Top Stories

Open letter to readers: Today and tomorrow

By Lynda Waddington | 11.17.11

Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.

ACS lockout continues; plan emerges to repeal sugar protections

crystal_sugar_80
By Virginia Chamlee | 11.15.11

A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.

Cain campaign: Farmers know more about regulations than EPA

hermancain_80x80
By Andrew Duffelmeyer | 11.15.11

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

Mathis wins, Democrats maintain Senate control

Liz Mathis
By Lynda Waddington | 11.08.11

The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.

Press Release

PR: Nation should work to address veterans’ challenges

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

BRUCE BRALEY RELEASE — As US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan ends, it’s more important than ever that our nation works to address the challenges faced by the men and women who fought there.

PR: Honoring veterans, help in hiring

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

CHUCK GRASSLEY RELEASE — A difficult job market is challenging the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have protected America’s interests by serving in the Armed Forces.

PR: In honor of America’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

TOM LATHAM RELEASE — No one has done more to secure the freedom enjoyed by every single American than our veterans and those currently serving in the armed services.

PR: Honoring and supporting our nation’s veterans

By Press Release Reprints | 11.11.11

DAVE LOEBSACK RELEASE — Veterans Day is an opportunity to reflect on the service of generations of veterans and to honor the sacrifices they and their families have made so that we may live in peace and freedom here at home.

Flickr Creative Commons photo by Alan Light.
Flickr Creative Commons photo by Alan Light.

Judicial retention vote sets stage for push to overturn gay marriage

Bob Vander Plaats: 'The rest of the country is going to hear our voice”
By Jason Hancock | 11.03.10 | 6:30 am

Now that Iowans have voted to oust three state Supreme Court justices, conservatives are beginning to wonder if they have the momentum to push to overturn the court’s 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.

It was marriage that inspired the campaign to oust the judges, and it was prominent national anti-gay organizations that bankrolled the effort. Led by Mississippi-based American Family Association, the effort was aided by groups such as Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council, Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, Georgia-based Faith & Freedom Coalition and New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage.

The organizations spent more than $1 million to oust the judges, with the campaign culminating in a 20-city bus tour across Iowa urging voters to kick the judges off the bench. Local leaders of the effort said rejecting the judges would set the stage for the fight over gay marriage and gay rights in Iowa and across the country.

Bob Vander Plaats, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate acted as spokesman for the campaign, told Radio Iowa just before midnight Tuesday that “history’s being made.”

“Iowans who have a great level of common sense and a measured response, the more they learned about this issue, the more they understood about this issue, the more they were willing to vote no because they saw an activist court that was wanted to make law from the bench and they knew that wasn’t their role,” he said. “Their voice was never heard on the same-sex marriage issue.”

Vander Plaats said later that, “the rest of the country is going to hear our voice.”

Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa, wrote on his blog Tuesday that the vote may be enough to “motivate complacent legislators to finally get on board with a marriage amendment, and maybe even go around Mike Gronstal to do so.”

Gronstal, the Democratic leader in the state Senate, has repeatedly vowed to never allow a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage to come up for a vote. But with Republicans in control of the Iowa House, and a much smaller Democratic advantage in the state Senate, marriage may become a big issue during the 2011 session. During the 2010 session, advocates for an amendment came just five votes shy of forcing a vote on marriage over Gronstal’s objections.

Carolyn Jenison, executive director of the LGBT-rights group One Iowa, said the “courageous justices who recognized the freedom to marry in Iowa fell victim to a perfect storm of electoral discontent and out-of-state special interest money.”

“In the months and weeks ahead we can expect renewed attempts to overturn the freedom to marry and write discrimination into the Iowa Constitution,” she said in a statement to supporters. “It will take a concerted and collective effort on the part of pro-equality Iowans to respond to these attacks and defend on our liberties. We hope you’ll join us.”

In a joint statement, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Associate Justices Michael Streit and David Baker thanked the Iowans who supported them for another term.

“Your support shows that many Iowans value fair and impartial courts,” the statement said. “We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa’s high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.”

Despite the ouster of the judges, however, same-sex marriage will continue to be legal in Iowa, and outgoing Democratic Gov. Chet Culver has the authority to appoint the judges’ successors.

“While the full implications of these election results remain to be seen, one thing remains the same,” Jenison said. “The freedom to marry in Iowa remains intact.”

Follow Jason Hancock on Twitter


Comments

  • Anonymous

    It’s a sad day when the A Family Association company, pours millions of dollars into efforts to stop two Gay people from marrying, while millions of famlies in America suffer from unemployment, no jobs, and homelessness. It’s even worst that some Iowans supported the AFA’s bullying tactics. Goliath won this one … but Gays, their family and friends will NEVER give up the fight for equal rights!

    God created Gays for God’s reason, curb the overpopulation of the world, find loving parents for children abandoned by straights… gotta trust in God’s plan. God will stand by the truth. Do onto others as you would have others do onto you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nefreet Eric Bennett

    Proof that homophobia hurts more than just gay people.

  • Anonymous

    they aren’t going to stop TAX PAYing Gay/Lesbians from Marrying…..3 new judges will be appointed… (judges who follow the constitution) so Nothing has changed…oh,except the fact that Iowa Got a Black eye of Bigotry placed on it. (sorry not all iowans are hysterical religious wackjobs)

  • Anonymous

    How sad to wake up this AM and read that bigotry and hate and bronze age religious fanatics are alive and well in Iowa.
    Why in the hell are we allowing religibots to dictate our policies in 2010, based upon a book written by goat herders who believed that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth?

  • Anonymous

    I think this is the last wimpy effort at “resistance” before suddenly no one cares or worse, even denied they were ever so bigoted in the gay civil rights movement. It’s just a matter of time before DOMA is ruled unconstitutional and government-based civil marriage will be open to both gay and straight people, regardless if you live in Iowa, Massachussetts, Alabama, or California…

  • http://twitter.com/abrapulley Abra Pulley

    If they had really wanted to over turn Gay Marriage they would have told people to vote “Yes” for the Constitutional Amendment. Now the people have to wait 10 years for that option again. Makes you wonder what the vote “NO” people really want…

    • Anonymous

      That was a Constitutional Convention. What they will be going for now is a Constitutional amendment. Which requires successful votes by two successive state legislatures and followed by a vote of the people.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314195742 Rain Mist

      It is true, however, that a ‘no’ vote on the constitutional convention lessens the momentum of these idiots by preventing them from having a centralized stage for their grandstanding tactics.

      Hey, out-of-state bigots? Get your butts back on your bus and get the $^@& out of Iowa. And while you’re at it, take home some in-state bigots; it’ll raise the average IQ of both states.

      I just…can’t believe even barely over half my solid, sensible state would follow ignorant, hateful recidivists from Mississippi. Really? Really??? I paid good money for people in my state to be educated better than that. And I thought we were doing a good job before I read this:
      http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=70058904181&v=wall

      Especially alarming? The woman who thinks that because the (153 year old) constitution doesn’t specifically allow gay marriage, the mere fact that it completely and uncategorically forbids discriminatory laws is meaningless. Oh, it’s not her opinion that’s alarming… ignorance is everywhere. It’s the fact that she teaches children (and apparently doesn’t think it’s appropriate to discuss things like the Big Bang theory, and that Science sez gay is wrong).

