Iowa Supreme Court Sells State's Soul to the Devil
For once in my life, I am totally ashamed of the state that I dearly love. How the state Supreme Court could ever say that the 'equal protection clause" ment to overturn millenia of defining marriage as between 1 man & 1 woman is beyond me. I just don't get. & with a Democratic controlled legislature, I can guarentee you that there will be no constitutional amendment brought up.
FYI: In Iowa, to amend the state Constitution the amendment must be approved by both the House & Senate. Then the next legislature (not session) must approve it as well. Then it is voted on by the people.
I can also tell you that when these judges come up for a retention vote, I will be voting against all of them.
The damage this has done goes far beyond Iowa. It will give more impetus for those in favor of same-sex marriage (which is not marriage at all) to fight for the same thing to be allowed in many other states.
PS I have not yet been able to stomach reading summary let alone the entire ruling. I tried the summary & the judicial activism & twisting of things to justify it turns my stomach. May God have mercy on us. We need it.
By Kathleen Gilbert
DES MOINES, Iowa, April 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Iowa state Supreme Court this morning ruled unanimously to extend the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
The summary of the judges' decision states that the traditional definition of marriage in Iowa law "violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution."
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," states the Court. "The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination."
The Court claims its "constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law" requires it to rule that the traditional marriage definition violates the constitution, and "to decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
(To view the court summary:
DES MOINES, Iowa, April 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Iowa state Supreme Court this morning ruled unanimously to extend the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
The summary of the judges' decision states that the traditional definition of marriage in Iowa law "violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution."
"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective," states the Court. "The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination."
The Court claims its "constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law" requires it to rule that the traditional marriage definition violates the constitution, and "to decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
(To view the court summary:
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinion...)
The decision affirmed a Polk County District Court that ruled last year in favor of six same-sex couples seeking "marriage." The couples filed the case, Varnum v. Brien, in 2005 after the office of Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien denied the couples' request for marriage licenses.
The ruling makes Iowa the third state to recognize same-sex "marriage" after Connecticut and Massachusetts, all of which altered the law through an activist court ruling. The Iowa ruling stipulated that same-sex "marriage" licenses would become officially legal in three weeks, beginning April 24.
The decision is considered significant insofar as it is the first such ruling among Midwest states, typically regarded as representing mainstream American thought.
"Iowa is a terrific state with a great historical leadership in advancing the equal protection rights of minorities and we are seeing Iowa live up to what it holds dear," said Susan Sommer, senior counsel with pro-homosexual Lambda Legal of New York, which led the prosecution in the Iowa case.
Democratic Governor Chet Culver issued a cautious response to the decision, saying it "addresses a complicated and emotional issue, one on which Iowans have strong views and opinions on both sides." He said, "The next responsible step is to thoroughly review this decision, which I am doing with my legal counsel and the attorney general, before reacting to what it means for Iowa."
Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton) called the decision "disappointing on many levels," and expressed concern that Iowans were given no say in the issue.
"I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional marriage to be legally recognized in this state," said McKinley. "Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter."
McKinley, together with Iowan true marriage advocates, are now calling on state lawmakers to immediately debate an amendment protecting marriage.
Iowa Family Policy Center president Chuck Hurley told the Des Mones Register that such an amendment should have been passed years ago, but lawmakers had scoffed at the idea as unnecessary since the state already had a law banning same-sex "marriage."
"They said, 'The court's not going to overturn the statute, you're crazy,'" said Hurley. "Well, now who's crazy?"
Hurley told the Register that true marriage supporters could do nothing to stop the activist ruling until voters could consider a constitutional amendment on an election ballot in 2012.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Iowa Supreme Court Taking Arguments in Case to Decide on Gay 'Marriage'
The decision affirmed a Polk County District Court that ruled last year in favor of six same-sex couples seeking "marriage." The couples filed the case, Varnum v. Brien, in 2005 after the office of Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien denied the couples' request for marriage licenses.
The ruling makes Iowa the third state to recognize same-sex "marriage" after Connecticut and Massachusetts, all of which altered the law through an activist court ruling. The Iowa ruling stipulated that same-sex "marriage" licenses would become officially legal in three weeks, beginning April 24.
The decision is considered significant insofar as it is the first such ruling among Midwest states, typically regarded as representing mainstream American thought.
"Iowa is a terrific state with a great historical leadership in advancing the equal protection rights of minorities and we are seeing Iowa live up to what it holds dear," said Susan Sommer, senior counsel with pro-homosexual Lambda Legal of New York, which led the prosecution in the Iowa case.
Democratic Governor Chet Culver issued a cautious response to the decision, saying it "addresses a complicated and emotional issue, one on which Iowans have strong views and opinions on both sides." He said, "The next responsible step is to thoroughly review this decision, which I am doing with my legal counsel and the attorney general, before reacting to what it means for Iowa."
Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton) called the decision "disappointing on many levels," and expressed concern that Iowans were given no say in the issue.
"I believe marriage should only be between one man and one woman and I am confident the majority of Iowans want traditional marriage to be legally recognized in this state," said McKinley. "Though the court has made their decision, I believe every Iowan should have a voice on this matter."
McKinley, together with Iowan true marriage advocates, are now calling on state lawmakers to immediately debate an amendment protecting marriage.
Iowa Family Policy Center president Chuck Hurley told the Des Mones Register that such an amendment should have been passed years ago, but lawmakers had scoffed at the idea as unnecessary since the state already had a law banning same-sex "marriage."
"They said, 'The court's not going to overturn the statute, you're crazy,'" said Hurley. "Well, now who's crazy?"
Hurley told the Register that true marriage supporters could do nothing to stop the activist ruling until voters could consider a constitutional amendment on an election ballot in 2012.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Iowa Supreme Court Taking Arguments in Case to Decide on Gay 'Marriage'
______________________
(12:58 AM 4 April 2009) Now that I am somewhat less numb I have 2 things to add about this ruling:
DISGRAZIA!!!!!
INFAMIA!!!!!
Labels: Iowa Gay Marriage Abomination
posted by Al @ 11:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home