action. All Democrats have to do is say “What you’re asking us to do is insert language that is illegal into this bill. No.”
That’s it! It’s over. It isn’t a vote on marriage. It’s a vote on whether or not to uphold the law of the land (here comes the part where you folks who don’t know anything about how our system work freak the hell out).
thank god rants is a member of the house. no one else up there has the ability to do what he is doing. so interesting that what he is doing will save federal deductibility and force dems to again debate gay marriage. great job, rep. rants!
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=weve_already_won_the_battle_over_gay_marriage
You should read. Gay marriage is a blueprint for the destruction of the GOP, and I’m okay with that.
Steve Right got a law degree from University of Phoenix Online. HE…IS…THE AUTHORITY!
Ok, then will somebody please explain to me why it has taken Rep. Rants to have the testicular fortitude to take this on and not the Minority Leader? Just wonderin’.
Ceres, Mike C., do you really think it is Christopher Rants fault that Republicans lost those seats?
How is this language illegal Steve? The tax code gives deductions for various groups of people and not for other groups of people. Are you saying now that extending tax deductions is now illegal because of the Varnum decision?
Again, Steve..if the Democrats believe this is such a great decision..then what are they afraid of a vote for? They have the majority in the House and Senate..
Murphy can’t rule Rant’s amendment out of order or non-germane. Its dealing specifically with an amendment on the issue of taxes which is being debated.
There’s no freak out here.. If the Democrats don’t want to give the people the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage..then the people DESERVE to know what their representatives position is on the definition of marriage. If the only way to put them on the record is doing so in this manner..so be it.
The Democrats recognize that they’re in a bad spot here. In fact, Senator Tom Rielly (D) of Oskaloosa stated in a legislative forum this weekend that Democrats “would likely face repercussions” because of the unwillingness of the Democrat leadership to let the marriage debate move forward.
Todd,
Your inability to think rationally just totally blew my mind.
Civics 101. Take the course, Todd. Take it.
Rants should be leader. Does Kraig Paulsen even know what he is doing or does he have to ask Mike Gronstal what to do just like Murphy and McCarthy?
Steve, the shallowness of your arguments shows when you are left to do nothing but insult someone like Todd. And come on Jason, I mean Steve, don’t lash out.
When the arguments conservatives use rise beyond the depth of a good size puddle then I’ll rise beyond attacking the messenger. It’s impossible to discuss issues with people who don’t understand them (and for that matter, don’t understand reality).
Okay all you anonymous haters… First all of Rants made a brilliant tactical move here that points out just how rediculous the democratic leadership is in both not allowing the voices of Iowans to be heard on this issue, but also exposes their “risky tax-hike scheme”. Way to go Rants!
As for Paulsen, all he has managed to do is thwart the democratic agenda time and again when he doesn’t have the votes in our caucus to begin with. Sounds to me like an effective minority leader. Way to go Kraig! We are damn lucky to have them both.
Steve..You’ve got no argument to come back with. That’s why you’re resorting to name calling and hyperbole.
Answer the questions… 1. If the Democrats support this decision..then what are they afraid of a debate for? Again, they’ve got the majority in the Legislature. Why are they afraid of being on the record?
2. How is Rants’s proposed amendment “illegal”? The Varnum decision has no bearing whatsoever on the Rants’s amendment. Tax deductions are extended to particular groups and not to others. That’s been legal for years. All Rants’s amendment does is to say a particular deduction can only be extended to one man/one wife married couples. Nothing illegal about it.
If we’re using your logic..then deductions as a whole should be illegal because of the Varnum decision. Varnum stated that it was “illegal” for the state to restrict a privilege to one group and extend it to another…so then that should mean that should go for everything in state government.
But..if you want to continue with the hyperbole and make yourself look cowardly..please continue to do so.
For all the complaints I’ve had about Rants in recent years, this legislative move is nothing short of brilliant.
yoda paulsen is a mess. mckinley bailey killed the labor agenda. and paulsen is absent on gay marriage. and spent most of the session trying to pass a gas tax. he is a total mess.
“How is Rants’s proposed amendment “illegal”? The Varnum decision has no bearing whatsoever on the Rants’s amendment. Tax deductions are extended to particular groups and not to others. That’s been legal for years. All Rants’s amendment does is to say a particular deduction can only be extended to one man/one wife married couples. Nothing illegal about it.”
