Gay Marriage: The War Begins
- Friday, April 24, 2009, 4:30
- Iowa, Top Story
- 1,518 views
- 101 comments
Iowa conservatives are trying to find a creative way to force a vote on a marriage amendment to the Iowa Constitution before the legislative session concludes, which could now come at any time. Others, including WHO Radio talk show host Steve Deace, don’t think that the Republicans in the Senate have done all they can since they have not made a motion to suspend the Senate rules and force the Democrats’ hand.
State Senator Merlin Bartz and the Iowa Family Policy Center are encouraging county recorders not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday when the Supreme Court opinion become effective on Monday. The Alliance Defense Fund, a group of Christian attorneys, has even told county recorders that it will provide free legal review and defense to those recorders who consciously object to same-sex marriages.
Additionally, Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican candidate for Governor, has written a proposed executive order that would halt same-sex marriages in Iowa until the people have an opportunity to vote on the matter. Vander Plaats is encouraging the current Governor of Iowa, Chet Culver to sign it.
Meanwhile, gay rights activists quietly continue to implement the campaign plan that they have been working on in Iowa for more than seven years. With Governor Culver’s acceptance of the Iowa Supreme Court’s April 3rd decision, and Speaker Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Gronstal’s obstructionist behavior toward a constitutional amendment . These activists can now focus on just one simple but important thing, making non-homosexuals accept same-sex marriage.
Just this week the group One Iowa, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization began to run the following TV ad around the state.
The ad is professionally produced and well made. The TV ad makes the case that the Court’s decision was about eliminating discrimination and providing fairness to all Iowans. The ad goes on to say that that religious marriage will not be affected. It also calls the people pushing for a marriage amendment, “Outsiders who want to put discrimination into the Constitution.”
Iowa conservatives have their work cut out for them. We absolutely need to pass a marriage amendment, and we can never let up on that effort, but we also need to be communicating with regular Iowans about why we need to pass the amendment.
Some conservatives fear that in the 20 days since the Supreme Court issues its opinion, the movement still lacks a cohesive approach to winning the war that has been waged against traditional marriage in Iowa. One Iowa’s new TV ad, while good, does not signal that the end is near for Iowans who want the right to vote on traditional marriage. What is does do, however, is remind us that the battlefield is not limited only to Des Moines or political activists.
We must make our case to the people of Iowa.
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.
101 Comments on “Gay Marriage: The War Begins”
Trackbacks
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.
The homosexuals love to allege that they are being discriminated against but when they are confronted with the argument that polygamists can argue that they are also being discriminated against. Why can’t siblings marry? They claim that is ridiculous. Why? We can’t discriminate against them.
I love my dog. Why can’t I marry my dog? Actually, this means the end of marriage as we have known it for thousands of years. Every group should be able to use the discrimination argument.
Of course, persecution of churches really comes next. They may allege this does not affect religious marriage–yet. It will.
I’d just like to remind deace and all you out there like him you can scream, yell, bitch, and moan all day long how this isn’t a made law and DOMA is still on the books, but those that are in a position to challenge this are all dems. The Governor, who yes can issue an excutive order, will not. The Atty. Gen.(gee, another dem) and is in charge of enforcing the law of the State of Iowa, has already said it is the law and he will challenge and possibly attempt to remove from office anyone that won’t issue a license to gay couples. I shouldn’t need to remind you who is in charge of the House and Senate. I think we pretty much know by now where the court’s line up on this. The Polk Co. atty. who could appeal the decision, won’t. The minority party can only do so much, but as long as one party controls all the higher offices THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN!!! I don’t like it any better than the rest of you, but we need to realize at some point we got beat. And thanks so much to all of you that wouldn’t vote for Nussle because he wasn’t good enough to suit you, look in the mirror because you share in the blame for this too!!!
Craig, did you hafta post that picture? I’m gonna be queasy all day!!!
Thanks, Timmy for stating the obvious. Elections have consequences. One lesson learned from all this is that from this point forward, if anyone wants to have a ghost of a chance of reversing this, VOTE REPUBLICAN!!
You’re right. If we had a governor Nussle, we would not be in this mess or if we had 5 or 6 more Republicans in the House. it is imperative to get a majority–even if some are the undesirable RINOs. They’re still a far lot better than any Democrat!!!
Did I hear on the news that Monday some rules will be sent down from on high to guide county recorders regarding homosexual “marriage”. I don’t even recall who is sending these new rules but who gave that person the right to define marriage?
Don’t vote for Republicans, vote for CONSERVATIVES! There is a difference sometimes.
Vander Plaats-English 2010!
Also, before anyone tries to get on and argue that the court’s efforts to strike prohibition against same-sex marriage is akin to the striking of the language from the Iowa code that prohibited mixed race marriage I would like to point out that there is a MAJOR is a major difference between the 2. Prohibitions against mixed race marriage were stricken from the Iowa Code by the General Assembly. Constitutionally, the Assembly is the ONLY body with the power to strike language from the code. Governor Culver and Senator Gronstall’s eagerness to accept the courts unconstitutional ruling is irresponsible but it is a complete and total dereliction of the duties of their office.
OK … the server didnt post the first half of my comment … I got a message that said the server flagged it for being too “spammy” … What gives with that Craig?
Peggy, let’s not go down that path. Right now we need all the Republicans we can get and don’t you long for a Governor Nussle.
I guess to recap what I tried to say in the first half of my original comment: I was responding to Deace voted for Obama where he asked why he couldn’t marry his dog? I said that he makes a good point. The Iowa Supreme Court only tried to strike a single line of many lines prohibiting various forms of marriage from Section 595.2 from the Iowa Code. Bestiality, Incest and prohibitions against marrying the mentally disabled are others. How is not striking them and striking the prohibition against same-sex marriage intellectually honest in any way?
No, Peggy, I believe you are wrong. Don’t vote for Conservatives, vote for REPUBLICANS!
I do not want a theocratic Governor; I think Peggy would. I know you believe it would be the best thing for our state…I’m saying you have good intentions.
I’m not saying that a religious/theocratic person can’t be impartial and an effective leader (like Mike Huckabee), but Vander Plaats is no Mike Huckabee.
I hope a real republican candidate emerges. Has our party really been gutted of all the Republicans and now we are only left with social conservatives? I know the social conservatives are the squeakiest wheels, but let’s get back to core Republican values of small government, less taxation, small business development….and not gay marriage debates.
Ugh, it’s too nice of a day to be in a bad mood.
Can we maybe avoid this perticular spitting contest on this thread today please? There are 3 days until the Defence of Marriage Act is ignored by County Recorders across Iowa. Lets try to keep our eye on the ball here.
