Politics, not justice 6


By Tom Quiner

I’ve just become aware of a website called Justice, Not Politics.

The premise of the site is this:  if you vote against retaining the three Iowa supreme court justices up for retention (re-election), it is somehow unjust.

Why, then, does the Constitution even give us a vote on this issue if a contrary opinion of judges’ worthiness is automatically unjust?

The answer is: our vote against retaining Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, Justice Michael Streit, and Justice David Baker is not unjust, it is legal, and it is logical.

Think about it.  Marriage is the bedrock of civilization.  It is a beautiful institution established by civil and religious society to reproduce, sustain, and grow our communities.

Logically, it was defined as a union between a man and a woman by both civil and religious society since only unions between a man and a woman can reproduce and grow communities.  So it seems pretty illogical for the Iowa Supreme Court to say that traditional marriage laws are discriminatory. Even more, nothing in traditional marriage laws prevented men and women with homosexual desires from marrying.  By definition, though, they could only marry someone of the opposite gender.  By the same definition, men and women with heterosexual desires were prevented from marrying someone of the same gender.

The definition for marriage went further: one could not marry a blood relative, a minor, or more than one person.

The law was consistent, logical, just.

The law discriminated against certain behaviors, such as incest, polygamy, bigamy, adultery, and homosexuality, but not against persons.

So it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to a whole lot of folks that certain judges somehow found traditional marriage laws discriminatory.

Iowa would be better served with more level-headed thinkers on the court. Thank goodness Iowa’s constitution gives us the right to exercise this choice.  And a just choice it is.

6 comments

  1. Pingback: Politics, not justice « A Heapin' Plate of Conservative Politics … | Conservative Government

  2. Unfortunately, i tend to disagree (respectfully). I think that the judges job is to determine the letter of the law, not to determine what popular opinion dictates. I disagree with same sex marriage, but i think the fix isnt by persecuting the judges but with fixing this through legislature and the politicians whose job *is* to follow the will of the people. By axing the judges we will send a message that judges must bow to the will of the people instead of the law. Thats not their job and it sounds like a formula to encourage activist judges. We dont need activist judges in Iowa, we already have plenty of them in California.

    Removing the judges sounds like we will be compounding one tragedy with another simply because they did their job and we didnt like the outcome. Im not a fan of that “scorched earth” type of approach.

    Sorry…
    –Brett

    • But we did have a legislative “fix” with a law the Iowa legislature passed in 1998. The Court undid what the legislature had passed at the behest of the voters. The Court created their own defacto piece of legislation by pulling the plug on the democratically-voted piece of legislation of a dozen years ago. They overstepped their bounds. Fortunately, the Constitution gives voters a chance to vote on judges’ bench-worthiness in light of their past performance. I respectfully vote no.

  3. Ditto to all the remarks and Tom’s common sense opinion piece. He summed it up quite nicely to which I can add nothing.

    Well done!

  4. If we go back a few decades, the term “discrimination” actually was a virtuous and noble notion. It was used to describe thoughts, behaviors and ethics of people who held themselves to high standards, such as the laws of God and man. It has only been in recent times that the thought-police have put a negative spin on the word.

  5. WELL SAID, TOM! The use of the word “discrimination” is sorely over-used and is designed to install guilt in the minds of those of us who hold to God’s pattern and plan for society’s order and the propagation of the human race. No one is advocating that those who choose the perversion of sodomy can’t engage in their unhealthy, unnatural behavior, any more than we can force those who drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or overeat to cease and desist their self-destructive behavior! But it seems they want acceptance and respect which in the name of common sense can’t be granted!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s