  • Anonymous

    Once again, proof that equal rights for people can not be left up to ignorant voters. Had it been left to a majority of voters to decide, woman would still not have the right to vote and black people would still be riding at the back of the bus. Rediculous arguments like “gay marraige offends God” is just plain stupid. Would God prefer gay couples to live without committments to each other? I think God is more offended by bigotry and hate than he is by gay marraige!

    • Anonymous

      Clearly you don’t know much about GOD, who said:

      “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.” — Leviticus 18:22

      • Anonymous

        Clearly you are wrong. I know as much about God as you do. Neither of us speaks for God and neither of us has a corner on Truth. I am a Presbyterian ordained elder and I study and believe in God, but I also believe that people use the Bible for their own purposes. So when you use that quote from Leviticus, please also put it in context.
        Burning incense is also an abomination (Isaiah 66:3). God’s not keen on cotton-lycra underwear either (Leviticus 19:19) haircuts (Leviticus 19:27) or women having sex when it’s their ‘time of the month’ (Leviticus 20:18). But more than anything else, God hates shrimp, he really does :(Leviticus 11:10), (Leviticus 11:11), (Leviticus 11:12).

        The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is another classic staple of homophobic Christians. In a nutshell, it’s the story of how Lot has two angels staying in his house. Men from the town of Sodom surround the house, and say to Lot: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us know [have sex with] them.”

        To protect the angels from an act which Lot describes as “wicked”, he offers the crowd his two virgin daughters instead. The crowds are not satisfied and break in – the angels make the men from Sodom blind, and the town is eventually destroyed by “fire and brimstone”. Yes the men were wicked, but not because they wanted homosexual sex – it was because they wanted to rape the angels. And on a slightly separate matter, why did Lot offer his daughters to would-be rapists? And why doesn’t the Bible seem to mind that?

        But more to the point….the Constitution of United States does not state that American’s must be Christian, nor that they follow the Christian teaching. Our forefathers escaped from countries where they did not have freedom of….or freedom from religion. So the constitution was written to avoid that happening in America. So if you choose to interpret scripture to mean that homosexuality is a sin…..then don’t practice it. But don’t impose your beliefs on American’s who, under the constitution, have the right to disagree with you.

        Jesus himself practiced understanding and tolerance and did not spend his life bashing people with old testament quotes, picked out and used when it is convenient, but ignored when they don’t support your viewpoint.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314195742 Rain Mist

          If God really cares that much, I invite Him/Her/Them/It to come riding into town on His/Her/Their/Its mighty T-Rex of doom and chomp off my head. Should be an easy thing for an omnipotent being.

          *waits*

          BTW, Standane: *applause* Well said, and well represented. Marry me? Quick, before someone objects!

          • Anonymous

            Loved your reply…. and got a kick out of your offer of marriage…. but already in a long term committed relationship with a wonderful guy. We have outlasted most of the heterosexual marriages in this country…..so maybe not having the right to marry is a blessing? By the way, I agree totally about God. If he or she exists, there are a lot more important issues in this world to be worried about!

        • Anonymous

          Well-done!

      • Anonymous

        Clearly you are wrong. I know as much about God as you do. Neither of us speaks for God and neither of us has a corner on Truth. I am a Presbyterian ordained elder and I study and believe in God, but I also believe that people use the Bible for their own purposes. So when you use that quote from Leviticus, please also put it in context.
        Burning incense is also an abomination (Isaiah 66:3). God’s not keen on cotton-lycra underwear either (Leviticus 19:19) haircuts (Leviticus 19:27) or women having sex when it’s their ‘time of the month’ (Leviticus 20:18). But more than anything else, God hates shrimp, he really does :(Leviticus 11:10), (Leviticus 11:11), (Leviticus 11:12).

        The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is another classic staple of homophobic Christians. In a nutshell, it’s the story of how Lot has two angels staying in his house. Men from the town of Sodom surround the house, and say to Lot: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us know [have sex with] them.”

        To protect the angels from an act which Lot describes as “wicked”, he offers the crowd his two virgin daughters instead. The crowds are not satisfied and break in – the angels make the men from Sodom blind, and the town is eventually destroyed by “fire and brimstone”. Yes the men were wicked, but not because they wanted homosexual sex – it was because they wanted to rape the angels. And on a slightly separate matter, why did Lot offer his daughters to would-be rapists? And why doesn’t the Bible seem to mind that?

        But more to the point….the Constitution of United States does not state that American’s must be Christian, nor that they follow the Christian teaching. Our forefathers escaped from countries where they did not have freedom of….or freedom from religion. So the constitution was written to avoid that happening in America. So if you choose to interpret scripture to mean that homosexuality is a sin…..then don’t practice it. But don’t impose your beliefs on American’s who, under the constitution, have the right to disagree with you.

        Jesus himself practiced understanding and tolerance and did not spend his life bashing people with old testament quotes, picked out and used when it is convenient, but ignored when they don’t support your viewpoint.

        • Anonymous

          Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me…” The Hebrew word translated “detestable” refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an “abomination.” Similarly, Jude 7 declares, “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities.

          The modern use of “hospitality” as the reason for the destruction theorized mainly on the times, town rules and other scripts closely related to that era. The fact that the men in Sodom were predominantly homosexual and their ‘personal’ acts were an abomination before God clearly shows His dissatisfaction and demise of Sodom.

          • Anonymous

            God has bigger concerns…like dealing with ignorance among tbose who claim to love Him.

            Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless

            —–Original message—–

          • Anonymous

            QUOTE: “God has bigger concerns…like dealing with ignorance among tbose who claim to love Him. “The title of “a Presbyterian ordained elder” has obviously enlarged your head, so big that you even know what God’s “bigger” concerns are !!! Be watchful of the growth of your head! My guess is this abnormal growth is caused by the cancerous disease called “liberalism” rather than the knowledge of God.

          • Anonymous

            The Bible is NOT the Constitution. The Constitution protects your right to believe what you want….and my right to believe what I want. Too bad you are unable to discuss things respectfully. By the way, it seems to me that Christ was a liberal in actions, thoughts and deeds. Didn’t realize that was a bad thing!

          • Anonymous

            Respectfully? I didn’t see you showing your respect to 1ProudFather when you resort to name calling “ignorance among those who claim to love Him”, or did I?

            Liberalism is relative-ism — everything is relative to what it is trying to compare itself. In your eyes, Christ was liberal because you only focus on the fact that Christ spoke against the then establishment, but we focus on what Christ spoke for –Truth and God. Ha … of course Christ “was” liberal, I am liberal too in different circumstances too. Yeah … by all means … stick to your liberalism, always relative to something … never about the real truth.

          • Anonymous

            You are right….that was wrong of me to say and I apologize. But I do believe that there is a lack of understanding on the part of some Christians in this country and that lack of understanding I sometimes interpret as ignorance. American’s are not required to adhere to the Christian Bible. The Bible is not the Constitution and not all American’s are Christian. So Christians need to stop quoting the Bible as if it were the law of the land. It simply is not and hopefully never will be because all the Christian denominations can not even agree on what it says. Therefore…if it were the law of the land, whose interpretation would we follow?