Jeff,
You’re not getting a free pass on this one.
What exactly do you mean by “theocratic governor?”
Peggy wrote:
“Don’t vote for Republicans, vote for CONSERVATIVES! There is a difference sometimes.”
Peggy, I suspect unwittingly, puts her finger on something which goes right to the core of what I believe has happened in the GOP. I somewhat hesitate to say it in an inflammatory way, but sometimes the most honest answer is the correct answer; the Party got hijacked by the theocrats and now is backed into a corner with them. They’re a large, and vocally the loudest, contingent of the Core.
Without them, the Party is pretty low in percentage numbers of the electorate. With them, the Party turns off the center – center right as well as center left – and the results of 06 and 08 are the consequences.
There’s no dispute from me that the Religious Right is just as entitled to be a voice in politics as is business interests or social liberals, so it’s a shame that our system is so very partial to two parties only. Coalition-building just doesn’t fit well into our two-party political system.
Conservative Demo,
You, too, are going to have to define “theocrat.”
How many times are you people going to post that the supreme court ruling doesn’t legalize gay marriage??? It strikes the language requring marriage between a man and woman. Period. No executive order can change this, no legislation can overturn this, only a consitutional amendment. Period. Craig, you know this is the case. Please tell these posters so that they stop embarrassing themselves with these BS concepts.
Silence
Silence,
There was a Harvard-educated constitutional lawyer on WHO yesterday who says otherwise. He explained it very well.
I agree with cons. demo, the republicans have let their party be hijacked by the christian right or as he called them theocrats, the problem with this is that overall it is a small percentage of the population overall, and the little fact of separation of church and state hinders their agenda. This over the past 8 to 10 years has brought the republicans out of step with mainstream america.
Silence
Explained what, where was he on, and harvard educated doesn’t mean much, in every class from every school, someone had to finish last. I have read Drake’s own con law professors say exactly what I have said. I have my own education in law that says I am right. This is basic constitutional law 101. This isn’t even controversial. Let it go. The only way to do anything about the varnum decision is a constitutional amendment. If you want to do something, that is the only avenue. Then again, that could still be declared unconstitutional under the US constitution.
Silence
Sorry peggy, I misunderstood your last post for a second, “WHO” the radio station.
silence
It’s really sad to see the same tired arguments over and over. People who have very little logical claims against the equality of gays/lesbians in Iowa immediately start jumping into polygamy, bestiality, incest… frankly its not only digustingly ignorant, it’s just stupid. Some people should go back in time and not skip philosophy. Using logical fallacies such as that one is actually one sure way to show how weak your argument truly is.
The war isn’t beginning – it’s already ended. The younger generation of Iowa couldn’t care less about marriage equality – and they support it overwhelmingly. This is such a waste of time, money, stress, and effort on something that is quickly becoming a moot point. Time to practice what we preach and get out of other peoples’ lives!
I’ll take a stab at “theocrat”:
1) An individual who not only believes that God’s law is superior to the laws of man, but further insists that civil laws that conflict with God’s law are invalid.
2) An individual who is hostile to the idea of a secular republic and the idea of separation of church and state.
3) An individual who wishes to employ the instrumentalities of government to enforce the rules and values of his/her church or religious morality onto all citizens.
On a side note, the reason you guys are going to lose the gay marriage “debate” is that this is truly a case of the religious folks wanting to cram their morality down other peoples’ throats. You can’t convince me that two dudes getting married effects your marriage. (Heck, you can’t convince me that a dude marrying his dog effects your marriage.) I DO believe you when you say it offends your sensibilities. But that’s the problem with freedom: you can’t control the offensive things that other people do. You so desperately want to play the victim here, but no one outside the echo chamber is buying it.
Scott, Mike, nice to have some rational minds enter the debate. Here is a question for the rest of you, name the leading country run by theocrats, yes it would be Iran. Scott couldn’t be more correct, the younger generations don’t care. Older generations thought a black man would never be president, but the younger generations cared less about race and we saw what happened. For people all about personal freedom, my house is my castle, don’t tell us how to use our money and run our lives, you are sure into telling everyone else how to run their lives.
Silence
I guess you could say our founding fathers were theocrats. Have you ever read the Constitution? “We are bound by OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights.” Also, if you go into the Iowa State Capitol, read the quotes on the walls above the doors–it mentions God and God’s laws in about every quote. Also, are judicial system’s laws are founded on the Ten Commandments. Our dollar says, “In God we Trust.” This isn’t so much about a GOP divide as a secular and religions divide in this country. We once had morals, but not we are not better than Europe and look where that’s getting them. Religious people don’t want governement interfering, they want a smaller government as well. Christian morals are dying in this country, the same morals that are country was founded on. When they go, the GOP goes, the country goes, and we’ll have one big Democratic party of Socialism. It is a “me want” country now. We care only for ourself, so people have the mentality of screw our children, give me money, and the government can solve all my problems attitude.
Eric, while I will agree the founding fathers incorporated basic christians beliefs, this was only one factor, many of the leading founding fathers were not exactly the most religious people. They also incorporated many deomocratic ideas that date back to the ancient greeks, and the greeks certainly had a different set of morals than modern day christians. You forget, one of the biggest things brought into the constitution and bill of rights was the concept of the separation fo church and state. They clearly did not what our government hijacked by the church like the republican party has.
Silence
Silence,
I find it hard to believe that you have any “education in law” since you don’t even know what separation of church and state means.
Mike,
Did you look your definitions up in a dictionary or make them up yourself?
What’s up with the picture of the two chicks and the horse in the One Iowa video?
Those are all mine, Peggy.
Silence, your total ignorance to the language of the Iowa Constitution pretty much sums up your own inability to talk intelligently on this subject. Scott. Please take a moment to actually look at Section 595 of the Iowa Code. How is it intellectually honest to suggest that one line is discriminatory and another line is not? The simple answer: IT ISNT! Is the courts unilateral decision to strike prohibitions against same-sex marriage a slippery slope? ABSOLUTELY IT IS!
Get used to it. I will repeat myself, especially for this younger generation who did not have to live through the 70-80’s when we could have stopped abortion on demand but failed to do so. Get used to it.
I am not say accept it, embrace it or stop fighting or even talking about it. But, I am saying do not be deluded into thinking we are going to stop it or undo it. The genie is never, ever, put back into a broken bottle. Get used to it.
And more. Yes, more. Far worse things are coming. And we may yet have the chance to hold them off, for a while. For a season. But, they too will come. They come for the same reasons we are now here passing this last warning sign as we swerve out of control down a dangerous and deadly unlit roadway to the future. We are a house divided.