Versteegh, you ought to read Varnum. What is Rants’ basis for excluding same sex marriages from receiving the deduction? Would that basis pass constitutional muster? In light of Varnum, of course it wouldn’t.
“If we’re using your logic..then deductions as a whole should be illegal because of the Varnum decision. Varnum stated that it was “illegal” for the state to restrict a privilege to one group and extend it to another…so then that should mean that should go for everything in state government.”
(sigh) You can’t argue with someone who is willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, willful ignorance is a prerequisite to being a “real” Republican.
hey mike c, your argument is pretty silly. if the democrats want to confer tax benefits to same sex couples they should have no problem voting against the rants amendment, right? surely they have the courage to vote that way, right?
and mike…the tax code is filled full of discrimination. it separates classes of people and confers benefits on some and not others because of the choices they have made with their life (going to school, investing in new equipment for their business, investing in under developed areas, having kids, etc)
I think the d’s are making the perfect argument for dumping the tax code altogether and replacing it with the fair tax. As the democats have taught us as they turn us into a labor/socialist society, let’s not waste a good crisis. Let’s dump the tax code now while we have this huge crisis.
For the civics challemged posters. The Varnum decision made homosexuals a suspect class requiring a higher decree of scrutiny if you are to treat them different as a class. In this case the court used intermediate scrutiny, (it should be noted that the court did not rule out using strict scrutiny but decided not to go that far as the marriage act could not even survive intermedicate scrutiny) Therefore, using the tax code to treat married gay couples differently, they would have to pass the following test, ” A middle tier of analysis exists between rational basis and strict
scrutiny. This intermediate tier has been applied to statutes classifying on
the basis of gender or illegitimacy and requires the party seeking to uphold
the statute to demonstrate the challenged classification is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective.” I will venture to say that the government is not going to some up with a very important government objective in treating a small minority of married couples differently in the tax code. So Steve is Right, the tax amendment would most likely be unconstitutional. Sorry Republicans, but the Dems would have an easy out on the vote.
Silence
One more thing, if the court decided to use strict scrutiny when homosexuality is the suspect class, than this is the test the government would have to pass, “Classifications subject to strict scrutiny are presumptively invalid and must be narrowly tailored to serve a
compelling governmental interest.” I think the court might go there, and there is no way it would pass that test.
Silence.
silence you are an idiot. what court uses strict scrutiny re: homosexuals? its not a race
It would not be an “easy out”. No one is going to see anything about “suspect class” and “intermediate scrutiny” or any other legal mumbo jumbo. They are going to see that their representatives voted “for” gay marriage, against their will. That is why the cowardly democrats do not want to do that. They don’t want to “out” themselves. The gays will soon find out that they went too far, too fast, and there is going to be a backlash. Picking Iowa to be their battleground was a stupid move. People in Iowa are not nearly as progressive in their thinking as you people want to believe. Those judges will be removed, Culver will be gone, and the democrats that survive this will not be willing to stick their neck out for the ungrateful out -of-state gays who pushed this agenda here. You should have been happy with some sort of civil contract. Why non-religious gays insist on calling themselves “married” is beyond comprehension, unless it is just so they can shove it in the faces of their opponents, the “breeders” whom they loathe.
Wow..it looks like the libs found law degrees in the bottom of their Cracker Jack boxes today…
No one has answered Mr. Versteegh’s questions yet…. All they do is say…oh that’s just illegal..
Really?? Says who? No legal opinion has been issued by either the Iowa Attorney General or the Iowa Supreme Court on this proposed amendment. If Murphy tries to rule it “unconstitutional” from the Speaker’s chair–Murphy himself would be out of order..as the Speaker of the House has no authority to rule that something is or isn’t unconstitutional.
Nice try..but Murphy has no “out” of debating this amendment. Its germane to the bill and to the amendment that would be considered. There’s going to be no getting out of this on a technicality on this one.
Read the opinion maury, they considered doing it, but didn’t, only because the marriage act couldn’t get past intermediate scrutiny. Name calling doesn’t help your point either maury. Embarrassed, you have picked a great name for yourself because you should be from that rant you put forth. Gay marriage is a losing issue for republicans. I tend to give the people of Iowa a lot more credit than you do. I think the average Iowa citizen can understand the term, “unconstitutional”. I think they understand that the Supreme Court ruled that the state can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation. You obviously feel the people of Iowa are slow and dim witted. Do you even realize that the justice who wrote the Varnum opinion is a republican appointee??? That it was unanimous??? With other republican appointees joining in the opinion??? Gays do not hate straight people, they just want ot be treated equally and fairly under the eyes of the law, not religion, the law. I just don’t understand what bigot like you can’t understand about that. It doesn’t effect you. It just makes me think you have some unresolved personal issues that need to be worked out.