          • Anonymous

            You are a big person to admit your own short coming, and I will apologize for being harsh on you as well. But I cannot agree with you that Christians need to stop quoting the Bible. We may not all agree on our understandings of God’s words, that’s just being human, but if we stop relying on the Bible, we lose the one true foundation. It is the first step of deviating from God’s way and will. Christians have enough trouble straying off from God’s way as is, if we don’t constantly refer back to it, how else are we to stay on His path?Truth be told, sometimes, I think Christians focus so much on the sin of homosexuality that we forget it is no different from any other sin (big or small). Once a worried mother asked her pastor about this sin (she has a lesbian daughter), her pastor gave her the answer that just broke her heart. At the time, I wanted to tell her, just pray for her, pray for her repentance. Then, another relative disagreed, claiming that the daughter doesn’t have anything to repent for! This is what I meant by focusing too much on the one issue. Really? Other than being lesbian, she was perfect, nothing to repent for? Forget about being gay, forget about being different, how about just being a flesh and blood flawed human being? Are we so perfect that other than these “obvious” sins, that we are all perfect and sinless? If we believe that, I think we just committed the sin called “pride.”

          • Anonymous

            You are obviously and intelligent and caring person. I agree that humanity has a need for foundation. For Christians it is the Bible while for others it might be the Koran or the Torah or the Hindu Scriptures or for some atheists it might even be the golden rule. All of these things can work to keep humanity civil and make the world a better place. But there is no common agreement on the interpretation of any of these scriptures. For example, although you and I are both Christians, our denominations apparently differ on the definition of homosexuality as a “sin”. In the story you mention a relative that said the lesbian girl had nothing to repent for. I think what the relative meant, was that being lesbian is who God made her to be and it is not a sin. I gather that you are one of those people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. My church and many others, the medical community and the psychiatric community….since 1973 have refuted that theory and believe that it is not only NOT a choice, but that trying to change a person who is gay or lesbian can be psychologically dangerous and damaging. Yes, we are all guilty of sin, but being gay or lesbian is not one of them, in my opinion. I belong to a gay welcoming and affirming congregation. Our associate pastor, our organist and choir director and a percentage of our membership are gay. They strongly contribute to who we are as a congregation and as a community and we all work together to do God’s work in the world. We are one of the largest United Presbyterian Congregations in the US. Do we have it right? We think so and we move forward in faith that we are doing what God is leading us to do. And I guess you do the same. Perhaps on Judgment day, one of us will have a chance to say “I told you so!”

          • Anonymous

            Honestly, I don’t know whether being gay is a choice or not. I am not one, so, I can’t fathom it being a “choice”. While I don’t understand why God make people certain way, I do understand His grace is enough, and that if God can forgive a murderer, God can forgive any sin (big or small). So, no, I don’t know if homosexuality is a choice or not, but I do believe if anyone comes to God, and just unload all the burden to God, pour out all the repressed feelings of guilt, hurt, hate, and whatever else we can think of, God has promised to accept us as we are. Yes, the bible condemns “men lying with men,” and the bible says “man is t o leave their parents and join with his wife,” therefore, I cannot take the liberty to expand the concept of marriage to include homosexual couples, but, God never restrict love can only exist between men and women either, right? No, I don’t pretend to understand what kind of emotional struggle one must go through to come to term with one being different from most people in that way. But, I just have to believe the all merciful God already knows, and his salvation is enough for all.This is not about different denominations, not about churches, not about different interpretation of the bible. This is about faith and trusting God enough to come to Him with the worst and darkest shame or secret, and lay it all in front of Him. This is how close God wants us to be with Him.

            Everyone must decide for oneself what kind of relationship one wants to have with God. It is not for me to prescribe for others how they should have their faith. But it is my responsibility as Christian to tell the world about God’s salvation and God’s desire to save than to condemn. I just don’t believe it is possible to do that without quoting Bible.

          • Anonymous

            I agree. Enjoyed our discussion. Many blessings to you and yours.

          • Anonymous

            If all the gays in Sodom and Gomorrah had been married, would they have acted the same way? In other words, isn’t offering marriage to gays a direct way to repudiate, not affirm, the sexual sins we think of, i.e. fornication, adultery, and so forth?

            By withholding the very thing required, responsible relationships, you are promoting irresponsibility, because of your blindness.

            The word for “abomination” or “detestable” is used in many places in Leviticus, not just that one passage, including for nongays. Focusing only on “gay” and not the rape of Lot’s daughters just shows that people are uncomfortable with gay sex, because that is not what they know – they highlight it above the rest, because it seems somehow more abominable.

            The passage in Jude (or those in Paul) is not inconsistent with a teaching that, because the people of Sodom and Gomorrah chose to relate to their guests, without respect, without acknowledging their guests “rights” before God, but solely as objects of their own lust, their own pleasure, they were guilty of inhospitality, broadly understood.

          • Anonymous

            Both are “abomination”, otherwise, the angels would have allowed for the rape of Lot’s 2 daughters. The truth is, any sexual act out side of marriage is “abomination”, not just homosexual acts. And this is the reason why gays want to re-define “marriage” to include same sex couples — to justify homosexual acts. Well, you people can re-define any term anyway you want, but since God is the one who ordained “marriage”, you may legalize it in this world, but you still have to face God and see if God would accept your “marriage.” As for those of us who are “ignorance who claim to love God”, if God is fine with your re-definition of “marriage”, then we are fine with it as well. But until we get the words from God, we think we would stick to the words God had given us (in the form of Bible) for now.

          • Anonymous

            By your argument then we should still outlaw interracial marriages. God explicitly forbids marriages between races. (Deut. 7:3, Gen. 28:6, and Josh 23:12-13 and these are only a few examples) Divorce could also only be granted in very few circumstances. People were also stoned for working on the sabbath, and we don’t follow that one either.

          • Anonymous

            Ha ha ~ we have someone who claims to know what the Bible says about “interracial marriages”, don’t we? Ok, why don’t we take a look at those passages you quoted?

            Deut. 7:3-4
            Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

            Gen. 28:6
            Now Esau learned that Isaac had blessed Jacob and had sent him to Paddan Aram to take a wife from there, and that when he blessed him he commanded him, “Do not marry a Canaanite woman,”

            Josh 23:12-13
            “But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, then you may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you.

            It is no surprise that people like you would take bible passages out of context, and just interpret them whichever way you think they fit your template. In fact, ALL 3 passages you quoted are actually about choosing God’s way, not about interracial marriages. God never forbid any interracial marriage, God only warn people about marrying non-believer can bring about for a believer’s faith and life — when a believer marries a non-believer, it put’s the believer’s faith in an extremely trying position. How difficult is it to understand that? But, leave it to you people to interpret it as about ‘inter-racial” marriages.

            And if divorce is granted in very few circumstances, perhaps that would discourage people from jumping into marriages blindly or rashly, and fewer children would end up in broken homes. How wrong is that? Besides, not able to get divorce never stopped people from having all sorts of affairs, so, what’s the difference?