I speak of the conservative movement. I speak for the fiscal and the social conservatives as a whole and the social conservatives, and their so-called leadership specifically. Since 1988 the SoCons have marched towards ascendancy: Well, certain few local leaders I should say. They have achieved the very pinnacle of power in this state. Yielding such political power that none dare even speak the slightest casual remark about them, lest they abandon all hope of having any voice at all. I am not even close to stating the full impact of this abuse of power. The political grave yard is littered with the bodies, and few know who they are, least of all where they are buried.
Make no mistake. This is of our very own doing. This is the absolute and unquestionable result of the total and complete failure of the Social Conservative movement’s self appointed and perpetually power seeking leadership. The evidence of which, though carefully and meticulously obscured. can be nonetheless, patently observed by correlation between the rise of their individual and personal power and the decline of a majority of our elected Congressmen, loss of both state houses, and 3 going on 4 terms of the Governors ship.
Sorry Bob, and others, but you have no chance in hell of winning with these folks still running the show. You might have the solution to many problems, but understand this: They do not seek nor intend to find any solutions. Not when losing has proven to be so personally and monetarily profitable for these many years.
So, get used to it. Until we change from within, there will be no change, no reprieve, no quarter from the coming onslaught. A house divided cannot stand. But, there is one promise we are given: If my people, who are called by my name, will repent and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from Heaven and will heal their land. That is talking about us, not the sodomites. Us.
Conservatives must understand what has happened and specifically why it has happened, and must deal with it, or we are doomed to repeat the abortion mistakes all over again with the homosexual agenda.
Lord willing, for some few reading this, the dimmest flicker of light has come.
God Bless!
too bad jim nussle isn’t governor. too bad we dont have a majority in the iowa house. too bad socons sat around attacking gop candidates instead of helping them win. you made your bed.
Altoona, that is exactly what will come into effect on monday, the first line of the marriage act will be null and void. It happens all the time in the law when part of a statute is struck but the rest is still considered good law. Peggy and altoona, I mean this genuinely, take a civics class, you have completely no understanding how the government and the law works. there is little more to say to people who speak from complete ignorance and have no interest in learning the truth. Separation of church and state means exactly what it says, the two are not to be mixed. Altoona, I don’t even know where to start with you, as your post makes little sense, has no point, and no facts to speak of. Just a few vague references to the Iowa constitution which show you have no understanding of the law. Please educate yourself before positng again.
I am really dying for someone to give one concrete reason on how gay marriage will effect your everyday life. I am just curious, because for all this talk, I haven’t heard one yet.
Silence
There are plenty of attacks flying back and forth between the fi-cons and the so-cons to create enough blame to go around. That is the problem. Neither side wants to shake hands with the other, forgive and forget the fighting from the past. Instead we simply stand around and point the finger at eachother. As long as we’re stuck in the mode where the fi-cons point the finger at the so-cons and viseversa, we’ll keep loseing and stuff like this will keep happening.
Silence: Your ignorance is astounding. Your pretense, if it be that, even more so. Do you even know the source of the phrase? The context? Read any of the historical debate in the last 200 years on the subject? I suspect not. You are just mouthing the company line. The liberal sound bites. Like a parrot, hoping they will stick. Sadly for you, most everyone else reading this knows the context, knows the actual debate and in that context and debate agrees with it. I do not want the state telling my church what it’s religious beliefs should be. And forcing sodomites upon us, is doing exactly that. You and yours are violating the real principle here and now. You are become the very hypocrite you believe or pretend to rally against.
Take a civics class? Perhaps you should take your own advice Silence. You don’t seem to understand Article 12, Section 1 of the Iowa Constitution. The courts do not have the power you claim they have. Check Article 5 of the Constitution. You will find something conspicuously missing … Specifically, JUDICIAL POWER. I know you choose to believe that we have 2 co-equal branches of Government, but constitutionally, that is a myth. We have 2 equal branches of Government and one inferior branch who is given only as much power as the other two choose to give it. That’s the law. Go ahead and retake civics … but probably not with Governor Culver, he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and perpetuating the myth of Judicial superiority. In fact, according to Article 5, Section 4, the court is inferior to the General Assembly …. The article says so. The courts have only jurisdiction extending so far as the General Assembly may, by law prescribe.
Altoona, right you are sir or ma’am.
However, in that truth lies the real problem. No one, now, or past, has ever had the stones to put into effect any such provision to prevent this abuse. We have seen it rising in all quarters of these several states and nationally, yet we did nothing. When we had both chambers and the Governorship, we failed to act according to the knowledge we possessed. Now, your debate, though correct, is an academic exercise in futility.
The only course of action is to raise up 155 candidates across the state and remove 100% of those now in office. No, Virginia, there is no Santa Clause. There is no leadership from within that house else they would have acted previously. They must all go to a one!
Any exception, any at all, is to not only invite defeat, but to feed and clothe it as well.
Wayward, no one is telling your church what to believe. It is just saying the state, not the church, is allowing gay couples to marry under state law and have the same rights as straight couples. How is this forcing anything on you. Sorry but gay people are not going away. You still haven’t said how this effects your daily life.
Altoona, I am an attorny you ignorant fool, I have forgotten more about con law than you will ever know, Judicial Review has been around for 200 years, read marbury v. madison. google it, it will come up. There are three EQUAL branches of government, if there wasn’t, checks and balances wouldn’t work. How do you think the DC handgun band got overturned. I would love to see what your reaction would be if this liberal Iowa legislature tried to banned guns in Iowa, I am sure you would lead to charge to courts to get it overturned, and of course then it would be good law and not just an opinion that the governor could issue an executive order and overturn. I love it altoona, since there is no JUDICIAL POWER in the state of Iowa, I guess we can just open up the prisons, not show up for traffic court, if you sue someone for crashing into you, the verdict would be worthless. Great theory you have going altoona.
Silence
I just finished listening to the podcast of Jan Miclelson’s show from yesterday (WHO radio). Constitutional scholar Herb Titus. Basics I took away were that the constitutional limitation of the judicial branch is that they only have the power to tell the lower court to proceed to judgment, and its judgment is limited to only the parties involved.
I believe this may mean that Polk county has had their day in court, but 98 other counties can still have a try (as defendants). OR The other 98 counties are still bound by the law as written.
The remedy to 98 other cases is the governor doing his job and issuing a specific order one way or the other. This would bring 2 of 3 branches on government back into agreement. (check and balance)
Silence. You do not get a pass for evading my questions. And I will only this once bite the issue you raised in your misdirection. I do this once, so that you and I know, and those reading at home, each know, that I did not evade your points, irrelevant as they may be or intentional to distract as they may be. I shall not rebut them again if you should choose to remain off focus further. I have been clear.