Silence
maury, here is the quote from the Varnum decision where the court says the marriage act can’t defeat intermediate scrutiny and will therefore not decide if hgiher scrutiny or strict scrutiny is necessary. “H. Application of Heightened Scrutiny. Plaintiffs argue sexual orientation based statutes should be subject to the most searching scrutiny.
The County asserts Iowa’s marriage statute, section 595.2, may be reviewed,
at most, according to an intermediate level of scrutiny. Because we conclude
Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute cannot withstand intermediate scrutiny,
we need not decide whether classifications based on sexual orientation are
subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus, we turn to a discussion of the
intermediate scrutiny standard.23″
Silence
Doesn’t matter who appointed them. The people of Iowa will get to vote on whether or not we retain them. It’s not me that thinks Iowans are dimwitted, it is you people. Like I stated-you should have been happy with some sort of civil contract, which would have given you legal benefits. But instead, you insist on calling it marriage, and I believe it is to shove it in the faces of the people you despise. Gays actually DO hate straight people, you call us “breeders”, as if we’re the weird ones. We don’t go basing our entire lives on our sexual preferences. And how am I a bigot? Because I said you should have settled for civil contracts? Wouldn’t that have given you the same benefits?
number embarrassed, I am not gay, happily married and we are expecting a child. Bad assumption on your part. I have known many gay people during my life, never once have I heard any of them use the term “breeder” or felt that they had some inherent hate for me. Most gay people are like any one else, they just want to be treated with fairness and respect. That is just some insane paranoia put out by bigots and hate groups. And yes you are a bigot. Read your posts, they are not from a rational person. I know it is hard to admit, but you have issues with gay people. Ask yourself this, if it shouldn’t be a big deal to have it called a civil union because it confers the same rights, then what is the big deal calling it marriage??? That argument is a double edged sword. In the end, this doesn’t effect you at all. No one is saying you have to change your religious beliefs or that your church has to perform gay marriages, it is allowing gays to enter into the the same civil contract that straight people can enter into and have called the same thing.
Silence
right silence. it doesnt qualify for strict scrutiny. next.
Silence,
The SC didn’t use strict scrutiny in Varnum. It used intermediate scrutiny, which proves you haven’t even read the decision and need to go educate yourself.
I love all you guys. You like to destroy commenters who disagree with you but you never actually bother reading what they say.
“Are they conservatives? No? Well, they must be evil/wrong/faggots!!”
To the above anon person, Here is what Silence said: ” In this case the court used intermediate scrutiny.”
I know.. he shouldn’t have been so vague.
my 5th grader is smarter than bob vander plaats
Steve, Silence opined about the use of strict scrutiny. The court didn’t use it. The court won’t use it. Almost too bad they didn’t so the us sup ct could have disqualified the decision.
Silence- I never said I didn’t have “issues” with gay people. Have you ever seen the coverage on the news of a gay pride parade? Freakish behaviour. So if I’m a bigot because they make me physically ill, then so be it. I can’t help that I was born with a weak stomach. Of course, everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. You say gay marriage doesn’t affect me at all, so I shouldn’t be against it. Genocide in Darfur doesn’t affect me either, but I’m against it.
The Iowa Supreme Court has no legal authority to make law. This is also true of the US Supreme Court. The three branches of government are not equal–has anyone read the Constitution of the United States?
rants for governor
Oh my dear god, maury and company, I post the actual quote from the varnum decision where they say they don’t have to consider strict scrutiny only because the marriage act can’t pass intermediate scrutiny. this leaves the door open that they may use it in the future, they just are not making that determination in this decision. I put the quote right under your noses to read, and you apparently did not read, or are illiterate and can’t understand it. And better yet, you have the guts to accuse me of not reading the decision, from which I took the quote and post for you all to read. I am having a battle of wits with unarmed people. You all are not doing the Iowa school system proud.