            Regarding the Sabbath, what do you know about keeping the Sabbath? Jesus also healed on the Sabbath (Matt. 12), said “Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” So what men used to stone people for a variety of reasons? Don’t you know in some parts of the world, men still stone people to death for reasons you would abhor? Just as you take liberty with God’s words, so did a lot of men took liberty with God’s words, sometimes to the extreme, it still happens today. But that’s men’s doing, not God’s doing. None of those is what God’s law of keeping the Sabbath is about, for Jesus also quoted the Old Testament, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’

            I’d suggest you to read the bible passages in their context (as you should with any other stories), but that may require you to keep an open mind, and I have to guess that may be asking too much of you.

          • Anonymous

            I actually have a much more open mind on this subject than you do apparently because I will agree with you on the fact that those passages do not actually ban interracial marriage, when you take them the whole context of the surrounding text. A lot of the Bible is actually that way, different in meaning when taken as a whole than when viewed as small extracts.

            You’re kind of missing my point, so let me clear it up. The point I was making is that the idea of marriage has always been one subject to interpretation. I should have said that those passages were interpreted to mean that God explicitly banned interracial marriage and used to support anti-interracial marriage laws prior to the Loving case was argued before the Supreme Court. In that way there were used to define the idea of marriage.

            Also about keeping the Sabbath, I am aware that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, and that when questioned about it he answers with the story of David and his men entering the temple and eating the bread only the priests were to eat, and about healing the man with the paralyzed hand that it is right to do good on the Sabbath. Jesus didn’t say in those passages, nor in the others regarding the Sabbath, not to keep the Sabbath, he was arguing about how to keep it. Accusing the Jewish authorities of being too legalistic about what could and couldn’t be done that day. Paul, also defended keeping the Sabbath in his letter to the Hebrews. He encourages the readers to keep the Sabbath, in keeping with God’s rest after he completed creation. Paul also encourages his reader to lay down his own work, as God rested from his.

            Yes, people used to be stoned, and still are in some parts of the world for reasons I do abhor. The point was that we no longer stone people for violations of those same rules you are using to define marriage.

            As far as the divorce issue goes, I think lowering the number of divorces is a good thing. I think it’s too easy in this country to get divorced and it does have an effect on the thought people put into the decision to marry. What I fail to see however the how denying gays the right to marry will effect the number of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce.

            Let me make one point that you aren’t going to like, but it’s important to mention. Laws in this country are not based on Biblical principles. Our laws share many things in common with the principles the Bible lays out, but but they also differ in many ways.

            What we are talking about here is not the state granting the sacrament of marriage, it is the state granting the civil process of marriage. Right now couples can have the civil process of marriage without the sacrament of marriage, and they can have the sacrament without the civil process. I say leave the sacrament alone, let religious leaders decide how the sacrament is bestowed, but leave the state free to allow the civil process to all it’s citizens.

            Of course that may require you to keep an open mind about beliefs that differ from yours, and I have to guess that would be too much for you.

          • Anonymous

            And you are missing my point — the definition of marriage is not given by men, but by God. You may want to change it any way you want to, but it is the originator of that institution you will have to answer to, not me, not yourself, not other people, not the government, but God. I know “Open Mind” is “not” your problem, it is what people like you boast about yourselves the most. I would say Arrogance is the problem. Why? Because you knew exactly what God meant — choosing God’s way or choosing your own way — but you didn’t like it, so, you choose to ignore it, and bring it up as a different issue to make your point. Regarding the law, sure, I know the laws are not exactly according to the Biblical principals, but I have just as much right to shaping the law as you do. So, what it comes down to is whether more people agree with you or me. That’s the way it works, isn’t it? But, people like you have yet another weapon — activist judges on the bench, ready to ignore what the majority of the people have voted, and start conjuring up laws on their own — to force your will on the majority, don’t you? So, if you want to talk about “right or wrong”, then, you should argue with God first, not with me. If you don’t care about “right or wrong,” but just the laws of this world, then, you just might be able to convince more people to agree with you. And people like me will try to defend our rights to shape the laws just as you are trying to shape the laws according to your preference.

          • Anonymous

            I will say this again, because this is the point you are not understanding, because US Civil Law is not, by your own admission, based on Biblical law, assuming the description of marriage pulled from that same Biblical law is the one that will be accepted for the purpose of civil enforcement does not stand. There are other descriptions of marriage used, not only the one man, one woman description you are talking about.

            This is my point. If we do not base our codes of law on the Bible then why must you assume that the Bible’s description of marriage is the only one we could possibly use.

            I’m sorry that you view me as arrogant, my intention is not to act in an arrogant way. I was simply repeating to you the same comment you made to me, regarding my ability to keep an open mind. It was my way of asking for the same respect you believe you deserve.

            Furthermore you have idea what choices regarding my relationship with God are, what I might like or not like, and if fact you have no idea what my religious background might or might not be.

            We both do have the right to try to shape the law as we see fit, and should one of us succeed in oppressing the other I would hope that the oppressed party would have a chance to make an argument in front of a court like this one.

            You don’t hold absolute moral authority about right from wrong, although you believe you do, because God gave it to you. That’s fine that’s what your belief is, and I respect that.

            It comes down to this, I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. We probably can’t even agree to treat each other like human beings, but I will try.

            And I will try to defend my rights just like you will try and shapes the laws according to your preferences.

          • Anonymous

            If you remember my posting to which you replied, I was not talking about the Civil Law, but simply answering a question about “both abominations”. But, if you want to talk about the Civil Law, then, the law should be decided according to legislation procedure, which is exactly what this process is about. The passing of marriage law, the activist judges declaring the law unconstitutional, and the ousting of the 3 activist judges. And we shall wait for the next round of law making by the people, and the next round of law bending by the judges against people’s will, and perhaps eventually people amending it into the constitution. It is not the people who are not following the law, it is the judges who see themselves above the law, bending the law, trashing the law. The truth of the matter is, even if the amendment is passed into the law, I doubt you will be content to follow it.

            Did I ever claim to hold moral authority? On the contrary, I said nothing of the sort. I never claim to know anything about you, I simply derive from your own admission that you know what those passages were about, yet you ignore the real point of it, and bring it up as inter-racial marriage issue to make your point. Hey … if you understand the point of the passages, but decide that your interpretation is better for you, then, I would have to say it is definitely arrogance. Hey … you certainly don’t have to care about how I formed my opinions on you based on what you said here, but I am not putting any words in your mouth, if that is what you are protesting.

            And I never claimed to be the absolute moral authority, I am merely stating what the bible says, and made my decision to stick with the bible, at the same time, excise my right to shape the law according to the proper procedure that was laid out before I came along. As long as those judges are willing to stick to their roles, to interpret laws, not to make laws.

            I don’t even claim to be an authority on the Bible nor on God’s will, I simply go by what’s in the Bible, and try not to take liberty on the words of God. It is you who wanted to interpret God’s words however it pleases you.