Yes, the state is telling my church exactly what to believe and what to do and it is doing so with force and under grave penalty of loss of life and limb. Yes, it is, and you know it to be so. It is the acknowledged end game of the entire sodomite movement, of which this supposedly limited marriage issue is just the beginning. We know it, because many other nations, now and in the ancient past, have already been down this dark road. We know how the story ends by the examples of history, by the evidence of the world around us, and by the self stated public admissions of the those most directly pursuing this course of action. You are not ignorant of this, you cannot be so. You have come to this forum with intention! Your intent is to lie. You are now exposed!
Now, address my previous issues, or follow the advice of your chosen namesake and be thou silent.
How it will effect my daily life –
I sold a piece of real estate after the realtor divulged the potential buyer was a gay couple. Even though they did not meat the timely deadlines imposed, I was afraid of being sued for discrimination. That wasn’t the case, but the threat seemed to be there non the less. (Yes a very unethical move my the realtor) This happened several years ago. I believe this will only get worse as time progresses.
KC, Titus is considered a quack, just a quick samples of what he advocates, “Along with Roy Moore, Titus was an original drafter of the Constitution Restoration Act,[1] which sought to take out of federal court jurisdiction cases that involved public officials that acknowledged God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government, and provided for the impeachment of federal judges who disregarded the act. The act did not pass either time it was introduced.” His theory would make the constitution, statutes, ordinances completely worthless. Any pulcic official breaking the law, can claim “god” told him too, whether god be allah, buddha or whoever they believe in.
Here is the problem with his “theory”, the supreme court has already ruled on the issue, lower courts are bound to that decision, so if this issue is brought to any court in any county in Iowa, that court is bount to following the ruling of the supreme court, they would order the clerks to issue the licenses to gay couples or be found in contempt and jailed.
Silence
Anonymous, that is paranoia, If they break the contract, you are well within your rights to teminate the contract is that is what it provides. I think you got bad advice. However, did you get your money??? Real estate contracts, if written properly, contain very specific remedies for failure to perform.
Silence.
Wayward, seek help, you are a disturbed human being. I am not even trying to be funny, you need profession help. I would address your previous issues if you raised anything but nonsensicle jibberish that I am guessing comes from your rather radical religious beliefs.
Silence
I rest my case.
What case??? You haven’t made a coherent point yet except you seem to be afraid that gay men are coming to get you while you pray in your church. I guess you feel that you are so attractive they won’t be able to resist you. Of course this would be the case in your mind whether gay marriage was legal or not. If you have a logical argument post it, if not, go away to your bunker.
Silence
Silence – While I am no attorney, cases can be re-opened if new evidence is found. So the idea that because it has already been decided it can’t come up again seems a bit totalitarian.
I agree that if the same arguments are used, that the lower court would have to follow the same ruling. However, If someone has a different argument, why should the ruling prevent that county from having their day in court?
The limitation described is that the legislatures’ responsibility is to write law that has broad application to all parties whereas the judiciary can only offer a ruling to the parties involved. This limits the judicial branch from rendering opinions that have broad application to all parties because that power is reserved for the legislature. Because of this limitation, the ruling either has to be affirmed by the legislature with a vote or the governor with an executive order so that it can be applied evenly across all 99 counties.
The biggest problem I have had with the ruling is that 1 branch has essentially overturned the other 2. In no other dealings in our government do we see that specific abuse of power. Of course the only reason it seems to be abused is because we the people have always been willing to go along.
KC, in this context, the varnum “case” cannot be reopened. It would take another lawsuit to bring it to the supreme court again. I highly doubt this will happen in the near future. I am sure the polk county attorneys brought all the evidence they had, and the court did not find it persuasive. If some kind of new evidence would arise, then maybe, but i don’t see it in the near future.
The courts follow the theory of stare decisis, which gives strong deference to previous rulings, while it has happened, like in Brown v. board of education (the desegregation ruling) it doesn’t happen often.
You may have a problem with how it happened but this is how it works. Like I stated before, the US supreme court overturned the DC handgun ban. Many liberals didn’t like it, but accpeted the decision. The one avenue left for opponents of gay marriage would be a consitutional amendment. Decisions involving consititutionality are much more far reaching than the parties involved. The legislature can try rewriting the statute but like with abortion laws it has to conform to the supreme court rulings or be deemed unconstitutional.
Silence
Mike,
You are in rare Me-o-crat form, making up your own definitions for words. It’s sort of like re-defining marriage!
I commend you for taking a stab at it but, regardless, here’s a quick lesson for you and the fiscally conservative Republicans who refused to define theocrat: Personal belief in God and being guided by one’s morals does not make a politician a theocrat. If that were true, we’d have to expunge the legislature of a lot of Democrats as well.
Peggy,
You are in rare “ignore-what’s-being-written-and-respond-as-if-something-else-was-said” form. Where did I say a theocrat was someone with a “personal belief in God [who is] guided by one’s morals”?!? I have no problem with that sort of . . . uh . . . “theocrat.” Heck, if that thin gruel is your definition then I guess I’m a theocrat!
Of course, that’s not my definition. You are redefining my definition. Why don’t you scroll up, read what I wrote, and respond to it?
Mike,
You’re not following me at all. YOU don’t get to define words. There is a universally accepted definition for the word theocrat and it’s in the dictionary. The Republican snobs further up the thread who are ridiculing social conservatives also don’t know the meaning of the word theocrat; they’re calling people who believe in God “theocrats” and it’s an inaccurate definition.
We can’t all be playing by our own set of rules. It never works.
Fair enough, Peggy. I took the liberty of heading to dictionary.com, which says:
“1. a person who rules, governs as a representative of God or a deity, or is a member of the ruling group in a theocracy, as a divine king or a high priest.
2. a person who favors theocracy. ” Not exactly your definition, which was “someone who likes God and morals.” But this definitions really isn’t helpful without the definition of theocracy:
“1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government. ”
I humbly submit that my definition, while not word-for-word, is pretty doggone close.
Now, would you like to make a response to my defintion? To the dictionary definition? I eagerly await!
“Wayward, seek help, you are a disturbed human being. I am not even trying to be funny, you need profession help. I would address your previous issues if you raised anything but nonsensicle jibberish that I am guessing comes from your rather radical religious beliefs. “—Silence
But the guys who want to marry other guys are completely normal, Wayward. You are the sick one. Silence knows. Silence is a lawyer, so he is honest about everything. You must listen to him, as he is also an expert on your mental health. He is also an expert on the military, as he has forgotten more about the military than most of us will ever know. He is not arrogant nor gay. He is a straight lawyer, who only has the best of intentions toward all of us. He is very smart, as you can tell by the length of his posts. He is not talking down to you, he is educating you as to the error of your ways. You, on the other hand, have a strong opinion which he disagrees with. Therefore, you are obviously insane. The fact that you are repulsed by homosexuality actually means you secretly harbour homosexual urges. Just ask Silence, he will confirm this.
and mike, for the record, the best known theocracy is Iran. so we see how letting theocrats run your government works out.