Embarrassed, I think you have some unresolved personal feelings and issues with gay people, I think you need some therapy. I know lots of people who are against gay marriage on religious grounds, but have gay friends, they are not bigots. You on the other hand are clearly a bigot, and I usually find people with the depth of issues that you have, is usually because of some deep feelings that you can’t come to grips with. Hope you work them out for your sake.
Silence
Anon, read my previous post where I quote the decision. I just didn’t read it, i am quoting straight from it. Apparently you just aren’t bright enough to understand the decision.
Silence
Sarah, the US constitution created three co-equal branches of government, Please quote from the US constitution where it says the judiciary is not an equal branch. You won’t find it. Yes the Supreme court can’t create law, but they can declare laws unconstitutional therby rendering that law null and void. You need to take a civics class, quickly.
Silence
Sarah, here is start to your civics education, it is a summary of federalist paper #47 written by James Madison about seperation of powers. read and learn.
Federalist No. 47 is the forty-seventh paper from the Federalist Papers. It was published on January 30, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. James Madison was its actual author. This paper examines the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government under the proposed United States Constitution. It is titled, “The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts.”
[edit] Summary
Like the other Federalist Papers, No. 47 advocated the ratification the United States Constitution. In No. 47, Madison addressed criticisms that the Constitution did not create a sufficient separation of powers among the executive, judiciary, and legislature. Madison acknowledged that the three branches intertwined but asserted that the blending did not violate the principle of separation of powers. To support his argument, Madison referred to the writings of Montesquieu. Madison attributes the widespread support of a separation of powers to Montesquieu. According to Montesquieu, tyranny results when one branch of government simultaneously holds the powers of another branch. However, Madison argues that Montesquieu “did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other.”[1]
Madison’s interpretation of Montesquieu supported a system of checks and balances quite similar to checks and balances the former thirteen colonies had created in their state constitutions. Madison tried to enlist the support of the young states by analyzing their individual constitutions. He finds that “there is not a single instance in which the several departments of power have been kept absolutely separate and distinct.”[2] For example, the New Hampshire Constitution allowed its senate to serve as a judicial tribunal for impeachments. The United States Constitution similarly granted the powers of impeachment to the legislature. Madison said that if the states did not think their constitutions violated the separation of powers, the new national Constitution did not violate of the separation of powers either.
Although each branch has its distinctive powers, it cannot stand alone without the check and balance system of the other two branches. Madison viewed the separation of power as essential because without it only one power would rule the country, which could easily lead to abusive ruling.
Silence
Thank you Slience, for some sanity. It is sad the Republican party is so eager to deny tax cuts to so many, both gay and straight. I dislike the Democratic party but the Republican party is so far removed from reality that it isn’t even an option.
This is ridiculous. Deal with the real issues affecting Iowans. And if you’re if you’re an immoral creep, kindly do not act like an expert on values and ethics.
What? Immoral creeps can’t also be values and ethics experts? Is that another Republican Plank?
I have a representative government. I vote for those who represent me in making these decisions. If I’m in the minority, then I expect that they look out for my rights. My atty, who is a con-law expert, tells me they used the right standard. But then I don’t think my religious rights are in any danger since we have separation of church and state, and I DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT IN MY BEDROOM!!!
Who is this Silence guy/gal? From what I can gather, he/she is a lawyer, an expert on military affairs (he/she has forgotten more about the military…), a psychiatrist, an obvious expert on bigotry, not gay, has an affinity for interior decorating, and cut and paste. Yet with this wide and varied background, can not understand the basic premise, or precedent set by 4000 years of history, that a woman is a required member of a marriage, along with a man.
Oh anonymous, I am a he and yes a lawyer, very familar with the military and its history, not a psychiatrist, but can spot a bigot when i see one or read the writings of one, in your case it is pretty easy. I am not gay, and my wife would laugh very loudly that you think I have an affinity for interior design.
Slavery has a long history, doesn’t make it right. Did you know that spartan warriors were encouraged to have homosexual relationships with their comrades in arms?? The spartans felt that men would fight harder to defend a lover than just a fellow soldier. Would you like that tradition put into our modern military??? Actually, another long standing tradition in marriage, arranged marriages, should we preserve that too??? should fathers be allowed to marry off their 14 year old daughters to 30 year old men for the benefit of the family??? I think a guy in california tried to sell his daughter off for meat and beer, he was arrested, I suppose his defense could be he was just following traditional marriage principles. I cut and paste to save time, it doesn’t make anything less accurate, in fact i cut and paste from the actually rulings, statutes, and decisions in an effort to use facts to support my logic. Silence
Erich, you will find that there is little sanity on this website, I am actually not a huge democratic supporter either, but they are closer to dealing with reality than the republicans are.