          • Anonymous

            Well, technically, there are different greek and hebrew words for sex outside marriage, so no, not all are the same; but for the sake of argument, we can let them be.God made gays for each other, and they clearly make each other happy and can live full, productive, fruitful lives. God “ordained” them, clearly, as much as anything else in His creation. Your Pharasitical fight for “definitions” in contravention of this is a trifle before the power of the Holy Spirit.That said, you should not have gay sex, because you are not gay. That would clearly be against your nature, i.e. “fornication”, and it is to you that the passages in Leviticus are probably written, as well as many of the others, if you look at their context.

          • Anonymous

            If you have problem with what the Bible states, your argument is with God, not with me. God clearly “ordained” gays? Maybe God told you so, but I have not heard from God about that yet. God CLEARLY stated what God thought about “men lying with men”, and clearly stated that “a man is to leave his parents to join with his wife.” Now, you may want to take liberty in interpreting those words, I am not about to do that. I have enough sins and faults to face God with, I don’t need to add another one for myself. As for you, it is your own problem that you will have to face God with whatever you have for yourself.

          • Anonymous

            The reason you don’t hear is the same in this age as in any other: you don’t listen. If God so clearly stated things, then why did He revoke what He said in Acts 15? Perhaps what is clear is that you do not have a grasp on the text or its meanings, preferring a meaning that simply confirms your own prejudice?As for the rest, what you write would ring true, if only you would live it, actually bear and forebear, as St. Paul said? That is what the Justices did, offering equality at law. In other words, if gayness is a matter of individuals before _God_, then why are so many involved in forcing negative, secular public policy on gays?

            Finally, with regard to disputes about scripture and the law, Christ did not teach as you do, i.e. he did not say, “Stick to the words”. In fact, his teaching is quite different, much more profound.

          • Anonymous

            You quote Acts 15, but did you include Act 15:20 (especially the part about sexual immorality) or are you simply ignoring it for you have heard the voice of God telling you to ignore it?

            Christ said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. …” (Matt. 5:17- 20)

            Christ does not abolish “the law”, He fulfills it. In Him, we are counted as righteous, that is true for all (Jews, Gentiles, heterosexual, homosexual just to name a few), this I do believe, but I certainly do not see Christ pronounce 2 men’s (or 2 women’s) sexual relationship as “God ordained marriage”. Again, if you have heard from God about it, well, I must not be reading the same Bible as you do.

            The justices have a responsibility to the people — interpreting the laws, not making laws, nor going against the people’s will. If the justices did as their personal beliefs demand of them, then, they are to be commanded as human beings, but not as justices. As they failed their role to interpret the law passed by people they serve, it is within people’s rights to vote them out of office. In this case, the proper judicial procedure has been carried out, yet because it is not the result you agree, you cry foul. Do you think they don’t need to be responsible for their own actions and face the consequences? Or do you think they are such elites, so much more intellectually above the people that they should be exempt from answering to the people whom they serve?

        • Anonymous

          Since you are an ordained elder, I would like to ask if your church has taught the principles of Covenant? Lot offered his daughters to the men because of Blood Covenant – protection that is offered to a guest in your house, even at the risk of your own life. In fact, the entire Bible is predicated upon covenant, which is the gift of eternal life through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

          • Anonymous

            You miss the point. Whether my church teaches the principles of the Covenant or not, is not the issue. The Bible is NOT the Constitution, nor is the Koran, or the Torah, or the Hindu scriptures, or the Book of Mormon. As American’s we are granted, by that Constitution, the freedom to worship and follow our religious beliefs. But, it does NOT grant us the right to “impose” those beliefs on those who don’t share the same beliefs.

      • Coloradoindy

        Wipe that bacon cheesburger grease from your mouth as the same book of the bible you cited condemns you to hell for eating it….not to mention for wearing that cotton-poly blend you have on. By the way, do you stay out in the barn while you are menstrating as that same book of the bible says you should remove yourself from the house while you are menstrating.

        All of which makes me ask you, if you are really the biblical scholar you are presenting yourself to be, why did Jesus come and what is the whole “New Covenant” thingy that he spoke about? Because it was my understanding, as taught by Paul in his letters in the new testament, that it was to do replace the old law. Further, Paul was also pretty clear in those same letters, Mary, that you as a woman should not be attempting to teach men…so in short…shut the hell up you heathen woman!

        • Anonymous

          What a joke reading some atheist trying to alter the meaning of the Bible by taking portions of scripture out of context and trying to build a case with them. Pork was prohibited from consumption back then because it made people sick. You confuse the scripture that some wrongfully to interpret that women can’t wear pants, (symbolic) when the deeper meaning is that the woman is not to take on the role of the man in a marriage.

          • Anonymous

            Well if you want to argue the symbolic meaning of scripture over the literal acceptance of scripture, then I see a deeper meaning in Lev 18:22, that procreation was needed to continue the Jewish people and now that we have a large enough gene pool this doesn’t matter anymore. Now before you start screaming that I’m twisting things because you’re not doing away with the law and I am, I do realize that I am suggesting the law isn’t needed. However that’s the same justification you used for why pork wasn’t allowed but it is now. Scripture can be interpreted to mean almost anything. Your argument really only proves the point that scripture must be reinterpreted to provide relevance in today’s world. If some of the laws are subject to interpretation then all the laws in the Bible must be subject to interpretation. You can’t have it both ways.

          • Coloradoindy

            Pullingsomething…but not punches,

            I’m not an athiest. I am a Christian who is simply pointing out to you that while the Bible should be taken seriously, it cannot be taken literally and those of you who seek to impose portions of the Bible in a literal manner tie yourself in knots trying to determine what is literal (generally whatever doesn’t apply to you) and what is “symbolic” (generally anything that would apply to you).

      • Anonymous

        “Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.” – Leviticus 11:43
        Or even better the story of the sabbath breaker ordered put to death in Numbers 15:32-36. I would ask what you spend your sabbath days doing after you get out of your hour or so of fellowship and worship.

        The problem I see here though is that there is the whole old covenant vs. the new covenant thing. Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17 “Do not think I have come to abolish the law, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” The decision to do away with sticking to the laws of Moses wasn’t made until after Paul’s conversion. All of a sudden it was okay to eat forbidden foods and not be circumcised anymore because they weren’t an abomination.You are entitled to your opinion and your beliefs, but not everyone shares them. The oppression of the rights of any minority opens the door to the oppression of the rights of very minority, and I would remind you that all people are a member of some minority group. It is very easy to forget that when you aren’t a member of the minority being oppressed. Thomas Jefferson said –All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Or another way to look at it, for anyone to have equal rights, all must have equal rights or we all risk having no rights at all.

      • Anonymous

        Clearly, you are not ‘of god’….

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4UGMEXBKKXLIWRDALRHK6XJPUA Bill Thompson

    FAGS!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314195742 Rain Mist

      HAGS!!!

      Oh, I thought we were declaring our affiliations….

  • Anonymous

    If democrats in the state senate are STUPID enough to oppose the will of the people with respect to a Constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual marriage, then they will lose in 2012 or 2014 when they come up for re-election. Count on it. This is a no-brainer.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314195742 Rain Mist

      Maintaining that a scant majority of the population has the legal right to remove rights and freedoms from one subset of the population just because they have philosophical disagreements with the appearance/ beliefs/ behavior of that subset is essentially the stance taken whenever a group of zealots chooses to subjugate others. It was the basis for the Nazis’ Final Solution, the basis for slavery, the basis for the subjugation and abuse with which our histories teem. Is this what you want?

