Outstanding: Pro Gay Marriage Judges Are Ousted In Iowa (Voters Are Fed Up With Gays)

[Big Black Dog]

Oh, crap. Now you've gone and got the queers all pissed off.

 

[jillian]

Oh, crap. Now you've gone and got the queers all pissed off.

cool.

 

[ConHog]

It's always a "wedge issue" when people demand "rights" where there are none.

That's right....gays deserve NO rights.

As you well know, you have NO right to a state certified marriage. NONE.

 

[rightwinger]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

 

[Coyote]

This was a blow to gay marriage and same sex unions if you ask me. The three activist Judges who ruled for gay marriage were soundly defeated in a voter rejection of their ruling. The people of Iowa stood their ground at the ballot box. Marriage is suppose to be between and man and woman period and it is morally right.
Iowa boots judges - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

The judges were removed for POLITICAL reasons and political reasons only. They didn't do anything wrong. They didn't engage in any misbehavior. They didn't do anything unconstitutional. They lost their jobs SOLELY for applying to the law impartially - hardly an "activist" judge, simply a judge who's position you don't personally like.

The leader of an effort to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices agreed Friday with a former justice that next week's election would have long-lasting consequences that could be felt throughout the nation.

Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats, who started the campaign against the justices after a failed run for governor, said the effort was the beginning of a fight against so-called activist judges.

"It will have a ripple effect through the entire country about holding courts in check," Vander Plaats said.

Former Iowa Supreme Court justice Mark McCormick said the effort wouldn't stop in Iowa, and he expressed fear it could endanger the independence of the judiciary.

Vander Plaats created the group Iowa for Freedom that has sought to remove Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit because they joined a unanimous 2009 decision that found a ban on same-sex marriage violated the Iowa Constitution. The three, who were appointed to their positions by governors from both major parties, are up for retention votes on the Nov. 2 ballot because their eight-year terms are ending.

....Judicial retention votes usually draw little attention, and voters have never removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

This is a very worrisome precedent being set - not because it involves the rights of gays but because it could damage the very impartiality of our justice system and hold it hostage to the "will of the people" and whatever is the current popular opinion - not law, not the constitution. One ends in the justice, the other in mobs.

"I would favor the governor appointment, the senate confirmation and the people having a retention vote," said Vander Plaats.

Judges should not spend their time "pleasing people", or "campaigning" for popularity - they should be administering the law.

 

[rightwinger]

It's always a "wedge issue" when people demand "rights" where there are none.

That's right....gays deserve NO rights.

As you well know, you have NO right to a state certified marriage. NONE.

14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a state is issuing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples they cannot deny the same right to a homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals are not breaking any law

 

[ConHog]

That's right....gays deserve NO rights.

As you well know, you have NO right to a state certified marriage. NONE.

14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a state is issuing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples they cannot deny the same right to a homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals are not breaking any law

My position, has been, is, and always will be, that the states have NO obligation to offer anyone a marriage license and so no one has a right to a state license. Be they gay or straight. If THAT were the only issue here, then the state couldn't deny you a license for ANY reason.

Now, that being said, I DO believe that ANYONE should be able to enter into a civil union which is recognized by the government (both federal and state) in order to secure benefits and such for any adult they choose to enter into such a contract with. The government shouldn't be saying the word marriage at all. Leave that to a church, and if churches want to marry gays, so be it; none of my business and it certainly doesn't cheapen my own marriage.

 

[Coyote]

As you well know, you have NO right to a state certified marriage. NONE.

14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a state is issuing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples they cannot deny the same right to a homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals are not breaking any law

My position, has been, is, and always will be, that the states have NO obligation to offer anyone a marriage license and so no one has a right to a state license. Be they gay or straight. If THAT were the only issue here, then the state couldn't deny you a license for ANY reason.

Now, that being said, I DO believe that ANYONE should be able to enter into a civil union which is recognized by the government (both federal and state) in order to secure benefits and such for any adult they choose to enter into such a contract with. The government shouldn't be saying the word marriage at all. Leave that to a church, and if churches want to marry gays, so be it; none of my business and it certainly doesn't cheapen my own marriage.

Basically, what you are saying is every marriage should be a "civil union" in terms of recognition by governments? I actually don't have an issue with that at all.

 

[jillian]

As you well know, you have NO right to a state certified marriage. NONE.

14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a state is issuing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples they cannot deny the same right to a homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals are not breaking any law

My position, has been, is, and always will be, that the states have NO obligation to offer anyone a marriage license and so no one has a right to a state license. Be they gay or straight. If THAT were the only issue here, then the state couldn't deny you a license for ANY reason.

Now, that being said, I DO believe that ANYONE should be able to enter into a civil union which is recognized by the government (both federal and state) in order to secure benefits and such for any adult they choose to enter into such a contract with. The government shouldn't be saying the word marriage at all. Leave that to a church, and if churches want to marry gays, so be it; none of my business and it certainly doesn't cheapen my own marriage.

so no one who doesn't belong to a church or believe in g-d should be allowed to be married?

that's your definition of equal protection, huh?

you might want to rethink it.

because... according to the supreme court, not only is marriage a right, it's a FUNDAMENTAL right.

