By Tom Quiner

The Des Moines Register came out with a forceful defense of retaining Supreme Court Justices who support gay marriage. The Register called it the most important vote we’ll make this election.

They may be right in one way, this is the most item on the ballot for Iowa voters. All of the others are huge, too. But judges fundamentally changed a timeless, critical social institution, marriage.

The Register equated the marriage ruling with civil rights. They suggest that the Court’s decision was reasonable and inevitable, that the right to restructure marriage is found in the Iowa Constitution where it says:

“All men and women are, by nature, free and equal” … and that “the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The suggestion that the 19th century writers of the Iowa Constitution would have ever imagined that this text was intended to legitimize same-sex marriage is, shall we say, unlikely.

Besides, this was never a civil rights issue, to which the Register equates the gay marriage issue. It was a definition issue. Iowa marriage laws don’t allow someone to marry two people. They don’t allow one to marry a brother or sister. The law defined marriage in a commonsensical way with the intent of perpetuating society. It defined it to protect children. It was not based on “the relationship.”

Before Barnum, gay people, in fact, could and did get married. But they could only marry someone of the opposite gender. By the same token, heterosexuals were prevented by law from marrying someone of the same gender. The law was consistent, unambiguous, and non-discriminatory.

Iowans amplified their belief in a traditional definition of marriage with additional legislation passed in 1998.

Regular folks don’t trust lawyers and judges who make convoluted rulings lacking in an iota of common sense. The judges’ decision in the eyes of regular folks was a political act. Some view it as a legislative act. A whole bunch of people view it as in irresponsible act.

Vote no on retaining these judges.

Vote no to Democratic legislators who now block efforts to redress the issue.

And vote no to Attorney General Tom Miller, whose office was assigned the task of defending 1998’s traditional marriage legislation, and blew it by not taking the case seriously.

 

 

No Comments

  1. maxine bechtel on October 17, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    I agree 100%!
    There are many valid arguments against sodomy, and in fact a huge percentage of Iowans have clamored for the opportunity to vote on the issue in years past, but the Democrat stranglehold in our state government has refused to bring the issue to a vote! Dozens of other U.S. states have been allowed to do so, and every time, traditional marriage has won out! No one wants to prevent sodomites from their “rights” to living their chosen lifestyle but, we who believe it is sin can’t give their behavior the credence and acceptance they are demanding.

    Everyone seems to totally ignore the fact that the Bible, God’s Holy Word, consistently condemns sodomy as an “abomination” and EVERY reference throughout the entire Bible to sodomy is that it is deserving of God’s Judgment! Try using your concordance and you will know the Truth! Just because one doesn’t believe the Bible doesn’t make it any less true! It ‘s been said, “God established the family and marriage with Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!”

    FURTHERMORE, Down through the ages, one of the most important tenets upon which our civilization is based is the one-man-one-woman family unit! Many experts declare children need a mother and a father to successfully thrive! Not even addressing the biological or the health issue, the time-honored plan that God instituted, common sense dictates traditional marriage and lifestyle only!!

  2. Theresa Dowd on October 17, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    Go, Tom, go! I can hardly stomach it when I hear that we shouldn’t “politicize” this vote on retaining judges. What a crock. I can’t wait to vote “NO”!

  3. John A. Foster on October 17, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    I, for one, plan to vote NO! on every judicial retention. It’s not that there aren’t some good candidates for retention, but, rather, that I believe our entire judicial system is tainted with partisan activism and a feeling of moral superiority and of being untouchable. It’s time to send the judiciary a message from the people they serve (not govern).

  4. Rhonda Phillips on October 20, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    ditto to Max, ditto to Theresa, ditto to John. I have a big honkin sign in my yard that says “NO” to retaining the judges. Here! Here!

Leave a Comment