      When you deprive a group of their rights for no good reason, you open a very ugly door. I have always felt personally fortunate to live in a state whose motto makes our position clear: Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain. We’ve held that position since inception, and this constitution has preceded the Civil War in disallowing slavery, has preceded the Civil Rights movement in disallowing discrimination based on color. To alter this great document to include “oh, unless they’re gay, because that’s apparently quite icky to some people, and therefore gays must not need the rights and liberties we cherish so much” is unthinkable.

      I guess that means it comes more naturally to those who do not think.

  • Oversight7@mchsi.com

    How about overturning the bad decisions they’ve made in Iowa Supreme Ct. case no. 10-0344 on appeal fron Scott Co. case LACE112272 (Pantzlaff) where a menacing neighbor (Craig Pantzlaff) found an unscrupulous lawyer (Geo Goebel) who filed a frivolous nuisance suit (with a jury demand, but then withdrew jury demand after defendant produced pictures proving case is malicious lies) claiming that rain drains (which are WITHIN CITY CODE) are causing damages. Goebel was unable to produce any evidence or proof of damages or injury as REQUIRED by CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs ASTINGER (Iowa 2000) But that only the law. Scott Co. “Judges” are above the law and they are free to defraud citizens of honest services. They are members of a corporation that wants our money and will cheat, lie and steal to get it. These “Judges” refused to hear the def. unless she paid money to one of their officers of the court. That is extortion/fraud. Where is the oversight ?

  • Anonymous

    Fair and impartial courts? I haven’t laughed this hard in a long, long time!

    High-caliber court system? If this isn’t the poster statement for hubris, there never will be one! LOL!

  • Anonymous

    Fair and impartial courts? I haven’t laughed this hard in a long, long time!

    High-caliber court system? If this isn’t the poster statement for hubris, there never will be one! LOL!

  • Anonymous

    Simple, put your 401K money into safe Money Market or Savings funds and out of the hands of these people. They clearly have more then they need. When OUT OF STATE people get involved in Iowa STATES RIGHTS, it is simply wrong. What happened to the States Rights I hear these people spew it out of their mouths? GO HOME to your state, get out of mine. These were 3 fair and honest judges who simply did their job with a constitution they abide by. They never would just pull it out of their pocket when it serves selfish interests.

    • Anonymous

      You write that “these were 3 fair and honest judges who simply did their job with a constitution they abide by” which is untrue. The constitution did NOT allow same-sex marriage in Iowa, but these self-serving special interest puppets ruled in direct opposition to the Constitution, by effectively legalizing ssm. What part of this don’t you understand?

      • Anonymous

        Actually the Iowa Constitution was silent on the rights of gay couples to marry. It was Iowa state law that prohibited same sex marriage. In fact if you actually read the Iowa Constitution it strongly supports equal rights for all Iowa citizens…

        Section One of the Iowa Constitution Bill of Rights —

        Rights of persons. Sec. 1. All men and women
        are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain
        inalienable rights – among which are those of
        enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
        possessing and protecting property, and
        pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

        I can’t seem to find the part where the asterisk is that points to the footnote saying, Well every one is equal, except for gays, they don’t get equal rights.

        These judges ruled in direct agreement with the constitution, because section 4 article 5 of the state constitution establishes the supreme court as the court of correction for errors at law (laws, statues, actions of the legislature that are in violation of the rights established by the constitution), and grants the court the power to issue writs and processes necessary to provide justice to parties.

        They ruled to uphold the equal protections of the Iowa Constitution over allowing discrimination. Iowa has a long and very proud history of doing this, and it is a shame that these people aren’t applauded for continuing that tradition.

        I know nothing I’ve said is going to change your mind, but I have to point these thing out, and if I have to point them out time and again before people understand it I will. You have the right to your opinion and to express your opinion, even if I don’t agree with it. Rest assured that if anyone tried to deprive you of those rights I would stand against that oppression also.

        These judges did their jobs by protecting equality, the so-called ‘special interest puppets’, in my opinion, are those people who can’t or refuse to see this decision for what it really is, a decision that protects the rights of all people against discrimination.

        • Anonymous

          Now, lets be realistic based on decencies. While it is not illegal to eat food from the other end, it would be asinine to craft a statute that legalizes such an act of perversion. Sodomy and other perverted acts are anti-Nature. They should never be sanctioned by the force of law. Homosexuality is a perverted sexual conduct. Perhaps, the Chief Justice is a member of LGBT community?

          • Anonymous

            Please explain how homosexuality is anti-nature. Homosexual behavior has been recorded in numerous species, not just humans, so I would argue that because it occurs outside of humans it is a natural condition. Shouldn’t it be realistic based on decencies to argue that we shouldn’t need to craft a statue to criminalize the beating of a wife by her husband,but we had to address this behavior though the force of law. So, it would seem that standards of decency vary from person to person. My standard of decency would be that discrimination is not a decent act. Protecting the rights of the minority from oppression protects the rights of all.Let’s be honest for a moment, calling homosexuality a perverted sexual act is your opinion, which you are entitled to hold, just like I’m entitled to hold a different one. You don’t speak for everyone anymore than I do.

          • Anonymous

            You can ask any apolitical psychologist or a psychiatrist who will cite you the original DSM reference that classifies homosexuality as one of the paraphilias. In a nutshell, this means perverted behavior that requires therapy. Sorry.

          • Anonymous

            Amusing, really amusing… I happen to have a roommate that is a psychologist, and we actually talked about this earlier. I’m not sure you know this, but the DSM no longer includes homosexuality as a condition that requires treatment. It was included previously yes, but removed in 1973. In a nutshell, this mean it is regarded by the APA as a normal variation of human sexuality that doesn’t require therapy. Sorry.

            In fact the APA regards therapy focused on changing homosexualsas potentially harmful to the person receiving such therapy. Amazing thing progress.You actually didn’t answer my question though, how is homosexuality anti-nature? Again I’ll argue that it’s appearance in species outside of humanity would support the idea that it is a natural behavior.

          • Anonymous

            First, the experts continue to regard it as a paraphilia privately. Due to the politics of the matter, the gullible 7/8th men and women having no balls regard the behavior as quasi-normal. No one accepts their kids as homosexuals. This knowledge is common place. It also explains why most of them live in closets or feigned double life in which they are married to a woman and have various boyfriends. Anti-Nature: a simple knowledge of anatomy tells you where sexual organs belong. This is for reproductive reasons. Its not a decent idea to use your penis for a handshake or to sodomize another. Its among sodoms that AIDS occur more frequently. Thus, its ludicrous to stand on your head and walk with your hands-its anti-Nature. Its anti-Nature to eat human meat although many in the world do it. All perversions are hedonistic and are anti-Nature. They serve only one purpose: pathological pleasure. To ask us to tolerate, accommodate, and elevate perverts is so reprobate a humiliation for both parties. It is a laughable proposition. Whats next, the court may impose on us that we treat those who drink urine with respect etc. etc. There are some things you just can’t do. A man having sex with another man is one such prime example of an anti-Nature act. Such decadence leads to entropy.