Silence
Mike,
Re-read my earlier post. I did NOT define theocrat nor did I accuse anyone of being a theocrat. That was done by others and inaccurately so, might I add.
wow, anonymous, best post yet. can’t say i disagree with any of it. lol Listen you may think I am arrogant, but unforunately for you, I am right when it comes to the legal issues presented in the varnum decision. You want to debate the morality of it, that is something different, but legally I am right and that is the end of the story. There are far too many people who want to mix the legal and the moral or religious issues on this topic. If you check, I have had many sane rational debates with people who disagree with me on this site, the key being the other person being sane and rational.
Silence
Take Silence, for example. I guess she’s accusing some American politician of being a theocrat, equating him or her to Iran’s crazed president.
I can’t spell his name but what creed does that Iranian loon subscribe to?
Thou shall not kill? Thou shall not bear false witness (just lost all the leftist Iowa bloggers on that one)? Thou shall not steal? Thou shall not commit adultery?
Wouldn’t it be HORRIBLE if all Americans lived by those standards?
How exactly are you right Silence? I havent heard you make a single arguement today that implys you are correct on anything. You’re simply regurgitating the Supreme Courts ruleing. You havent quoted a single amendment to the constitution to suggest that the court has the power it claims to have and you havent quoted a single line from the Constitution that suggests the Governor does not have the power to stay the order. The reason why you cant quote anything specifically from the supreme law of the state is because you cant. Such language dosent exist … at all ….
Altoona, where in the constitution of Iowa does it say the governor can issue an executive order to overrule a supreme court decision. OOPS, guess that isn’t there now is it. Look up judicial review if you want, read up on it. It is the law of Iowa and the land. I am tired of giving you free legal lessons. Really, how dare I simply “regurgitate” supreme court rulings to support my positions, that is just silly and crazy talk I guess, to rely on supreme court rulings to support my positions. Honestly, who do these SUPREME court justices think they are, the SUPREME interpretors of the law and constitution of IOWA, what would ever give them that idea. They are just crazy.
Silence
UMMM, Peggy, the president of Iran is a theocrat, he is president of a theocracy, just not the kind you would probably like, unless you like burca and veils, the point you completely missed was how dangerous a theocracy can be.
Silence
How is any of it unfortunate for me? I’m not a flamer, so none of this will affect me. Right? Unless, of course, one of you lawyer types decides to sue me (in the name of justice, of course, not monetary gain) because I say something out loud that doesn’t fall in line with the liberal agenda which is currently taking over this country. And, by the way, I didn’t say you are arrogant, I said just the opposite. You can read in whatever you want from my posts, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a complete idiot. I know many lawyers, and the fact that they spent a bunch of money at Drake and squeaked by with a strong C average doesn’t automatically qualify them to preach to us poor unfortunate religious zealots who have old and outdated beliefs. It’s possible that some of the people opposed to this are plain old-fashioned secular types who don’t even attend church. But the gay agenda is to discredit anyone who is against them by labeling them as right wing religious extremists or homophobes. I’m not an expert on history, but I’m guessing you are. What has happened to the nations that have accepted and embraced the homosexual lifestyle?
Obviously what passes for a Doctorate of Jurisprudence is somewhat lacking since the days of Blackstone’s Commentary. Let me provide a little bit of reeducation for our product of the 20th century school system. Law and Morality are one and the same. Now, the only question is truly, who’s morality? One given by God? Or perhaps one devised by man? That is, at least an honest debate. Pretending otherwise does not even rise to the level of idiocy. Our founding fathers, naturally knew this. Words like “self evident” “endowed” “creator”. Ring any bells up there in the otherwise silent belfry?
I fully understand the burning need for the left and other self deluded moral cowards to redefine words. Words have meanings. Change the meanings, and you can change the debate without having to actually stand for or reveal your true intentions.
Machievelli was an honest man. He and his protegee Gramsci, told the world their design and intentions. Their disciples, Marx and Lenin, likewise, did not hide their agenda nor their means. But then, they have all but been disgraced and fallen from favor across the world. So then, it is no wonder that these post modern followers of this trade hide their intentions and mix their words.
There are only two schools of thought:
First: Laws are given by God, and man makes Statutes which conform to the will of God, or he makes Statutes which are in rebellion to the will of God.
Or: Laws are made up by men, and subject other men to conform by force, to whichever such men rule at that time.
One of these beliefs is the foundation of our Republic: The other, the foundations of tyranny.
If one subscribes to the later belief there is no true debate. Might only makes right. The ends justify any means. And accountability to the law is by brute force alone.
If one subscribes the former, then debate over the rule of the law, the meaning of the law and the will of God can occur. As the scripture says: Come, let us reason together.
Those who seek to understand the will of God, knowing first that there is a God, are the only ones capable of reason. The rest are no more than beasts in their own lusts.
Yes, Silence, we get it! Now who exactly in the U.S. is calling for a theocracy?
“Thou shall not kill? Thou shall not bear false witness (just lost all the leftist Iowa bloggers on that one)? Thou shall not steal? Thou shall not commit adultery?
Wouldn’t it be HORRIBLE if all Americans lived by those standards?” Here is Peggy trying her darndest to create a strawman. Per Peggy, if you are anti-theocrat you must also be pro-murder, pro-lie, pro-theft, pro-adultery. Turns out its the anti-theocrat liberals who are crazy!
But again, that pesky definition of theocracy. The beef isn’t with God-fearing Christians who also happen to prize and love our form of government. It’s with those revolutionaries who want to turn the secular republic into a theocracy, where laws that offend the (conservative evangelical) God are void. THAT, my Peggy-friend, is crazy.
It is unforunate for you, because you clearly want the varnum decison not to have any legal baring on marriage and that is not the case. If someone sued you for a lawful exercise of freedom of speech, like saying you are opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, i would call them out on it too. Anonymous, you can have your personal beliefs that is fine, I might think they are outdated, but again, you and others are taking your personal religious beliefs and apply them to civil marriage. I don’t think everyone who opposes gay marriage is an idiot. I do think people who think the governor can just issue an executive order to overturn a supreme court decision, or the legislature doesn’t have to listen to the supreme court because it is just an opinion, is either extremely ignorant or an idiot. Even someone who paid lots of money to drake for that strong C average knows that is not the case. (I did not go to drake)
Silence
peggy, I am pretty sure wayward is in his lastest rantings, at least from what I can tell.