 

[rightwinger]

As you well know, you have NO right to a state certified marriage. NONE.

14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a state is issuing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples they cannot deny the same right to a homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals are not breaking any law

My position, has been, is, and always will be, that the states have NO obligation to offer anyone a marriage license and so no one has a right to a state license. Be they gay or straight. If THAT were the only issue here, then the state couldn't deny you a license for ANY reason.

Now, that being said, I DO believe that ANYONE should be able to enter into a civil union which is recognized by the government (both federal and state) in order to secure benefits and such for any adult they choose to enter into such a contract with. The government shouldn't be saying the word marriage at all. Leave that to a church, and if churches want to marry gays, so be it; none of my business and it certainly doesn't cheapen my own marriage.

I do not have a problem with that as long as it is applied equally

Let the churches do marriage

 

[ConHog]

14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a state is issuing marriage certificates to heterosexual couples they cannot deny the same right to a homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals are not breaking any law

My position, has been, is, and always will be, that the states have NO obligation to offer anyone a marriage license and so no one has a right to a state license. Be they gay or straight. If THAT were the only issue here, then the state couldn't deny you a license for ANY reason.

Now, that being said, I DO believe that ANYONE should be able to enter into a civil union which is recognized by the government (both federal and state) in order to secure benefits and such for any adult they choose to enter into such a contract with. The government shouldn't be saying the word marriage at all. Leave that to a church, and if churches want to marry gays, so be it; none of my business and it certainly doesn't cheapen my own marriage.

so no one who doesn't belong to a church or believe in g-d should be allowed to be married?

that's your definition of equal protection, huh?

you might want to rethink it.

because... according to the supreme court, not only is marriage a right, it's a FUNDAMENTAL right.

you better reread that ruling. NOWHERE in it does it say that a state sanctioned marriage is a fundamental right. Separation of church and state, get the the state out of the marriage business, the don't belong there.

AND PS - Yes, obviously if marriage is a church sanctioned thing, only church goers will have marriages, much like only church goers have baptisms. Do you want to be baptized if you're not a church member? Of course not. However, fundamentally I would have no problem with a private company offering to "marry" people even if they weren't a church. WHat would it matter anyway since the state shouldn't recognized ANY marriage, but rather only civil unions.

Again, you have NO right to a state sanctioned marriage. NONE ZIP NADA

 

[rdean]

Outstanding: Pro Gay Marriage Judges Are Ousted In Iowa (Voters Are Fed Up With Gays)

Yea, it's all about those awful gays.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMpjvZLDl-s&feature=related[/ame]

 

[ConHog]

Outstanding: Pro Gay Marriage Judges Are Ousted In Iowa (Voters Are Fed Up With Gays)

Yea, it's all about those awful gays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMpjvZLDl-s&feature=related

Pos repped for not screaming about the Rep party or bringing out the stupid 6% claim.

 

[Ravi]

This was a blow to gay marriage and same sex unions if you ask me. The three activist Judges who ruled for gay marriage were soundly defeated in a voter rejection of their ruling. The people of Iowa stood their ground at the ballot box. Marriage is suppose to be between and man and woman period and it is morally right.
Iowa boots judges - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

The judges were removed for POLITICAL reasons and political reasons only. They didn't do anything wrong. They didn't engage in any misbehavior. They didn't do anything unconstitutional. They lost their jobs SOLELY for applying to the law impartially - hardly an "activist" judge, simply a judge who's position you don't personally like.

The leader of an effort to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices agreed Friday with a former justice that next week's election would have long-lasting consequences that could be felt throughout the nation.

Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats, who started the campaign against the justices after a failed run for governor, said the effort was the beginning of a fight against so-called activist judges.

"It will have a ripple effect through the entire country about holding courts in check," Vander Plaats said.

Former Iowa Supreme Court justice Mark McCormick said the effort wouldn't stop in Iowa, and he expressed fear it could endanger the independence of the judiciary.

Vander Plaats created the group Iowa for Freedom that has sought to remove Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit because they joined a unanimous 2009 decision that found a ban on same-sex marriage violated the Iowa Constitution. The three, who were appointed to their positions by governors from both major parties, are up for retention votes on the Nov. 2 ballot because their eight-year terms are ending.

....Judicial retention votes usually draw little attention, and voters have never removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

This is a very worrisome precedent being set - not because it involves the rights of gays but because it could damage the very impartiality of our justice system and hold it hostage to the "will of the people" and whatever is the current popular opinion - not law, not the constitution. One ends in the justice, the other in mobs.

"I would favor the governor appointment, the senate confirmation and the people having a retention vote," said Vander Plaats.

Judges should not spend their time "pleasing people", or "campaigning" for popularity - they should be administering the law.

I agree 100%. But what can be done about it? This ability is apparently within the laws of the state.

 

[52ndStreet]

This was a blow to gay marriage and same sex unions if you ask me. The three activist Judges who ruled for gay marriage were soundly defeated in a voter rejection of their ruling. The people of Iowa stood their ground at the ballot box. Marriage is suppose to be between and man and woman period and it is morally right.


Iowa boots judges - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

U.S. ArmyRetired, you are duplicating the exact same post I made a few hours earlier.
But I agree with you, people want the institution of marriage to remain between a Man and a Woman.!!