            Under ADA, it should be a culpable offence to discriminate a gay person. There is plenty to suggest that turning up half woman or half man has to do with estrogens/testosterones in the uterus. A lot of truth finding has been influenced by gay groups who create much noise and scare away everyone. Just as they “tampered with” the DSM, they tempered with these 7 corrupt justices. Gays make up for their sexual insecurities by excelling in manipulation, deceit, being cunning, being flippant, and having a desire for insatiable attention that they never got from their generally abusive Bible thumping parents. Thus, a contented homosexual is an oxymoron. It is for these reasons that the extreme right wingers consider them at a level of animals, a contention I do not agree with.

          • Anonymous

            Can you please give examples to support your statement about experts in the psychology field who still privately consider homosexuality a paraphilia? Because I do actually know, and have worked with people from that field who are not in agreement with you.

            I am also amazed at your arrogance.regarding parents who accept their gay children. Taking it upon yourself to make a blanket statement about what the whole of society believes is an unsupportable position. Have you spoken to the parents of every gay person in the US and received this response? I highly doubt this, mostly because I know parents who are accepting and supportive of their gay children. Some parents don’t want their kids to be gay, this is a fact, but some parents also don’t want their kids to play music in a band or join the military.

            The reason a lot of the people I know, and I’ll only speak for them not parents of gays as a whole, have had many reasons for not wanting their kids to be gay. They range from the idea that it’s a sin and their child will go to hell, all the way to fearing the hate, bigotry, and intolerance their child will face as a gay person in this country. Some of the first group of parents come to accept their child’s sexual orientation, some do not.

            Your argument about why homosexuals live in closets or have double lives is actually close to the mark, surprisingly, but not for exactly the reasons you allege. Homosexuals do hide in the closet and some do marry to protect themselves from the judgement of people like you. It doesn’t change the fact that they are homosexual.

            As far as your defense of homosexuality being anti-nature. You are again disregarding that homosexual behavior is not specific only to humans. All of your objections are based on moral authority. By the logic you are using then any form of sexual expression outside of penetrative intercourse is an anti-nature act. Which might be a defensible position if sex by humans was used only for purposes of reproduction. It is not., nor is it used only for reproduction in the animal kingdom.

            I fail to see how it is anti-nature to eat human meat, except in the context of moral behavior. Again, some animal species have been recorded to eat the meat of their own species, and yet this is not considered anti-nature behavior because among those species it is considered a natural act. It is the same with those tribes of humanity that have made a pattern out of eating human flesh. The act is usually a ceremonial one, usually to fulfill a religious obligation, but still it is viewed with the idea that it is not against the nature of the humans. Again you are applying Western morality to the whole of humanity with out regard for any other moral belief system.

            What is a laughable proposition, to me not the whole of humanity, is the one that morals define nature. According to this line of reasoning wouldn’t nature impose the same morality on all species subject to natural law?

            Your entire argument is based on the idea that homosexuality is a choice, and not predetermined behavior when the reverse seems to be true. If that is the case then I honestly can’t understand why so many people choose to be homosexual and but themselves through the discrimination that comes with that decision.

            In your mind homosexuals will always be perverts who choose to act in a way that you define as anti-nature and that is your right as a human being.

            I will continue to hold the belief that asking us to tolerate, accommodate and elevate bigoted views such as these is a humiliation for both parties.

            You are right when you say there are some things you just can’t do, and my belief is that you can’t force your belief system on others. Such decadence does lead to entropy. But only the entropy of an minor thing like freedom.

          • Anonymous

            Are you actually suggesting that there is evidence to prove that homosexuality is an inherent determined trait? Then turning around and calling the behavior influenced on that inherent trait an anti-nature act. There’s no logical sense in your argument. Unless again you are using an assumption of moral authority again. Homosexuals have been looking for proof there is a biological determining factor in the debate about what causes homosexuality, but it sounds like you are saying we’re scaring everyone away from the attention to those findings. What is the logical reason for doing that?And frankly your statement about being half man or half woman is insulting. I know it makes you feel better to make gay people just a little bit less of a person, maybe you don’t see us as animals for which I do thank you, but your insulting assumption that we are somehow less than whole human beings, incapable of living contented lives because of our apparently inherent biologically driven behavior is not much better. You imply that homosexuality, if caused by exposure to hormones before birth, would qualify for homosexuality as an included class under ADA. I’ll warn you, you just created a solid case for gay marriage. People with physical or mental challenges are included as a protected class for purposes of non-discrimination. Which includes non-discrimination with regards to marriage… and Iowa’s list of protected classes includes both mental and physical disabilities.So, it would seem that your own argument supports the rights of homosexuals to benefit from equal protection under the law. Admittedly probably not how we would prefer to achieve the goal, but I can assume that we now have a sold supporter in you.

            Unless you want to hold on to the exclusion of marriage benefits from gay people, because then you just have to admit there isn’t any kind of physical or mental disability that causes homosexuality and that gets you off the hook for addition in an already established protected class.

          • Anonymous

            Briefly, I have no problem with protection under ADA statute or anti-bullying statutes. But these statutes are inherently protective and do not create new rights per se. Actually, it is not a good thing to look down upon any individual except a criminal so I don’t condone that. But, marriage is a different story. Frankly, many a homosexual man already is married to a woman, for the sake of appearances. There is no end to these sexual rights. You cannot bring Holland to America. Those puritans were actually kicked out of Holland and came here. You can do just about anything in Holland. There is a guy out there demanding to smoke pot as his right here in Iowa. Frankly, he is demanding a bit too much out of THIS society. Look, its a right thing to do to ask for the consent of the legislature but it is so wrong to rig the judiciary by corrupting influence.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s the problem, if you have no issue with using ADA as the basis for preventing discrimination, then you allow inclusion in a protected class. One that already established law prevents rights from being denied to on the basis of inclusion in the class, this is the very core reason for non discrimination laws to exist. Again you can’t have it both ways, either gays are subject to ADA and therefore covered by the protections of inclusion into the class ADA protects, or they are not subject to ADA and are therefore excluded from the protected class under ADA. I agree that it is the right thing to ask the majority to acknowledge the rights of the minority. Our government is dependent on the will of the governed. We were founded on with the idea of majority rule, but the framers of the constitution realized that an unchecked majority would oppress the minority and that tyranny of the majority was as unacceptable as oppression of a majority by a tyrant. The fact is that the idea of judicial review is built into the federal and the Iowa constitution to protect minorities in cases like this. The judiciary that you are accusing of being rigged by some corrupting influence had been though this same procedure with other laws in the past.They were not called judicial activists then, they were just called Justices. Iowa has a record of enforcing the equal protection of all citizens going back to the founding of the state, and Iowans are understandably and rightly proud of that tradition. The state motto is “Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain”. It doesn’t say we’ll only maintain the rights of the majority, it says our rights, inclusive of all Iowans. I understand that the issue of marriage is one that invokes strong feelings on both sides of the debate. I don’t wish for people to feel like they are told they can’t have those feelings. What I want to see happen, is for people to understand that what we are discussing here is a civil secular contract. Not the sacrament of marriage. The demand from gays for marriage equality comes from the fact that the state issues a marriage license. The state took the name marriage and applied it to the civil secular contract. It comes down to the right to enter into a civil secular contract, that the state took the name marriage to describe. All these judges were doing was granting the same rights to gays as straight people have under civil authority. Gays don’t want to force anyone to grant the sacrament of marriage, churches can’t be forced to perform the ceremony if the state legalizes civil gay marriage. The core of this debate is not and never has been about Marriage as a sacrament, the holy union of man and woman as recognized by whatever religious authority you choose. It is about the right to enter into a binding civil contract. Right now, a heterosexual couple can walk in and get a marriage license, and never have to stand in front of a religious authority to file that contract with the state and have it recognized. This is the same right gays want, the right to file a civil contract, that just happens to have marriage printed on it.