Silence
OK, mail order law school, whatever. The one that covered all facets of con law which you have, admittedly, forgotten more of than most of us lower sub-humans will ever know. And the one that must have covered all things military, which you have also, admittedly, forgotten more of than most of us will ever know. I have now forgotten more of my point than you will ever know.
Anonymous, I have to say thank you for forgetting most of your point. lol
Silence
There is no way in hell Silence is a lawyer. Not even close.
Yes, wayward, you are ringing the bells for a theocracy, you want religion to rule to the land, then the only real debate will be whose religion. I hope for your sake if this comes to pass it is not Islam, you would be screwed. By the way, we are in the 21st century.
Silence
Peggy, there is a way in hell I am an attorney, licensed and practicing.
Silence
OK, thank you Silence for giving me an argument I can speak to rather than regurgitated talking points. Lets do this line by line. Are you Ready?
1. “Altoona, where in the constitution of Iowa does it say the governor can issue an executive order to overrule a supreme court decision. OOPS, guess that isn’t there now is it.”
Actually, yes it does. Article 4, Section 1: “The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a chief magistrate, who shall be styled the governor of the state of Iowa.” Now I know you need to bush up on your civics Silence but basically what that line means is that the Governor, and the Governor alone has the supreme executive power to issue orders to other executives at the County and Municipal level. The Governor, holding supreme executive power therefore does then have the power to issue an order to stay same-sex marriage licensing . He is also the “Chief Magistrate” which charges him with the execution of the laws as written … If you were truly the civics expert you lead us to believe that you are, you would know that …. I guess you were sick that day.
2. “Look up judicial review if you want, read up on it. It is the law of Iowa and the land.”
I will, judicial review is actually nothing more than a misapplication of the Marbery v. Madison (1803) which came to prominence in Judicial doctrine in the 1960s and 1970s and no one ever bothered to challenge it. In the 19th century when they tried to apply judicial review in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) but again, the Chief Executive ignored it and killed the Bank they were trying to protect anyway, In Scott v. Sanford (1857) their power of judicial review was simply ignored it. And in Schechter Poultry Co. v. US (1935) again they tried to excersise their authority. They were challenged by the President and they were again sent packing. History is littered with case after case of the supreme court overstepping its authority in an attempt to gain more relevancy. Throughout history, the chief executive has kicked them back into their proper place. The myth of Judicial review is an entirely late 20th century invention established by a court desperately looking for relevancy. Judicial Review isn’t the law of anything, its just a Judicial statute and really an illegitimate one at that if you want to get technical. Now, here is what the constitution has to say about Judicial jurisdiction: Article 5, Section 4 “The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe.” … OOPS I guess the judicial branch is an inferior to the other 2 branches after all.
2. “I am tired of giving you free legal lessons.”
Good, I would be very upset if I were to have paid you for legal advise that was inherently flawed and generally inaccurate.
3. “Really, how dare I simply “regurgitate” supreme court rulings to support my positions, that is just silly and crazy talk I guess, to rely on supreme court rulings to support my positions. Honestly, who do these SUPREME court justices think they are, the SUPREME interpretors of the law and constitution of IOWA, what would ever give them that idea.”
You are correct. They don’t have the power that took. I’m glad you acknowledge that Silence.
“They are just crazy.”
Again, I agree. As we’ve learned above, the Governor, not the court is the supreme Magistrate possessing the supreme Executive power in the state, not the justices who merely “interoperate law.” We have also learned that the courts jurisdiction is directly limited to as much power as the General Assembly may choose to grant them.
But thanks for playing Silence …. You get an “A” for effort on the day.
Altoona. that is not what chief magistrate means, judicial review is exactly what marbury v. madison established, so using it would not be a misapplication. One last time, please read,
court’s authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles.
The power of courts of law to review the actions of the executive and legislative branches is called judicial review. Though judicial review is usually associated with the U.S. Supreme Court, it is a power possessed by most courts of law in the United States. State courts exercise this power in ruling on the validity of state executive acts or state statutes, in terms of their interpretation of the state constitution. They base such rulings on the principle that a state law that violates the state constitution is invalid. Normally the U.S. Supreme Court cannot review such decisions unless the case clearly involves a federal constitutional issue.
Judicial review is an invention of U.S. law, based on the existence of a written constitution that can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Though legislation is accorded a general presumption of validity, a court has the power to strike down a law if it violates constitutional or statutory principles.
Though a few state courts exercised judicial review prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the Framers did not resolve the question of whether the newly created federal courts should have this power. Article III, which established the judicial branch, is silent on the subject. During the early years of the Republic, the Supreme Court upheld congressional acts, which implied the power of judicial review. But the key question was whether the Court had the power to strike down an act of Congress.
The issue was settled by the Supreme Court in 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, which ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional. In Marbury Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that since it is the duty of a court in a lawsuit to declare the law, and since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, where a rule of statutory law conflicts with a rule of the Constitution, then the law of the Constitution must prevail. Marshall asserted that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is.”
Having established the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court applied it only once prior to the Civil War, in 1857, ruling the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691. In the same period, the Court invalidated several state laws that came in conflict with the Constitution. In M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a state’s attempt to tax a branch of the Bank of the United States. In Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23 (1824), the Court struck down a New York law granting a monopoly to a steamboat company, saying that the state law conflicted with a federal law granting a license to another company.
In addition to asserting the power to invalidate state laws, the Marshall Court established the authority to overrule decisions of the highest state appellate courts on questions of federal constitutional and statutory law. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States “shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Supreme Court affirmed its power to review state court decisions in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 4 L. Ed. 97 (1816).
Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court began to invalidate acts of Congress, yet avoided the great issues of public debate and thus avoided conflict like that which engulfed it following its Dred Scott decision. Beginning in 1890, however, the Court again became the source of political controversy when it exercised its power of judicial review to limit government regulation of business. In Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railroad Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418, 10 S. Ct. 462, 33 L. Ed. 970 (1890), the Court struck down a state law establishing a commission to set railroad rates. This case was the first of many where the Court applied the doctrine of “substantive due process” to invalidate state and federal legislation that regulated business. Substantive due process was a vague concept that required legislation to be fair, reasonable, and just in its content.
Through the early 1900s, the Court came under attack from Populists and Progressives for its desire to insulate capitalism from government intervention. Unmoved by its critics, the Court proceeded to invalidate a federal income tax (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759 [1895]), limit the scope of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 15 S. Ct. 249, 39 L. Ed. 325 [1895]), and forbid states to regulate working hours (Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 [1905]).
