Iowa Voters repeal Judges who struck down DOMA
Election 2010, Christian News, 2010 Election Results, Iowa, Supreme Court, Justices, Gay Rights, DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act
In Iowa, their State Supreme Court recently ruled that gay marriage was a constitutional right de facto when it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. The people of Iowa were overwhelmingly for the DOMA and were none too pleased with their judges who had decided to make law rather than actually stick to the State’s Constitution. Fortunately for Iowa voters, they have a way to redress this egregious violation of their rights as people to define their own value system, they can vote Judges out. This Election 2010 cycle saw three judges come up for consideration of retention. All THREE judges lost. This does not bode well for the other four that betrayed the wishes of the people they allegedly represent.
from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110301.html
DES MOINES, Iowa, November 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Iowans punished three state Supreme Court Justices on Tuesday for their rulings legalizing same-sex “marriage” by denying all three another 8-year term.
Voters decided “no” on retaining Justice David L. Baker (54.27 percent), Justice Michael J. Streit (54.41 percent), and Chief Justice Marsha Ternus (55.04 percent) in their posts at the high court.
All three were up for retention votes to stay on the state Supreme Court under Iowa’s constitution. Under a 1962 amendment to Iowa’s constitution, eight years after being appointed judges must go on the ballot for a popular vote to retain their position or be sent packing.
Conservative activist and former GOP candidate for governor Bob Vander Plaats led the charge against the three justices. He argued that the state’s retention vote provides an antidote to the politicization of the court, and that the court usurped the state law by mandating same-sex “marriage.”
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled 7-0 on April 3, 2009 that the state Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the state constitution’s guarantees of equal protection.
Vander Plaats and his “Iowa for Freedom” campaign barnstormed the state, arguing that the justices not only violated the legislature’s role by legalizing same-sex “marriage,” but also the executive’s role by ordering the state’s 99 counties to implement their decision.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] Iowa Voters repeal activist judges who voted for gay marriage- Christian News [...]
The judge’s job is not to represent Iowans. It’s to uphold the constitution. It doesn’t matter if the majority of people think something that is unconstitutional is bad, it’s still unconstitutional.
I don’t understand. I came across this website thinking that it promoted freedom. This is the first article I’ve read on this website and I can tell already that you aren’t what you say you are. While I agree with the idea that elected/unelected officials should do their best to represent their constituency’s core values, it’s the way this article is written that disturbs me. Using words like “punished” and then putting the word “marriage” in quotes… it ‘s as if the writer doesn’t actually believe in personal freedom at all. I’m a happily married straight man and don’t understand how people feel that their rights are being infringed upon when gay men and woman decide to get married. I don’t feel this website promotes true freedom…. it only appears to be a mouthpiece for the socially conservative right.
[...] Here is the original post: Iowa Voters repeal activist judges who voted for gay marriage … [...]
in this case, the supreme court of iowa is forcing a value system, that homosexual marriage HAS to be accepted by you…..that is not freedom
there is NOTHING in that constitution that comes close to addressing gay marriage rights..the supreme court of iowa decided to make its own value judgment..it created de facto amendments to the constitution, something ONLY THE PEOPLE have a right to do
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Freedomist, Juanita Berguson and Palin News, David Martin. David Martin said: Iowa Voters repeal activist judges who voted for gay marriage … http://bit.ly/dxrS0x [...]
Interesting that this website makes reference to freedom, but it believes in denying minority groups equal freedoms under the law. Moreover, using Bob Vander’s logic, when he stated that the majority opinion, not judges, should dictate this law, then the same could be said for the Brown vs. the Board of Education ruling in 1954, when the majority of Americans were opposed to desegregation, even though judges ruled segregation unconstitutional. We do not live in a theocratic state.
separate but equal blatantly unconstitutional- where in any constitution does it give gays the right to marry? if you want that to be a protected right, then get the constitution changed, instead of using judges to force your godless agenda on the rest of us…oppressor
It is really amusing that someone for an organization called ‘Iowa for Freedom’ would be against judges who rule that people ought to be able to marry whomever they choose!
Most people who are against equal marriage state that it violates religious freedoms. What a riot! In fact, legislating limitations stomps on religious freedom. The United Church of Christ (the denomination directly descended from the Congregationalist church founded by the Puritans – can’t get more American than that, eh?) supports marriage equality for all people. Legislating bigotry violates this and many other denominations’ right to religious freedom.
Let’s put this another way: let’s say that the best way to preserve sanctity of marriage and religious freedom is to turn marriage license dissemination over to religious institutions. Guess what the end result would be? Think hard. Think reeeeeeally hard now. Bingo! Equal marriage for all people, because some religions are not as bigoted as others. Neat, eh?
Oh by the way, the whole ‘preserve sanctity of marriage’ argument is a crock anyway. If we were really worried about sanctity of marriage, people would have been arguing since the foundation of our country to exclude atheists from marriage laws. There can be no sanctity of marriage in a marriage between people who don’t believe in the holiness, sacredness, or the divine. How hard have the bigots who oppose equal marriage been advocating eliminating marriage for atheists. Anyone? Anyone….??? That’s right! Nobody has been working on this equally important issue. Interesting, eh? Maybe it’s because equal marriage opponents are operating primarily out of bigoted, irrational beliefs. Guess what doesn’t belong in our court systems? Anyone? Anyone…??? That’s right! Blatant bigotry has no place in our court system.
Amazing how stupid people can be, eh?
I personally do not believe marriage is a state issue. I will not recognize gay marriage as it violates my Faith, but you are free to do as you please. Will the government force my business to offer marriage benefits to homosexuals when that goes directly against God’s law? (never mind that ‘christian’ churches have decided to become more world-friendly- some even denying Christ was God or that he is the only way) God’s law trumps man’s law, but God’s law cannot be forced on nonbelievers. It must come through a committmment to Christ, not a governmennt law or a Judge’s arbitrary decision. So long as the godless have decided to use state force to make their values enforced by legal mandate, then christians have a right to use the same mechanism to protect ourselves from godless people such as yourself.
Interesting. Explain how you come to the conclusion that I am Godless.
I notice you don’t try to counter my logic, you merely state that I am Godless and that you have the right to protect yourself from me.
…and as I clearly point out above, many Christians disagree with you on equal marriage, and no doubt many other issues.
Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet.”
[...] This made news a little while ago, but I love Professor Sowell’s take on it: It was a surprise to many (and a shock to media liberals) when three judges on Iowa’s Supreme Court were voted off that court in the same recent elections in which a lot of politicians were also sent packing. [...]