Silence
Amen mary!!!
Silence
You know, I bet many of the men on this board objecting to “sodomy marriage” have no problem when the “sodomy” is between a man and woman and wouldn’t want the gov’t in their bedrooms when it comes to this issue
Has anyone else noticed that the number of liberal commentary on conservative blogs has gone up in the last few days? Is this the culmination of the pro-homosexual lobby’s “online” rally efforts? Gadfly comments on blogs? Yeah … That’s going to win the argument. Maybe you guys should organize an get down to the capitol … Oh wait, that would imply that you have enough numbers to intimidate lawmakers. 20 or 30 kids in shirts with big blue dots on them sort of pales in comparison to 400 or 500 angry voters in red telling them they’re ready to get out and make sure they get voted out of office are much more intimidating.
You ask why Rants and Vander Plaats are doing so much to undermine this Supreme Court ruling? The simple answer is that they see numbers that show 65% of Iowans oppose the court’s opinion and the angry mob coming and no one in their right mind wants to be in its way.
Ha! you are right, right now there may be a lot of people up in arms and the easy thing to do is get on their side. However, in a few months, new issues will arise and this will be pushed to the back burner, people will see that gay people getting married is not the end of the world. Personally, republicans should be ramping up the exeption on the federal withholding tax issue, i think this has universal appeal even in the democratic ranks and republicans I think can do some serious damage on that. The debate on gay marriage is just a sideshow that is taking away from more serious issues.
Silence
Comparing sex to a woman with sodomy is a perversion of the truth. And if this discussion is just a side show, you are putting a large amount of effort into convincing all the “bigots” as to why they are wrong. Good luck with that.
Time will tell, but remember, this is Iowa. The marriage issue had enough steam in a state like California to last for a long time. In the end, Gay Marriage was shot down by the people of that state. To think Iowans are all of a sudden going to shift from the overwhelming support they currently have for the DOMA is more than just a little naieve. People are angry, and it isnt just at the Gay Marriage issue. It is also at the Courts for their brazen disreguard for the overwhelming will of the people on this issue. I wouldnt want to be Judge Hansen or either of the 2 Supreme Court Justices up for reconfirmation in 2010. They are the elected officials who will most likely be looking for new lines of employment in January of 2011.
Ha! Judges aren’t supposed to rule based on the popular vote, they are to rule according to what they believe the law says they should rule. I am sure the judges knew they were going to catch some hell for this, the easy thing for them to do would be to rule what they think the masses want, but again that is not what judges do. To me, it shows great courage and conviction to rule as they did, because they strongly believe that is what the constitution of Iowa required of them. I would strongly suggest instead of using your time and energy trying get these judges out of office, use it to try to amend the constitution if that is what you believe.
Silence
Anonymous, it is of little surprise you once again miss the point with may comment about men having little problem with sodomy with a woman. I am not trying to convince anyone to change there point of view necessarily, all I am pointing out, is that legally speaking, the varnum ruling is right. You may not like it, but it was the correct ruling.
Silence
When I see a continuous onslaught of postings by people like Silence Dogood ( who is the opposite of silence and very questionable in his claims of doing good) and Steve Right (who is neither right politically or morally), I join others with more determination to resist what they espouse.
Silence, start by reading this-these are judges opinions verbatam. I get back to you with specific language from the Federalist Papers. K? “People have to understand that all the court can do is offer an opinion. They cannot execute their own opinions, they don’t have the power to do so. All the founding fathers understood this. The Supreme Court justices even admit this, if you look carefully at what they wrote. They said the language “must be stricken from the statue.” They did not say ‘we are striking it’ because they know they can’t do it. Now it’s up to the legislature to agree. In Massachutsetts, the legislature never agreed. The laws against gay marriage are still on the books. Then Romney came in and violated the law. There is no court order forcing lawmakers to comply. The Iowa Judges are telling legislative and executive powers what they must do, but the judges themselves have no power to change the law. We’ve been giving them more power than they have. “
How are you going to get this Democrat-controlled legislature to do anything and how are you going to defy the AG?
Get practical about this. What can be done?
Silence, I went back and read your posts. Aside from repeating what others say, do you have a mind of your own? And what does it think?