The Supreme Court’s use of substantive due process brought charges of “judicial activism,” which asserted that in determining whether laws would meet constitutional muster, the Court was acting more as a legislative body than as a judicial body. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in his famous dissenting opinion in Lochner, argued for “judicial restraint,” cautioning the Court that it was usurping the function of the legislature.
Despite Holmes’s warning the Court continued to strike down laws dealing with economic regulation into the 1930s. In 1932 the United States, in the midst of the Great Depression, elected Franklin D. Roosevelt president. Roosevelt immediately began to implement his New Deal program, which was based on the federal government’s aggressive regulation of the national economy. The Supreme Court used its power of judicial review to invalidate eight major pieces of New Deal legislation.
Roosevelt, angry at the conservative justices for blocking his reforms, proposed legislation that would add new appointees to the Court, so as to create a liberal majority. This “court- packing” plan aroused bipartisan opposition and ultimately failed. But the Court may have gotten Roosevelt’s message, for in 1937 it made an abrupt turnabout: a majority of the Court abandoned the substantive due process doctrine and voted to uphold the Wagner Act, which guaranteed to industrial workers the right to unionize and bargain collectively (National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L. Ed. 893 [1937]).
With this decision the Court ceased to interpret the Constitution as a barrier to social and economic legislation. The Court subsequently upheld congressional legislation that affected labor relations, agricultural production, and social welfare. It also exercised judicial restraint with respect to state laws regulating economic activity.
Beginning in the 1950s, the Supreme Court exercised its judicial review power in cases involving civil rights and civil liberties. During the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, from 1953 to 1969, the Court declared federal statutes unconstitutional in whole or in part in twenty-five cases, most of the decisions involving civil liberties. The Warren Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), however, invalidated state laws that mandated racially segregated public schools.
The Supreme Court became increasingly conservative in the 1970s. Yet, in 1973, under Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, it invalidated state laws prohibiting abortion in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147. Since the elevation of William H. Rehnquist to chief justice in 1986, the Court has continued its movement to the right, although it has not retreated from most of the protections it recognized under Warren in the realm of civil rights and civil liberties.
The exercise of judicial review is subject to important rules of judicial self-restraint, which restrict the Supreme Court, and state courts as well, from extending its power. The Supreme Court will hear only cases or controversies, actual live disputes between adversary parties who are asserting valuable legal rights. This means the Court cannot issue advisory opinions on legislation. In addition, a party bringing suit must have standing (a direct stake in the outcome) in order to challenge a statute.
The most important rule of judicial restraint is that statutes are presumptively valid, which means that judges assume legislators did not intend to violate the Constitution. It follows that the burden of proof is on the party that raises the issue of unconstitutionality. In addition, if a court can construe a disputed statute in a manner that allows it to remain intact without tampering with the meaning of the words or if a court can decide a case on nonconstitutional grounds, these courses are to be preferred. Finally, a court will not sit in judgment of the motives or wisdom of legislators, nor will it hold a statute invalid merely because it is deemed to be unwise or undemocratic.
See: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas; Dred Scott v. Sandford; Due Process of Law; Gibbons v. Ogden; Lochner v. New York; Marbury v. Madison; McCulloch v. Maryland; Separation of Powers; Supreme Court of the United States.
Silence
Peggy, there is probably Silence has decided to rip off the pen-name of Ben Franklin to post here. If he used his real name and I as a client were to learn that he didn’t even understand the basic language of our state’s constitution, I would probably go out and get a new attorney.
wow, altoona, I have to give you credit, you are the first person to figure it out. congrats. But you have not figured out why I use it.
Silence
Again Silence, you spew a lot of case law, but you dont give me much Constitutional substance to back it up. Give me a specific article in the Constitution (not statues invented by attorneys who stand to gain for a more powerful judicial branch) actual Constitutional language from which you draw your arguments. If given you mine, you respond with case law. Show me the language.
In the United States, under the constitution, the fact is that we have 2 co-equal branches and a 3rd inferior branch that was deliberately left without power because our founding fathers feared the power of a system led by unelected individuals serving life terms in office. In Iowa today, we can clearly see why they feared a strong Court so much.
Hi Peggy, are you old enough to remember the old blue-laws pertaining to commerce on Sundays? Not allowing various types of businesses to sell their products, or in some cases, requiring the businesses to remain closed, on Sundays. Governmentally-mandated celebration of the sabbath. Just for starters, that’s theocratic.
Ummm, altoona I am confused, you respond with alleged interpretation of caselaw, I give you the real history of the caselaw, and the development of judicial review, and yet you want more, what did you not understand. First, statutes are created by the legislature, not attorneys unless they happen to be members of the legislature, the statute is then either signed by the executive or vetoed, if vetoed, the legislature can override. It can then be reviewed by the courts on the issue of consitutionality. IF declared unconstitutional, an amendment to the constitution can be passed. that is rather easy to understand, I thought the article laid out the principles of judicial review quite well, what part did you not understand? The words judicial review do not appear in the constitution,but constitutions are the the supreme law of the country or state, and supercede statutes, so if a statute violates the constitution, it is declared unconstitutional by , yes altoona, you guessed it, the supreme court. This is well established in our country. You can deny the obvious and live in your little fantasy land if you want, but it will not change the fact that come monday, in Iowa, gay couples will be allowed to be legally married, because the Iowa supreme court said they can. Have a nice weekend, got to go now.
Silence
OH, sorry again to “spew” my case law to back up the points I have made.
Silence
I’m so excited for the gay families and couples of Iowa. To be able to finally realize years and even decades of partnership through marriage will be a wonderful thing indeed!
You haters are trying to stop the sunrise.
Nick, you’re such a fag.
“Yes, wayward, you are ringing the bells for a theocracy, you want religion to rule to the land, then the only real debate will be whose religion. I hope for your sake if this comes to pass it is not Islam, you would be screwed. By the way, we are in the 21st century.”
Silence
It’s the liberals who are opening the door to this type of theocracy. (Islam) And the lawyers. The ACLU is constantly suing on the behalf of Muslims, and meanwhile trampling all over Christians. I know, you’ll point out a few token cases where the ACLU sued on behalf of a Christian or two, but for the most part, not. Now, you probably think there is no way that Islam will ever take root and start affecting our laws, because muslims are such a huge minority. But that’s what most of us thought about homosexuality. Here it is, though. The gays are now openly running our government. And if you think guys like wayward would have it bad if Islam was in charge, the gays would have it worse. Now all the muslims need to do is follow the example of the gays to accomplish what no one thought was possible. Won’t be long, and the muslims will be in charge. Thanks alot, gays and lawyers. Now we’re all screwed.
/Nick, you’re such a fag./
Thanks for that well-reasoned response anon, and I appreciate the courage it took you to post under your real name.
My complaint is not that your spewing case law Silence. I’m asking you to provide documentation from the Constitution, not case law invented by the legal elites to back up your points. What you’re giving me are interpretations of the constitution. You wont give specific texts from that document to back up your argument.
Further, the Judicial “superiority” that you are advocating would make the hair stand up on the back of your name sake’s neck. I’ve said it before and I will unfortunately need to repeat myself. The court was left powerless for a reason.
Conservative Demo said:
“Governmentally-mandated celebration of the sabbath. Just for starters, that’s theocratic.”
Is there a politician somewhere who is advocating that we return to that?
Anon sez:
“It’s the liberals who are opening the door to this type of theocracy. (Islam) And the lawyers. The ACLU is constantly suing on the behalf of Muslims, and meanwhile trampling all over Christians. I know, you’ll point out a few token cases where the ACLU sued on behalf of a Christian or two, but for the most part, not. Now, you probably think there is no way that Islam will ever take root and start affecting our laws, because muslims are such a huge minority. But that’s what most of us thought about homosexuality. Here it is, though. The gays are now openly running our government. And if you think guys like wayward would have it bad if Islam was in charge, the gays would have it worse. Now all the muslims need to do is follow the example of the gays to accomplish what no one thought was possible. Won’t be long, and the muslims will be in charge. Thanks alot, gays and lawyers. Now we’re all screwed.”
Aw geeze man, blame the Constitution, not the lawyers. Equality and freedom from interference along with that ol’ pursuit of happiness et-al means just that. And it means it for everyone here including even those people across the tracks.
Holy smokes, imagine how mad the puritans must’ve been when ol Roger Williams wanted to practice, [gasp, of all things] freedom of religion meaning freedom from the puritan’s religion. More good ol theocrats.
Live in the now, Con Dem!
Damn that ACLU suing on behalf of all people. How dare gays run openly for government office, why aren’t they living like hermits in their homes, wait how dare they have homes!!!! Anonymous, you are one paranoid guy.
Altoona, you will find many of the rights you enjoy are not spelled out in the constitution, the job of the courts is to interpret the constitution and the caselaw that you are so willing to discard. Should we return to segregation??? should police be allowed to conduct random “safety” searches everytime they pull you over??? In your world, the DC handgun ban would still be good law. Many founders were all for judicial review (Alexander Hamilton advocated for in the federalist and it was part of the original virginia plan), old ben would probably be amused that the constitution has stood the test of time. I am not sure you understand the consequences of your position, in your theory, the legislature and executive could create, pass and interpret the laws. Where is the checks and balances??? You are essentially rendering the courts completely powerless and saying they shouldn’t exist. Everytime a new party takes power, the laws would completely change, there would be abuses beyond your imagination and there would be no legal stability. Your theory is completely implausible.
Silence
con dem, very good points, I don’t think anyone here would enjoy puritan rule. well, maybe wayward. yes blame the lawyers for defending the constitution and the rights you all are so willing to throw away. blame the gays for whatever you want or is wrong in your lives, move on to the muslims, you have already hit blacks, immigrants, jews and others. Your anger is misplaced and unnecessary. “Take it from Richard, poor and lame,
what’s begun in anger ends in shame.
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac ”
Silence
You guys are so easy……….it’s not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you. If you remember nothing else, remember that.
For all those who want “our” God to keep out of the law, where do you think the foundation for our laws came from? The whole notion of good and evil, right and wrong comes from God or do you really think mankind just decided to be good?
It’s easy to sum up what worries me about my fellow Evangelicals being involved in politics in an organized way: The things that Man does in the name of “our” God.
/The whole notion of good and evil, right and wrong comes from God or do you really think mankind just decided to be good?/
Which god?
There is only one true God and I for one will not apologize for this fact. Yes there is right and wrong, yes there is good and evil, and yes there is a law higher than man whether this is to anyone’s liking or not. Some of us chose to listen to what God is saying (go ahead and mock me for hearing voices) and some of us chose to do our own thing. Bottom line it is a choice and I have absolute faith in mine no matter what is popular or where the political winds blow. As far as mankind doing things in the name of “our” God, mankind has done many atrocities in the name of many -isms. Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Imperialism, and many others. Christians are not the only group to have tried to use violent means to what they consider justified ends. I do not condone using violence, but I am all for standing up for what you truly believe in and I believe ALL Iowans should have a voice in the debate on same sex marriages.
Shake,
Fortunately for all of us, the Constitution provides for separation of church and state so that the voices rambling in your head have no negative effect on our civil rights. I don’t care if you believe in a god, you don’t seem like the brightest crayon in the box. I don’t care what your particular notion of this god is, be it Christianity or Islam. I do care when you use the voices in your head to try to influence public policy for all of us in a secular nation. A good man once told me that no one cares about objective facts, but that people will kill each other (and deny each other civil rights) over subjective issues, such as their particular interpretation of God. It pains me that you cannot see how your faith should have no bearing on our government.
so just curious, did the sun rise, has the sky fallen since the first gay marriage??? Are locusts on the way??? Has anonymous been dude ranched or been forced to convert to Islam. Wait, or is it just another normal day in all your lives??? That is of course anonymous ever has a “normal” day.
Silence
How boring! The Out-Of-State team of Perveted-Commenters-For-Hire are back, with their pockets full of Tim Gill money, making their rounds of Iowa blogsites!
Still saying the same worthless and hateful lies, about any and every Conservative that is on the Hate List!
Is anyone in Iowa still stupid enough to think that these blog saboteurs have any intention, other than disrupting any flow of human communications that they can find?
These things are brainwashers of the public! Brainwashers of everyone dumb enough to even read the tripe that comes from their fingers!
I say, ignore their programmed lies! Just keep on having human conversations, and brush off their filth like you would (unpleasant stuff) on your shoes!
Hey, wait a second, I can get paid to do this??? Man I am a sucker!!!!
does anyone happen to have this Gill guy’s phone number???
Silence
No, Silence, you have to be employed by a front organization first, such as the Iowa Independent.
After you ‘pay your dues,’ i.e., walk Tim’s dogs, wash his Prius and…well, you know…THEN you get to sit at a computer and post retarded comments while real Americans with families pay your way through life.
I think ol’ Mike Gronstal has Tim Gill’s number, or did Tim have Mike’s… I think it was something like $1,000,000….
I’ve linked to your post from BlogWatch: Court Judicial Activism