          • Anonymous

            You can call cat a fish but it will not swim. All I am saying that an ambitious judiciary overreached its bounds. If you read the case thoroughly, it cannot be placed in the category of scholarly papers. It is plagiarism in kind. It was written by law clerks. But, it is more than that. It is a work of buddy arrangement with not a single dissent. I will stop short of calling it a conspiracy. The issue is far from being cut and dry. There needs to be a healthy public debate if the gays must insist on such recognition. Frankly, it is not what you ask but how you ask that generates an opposing view. I think that if people are asked politely, they would give their consent. But now, no judge is going to supersede the will of the people esp. at a time when the Republicans are in the majority. A strategic error will cost a lot more than the ouster of 3 corrupt “justices”.

          • Anonymous

            I’m going to kind of assume you don’t read many briefs or court decisions, because I read a lot of them and that was just the same as the vast majority them. A lot of decisions are drafted by law clerks under the direction of the Justice writing the opinion. You can call it a conspiracy if you choose, due to the lack of dissent of a single judge. Unanimous decisions between seven people do happen, there have even been times that all nine Justices on the US Supreme Court have agreed on and issued unanimous opinions. You can call this an ambitious judiciary if you want to, I will choose to call it the latest in a long, proud line of judiciaries that has done the right thing over the popular thing. As far as asking for our rights politely and thanking after we asked and were told we weren’t deserving of them, you seem to expect us go off and hide and wait until we’re respectable to come out. The problem is we shouldn’t have had to ask for them. They were taken from us, and I’m sure that if your rights were taken from you, you wouldn’t sit back and say, “Oh well, that’s what everyone wanted, I’ll just wait until they like me again, it won’t be long.”When a schoolyard bully mistreats another student on the playground we encourage our kids to let the teacher know, so the teacher can prevent harm by the bully against the other child. I guess we still have to do the same thing as adults, only the bullies we fight and the teacher we let know about it are much more far reaching. As far as the judiciary not reversing the will of the people now that the Republicans are in office, I hope with everything that I am that you are wrong about that. This is exactly the time a strong judiciary needs to act in it’s constitutionally defined role and act as the check and balance to the power of the legislature. Because without a strong judiciary nothing really stands in the legislature’s way of restricting the rights of all citizens. That’s why the idea of judicial review is written into the supreme law of the land. You and I are not going to come to an agreement on how to view this issue. at the moment. Perhaps as there is more debate opinions will change and instead of gays having to beg for the protections under the law, they will be offered those protections and welcomed into the club of full equality under the law.

          • Anonymous

            Amen to that*

            *”full equality” is an oxymoron amongst Homo erectus aka Homo sapience

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314195742 Rain Mist

            Wow. That is so chock full o’ stupid I don’t know where to start. But based on your second paragraph, any budding gymnast who stands on their head is a perversion against ‘nature’ and leads to entropy. Um. Do you know what words mean? Or do you just flip through a dictionary and plop the big ones in wherever they look good?

          • http://twitter.com/depogurl Holly

            Actually, Prop 8 supporters just had their chance to call psychologists and psychiatrists as witnesses in the Federal case in California. Guess what? They couldn’t find one. The ONLY witness they could dig up to support what you said above was a quack without a medical degree who derived all his information from the internet. However, opponents of Prop 8 called many, many renowned and published authorities who had actually done studies on the issue, ALL of whom found your statements to be crap. There is absolutely no proof…only fear from uneducated bigots who cannot back up their claims. So try again…this argument is getting old.

  • Anonymous

    Jenison totally misses the point that the judges usurp the legislative process and the collective voices of the majority of the people, to “make law” out of something that did not go through the proper channels to become law. Kind of like the Liberals pushing for illegal (as in NOT LEGAL) aliens in the country to get amnesty (as long as they vote Dem). The Dem’s like the uneducated voter who can be bought with a few taxpayer handouts.

    • Anonymous

      Can you please explain how they usurped the collective voices of the majority of the people when the law they were ruling on was never put up for popular vote?

      They actually didn’t “make law” they ruled a law passed by the legislature unconstitutional. The legislature has every right to go back, pass another discriminatory, I mean, bill protecting marriage and it can go through the same legal challenges.

      Well, I guess those special interest groups from outside Iowa, like the uneducated voters who’ll fall for their handouts too.

  • Anonymous

    They were fortunate that removal is all that happened to them

  • Anonymous

    How misleading & disingenuous of Carolyn Jenison (with One Iowa) to say that the outcome was due to “out-of-state special interest money”. It was the CITIZENS of IOWA who voted for this, nobody else!!

    • Anonymous

      The people of Iowa voted yes, but the majority of the money and attention that was directed at this issue was spent by special interest groups like NOM (New Jersey) and the American Family Association (Mississippi), so the vote was influenced by out of state special interest groups.

      • Anonymous

        Did you ever stop to think that it was Iowans who contributed financially to those organizations and Iowans who asked for them to come and help? Don’t politicians do the same thing to get financial backing for their campaigns around the U.S. to influence their votes? Our current president had no problem asking for or accepting financial assistance from around the US and out of our own country!
        If you had cancer, wouldn’t you go anywhere you could for the best medical treatment to save your life? If you were on trial for murder, wouldn’t you look for the best lawyer? If you have a problem and you want to get rid of it – you ask for help from others who have the means to help! Those special interest groups you talk about came and helped us get rid of 3 judges because we asked for their help! Asking for help makes a difference – same as the politicians.

        • Anonymous

          I’m sure there were Iowans who donated money to these groups and supported their action on this issue, but the fact remains that they are out of state special interest groups. They used money donated from people outside of Iowa also, I’m sure, so out of state money was used. I don’t dispute that politicians do the same thing. They do. My point was that the two groups who were most visible on this issue were out of state special interest groups spending money that was donated to them. And yes you should always ask for help from those most in the position to help you. I’m not in disagreement with any of this, I’m just pointing out the fact that very likely the involvement of these non-Iowa based groups had a big role in the debate on this issue. I am equally sure that when the time comes to fight this discrimination again both sides will draw on the expertise of groups outside the state, and that should the discrimination be defeated then I would hope that everyone would remember what you said about looking for the best help to solve your problem. And not complain that the special interest groups were the reason for the defeat. Iowans might have contributed to them too, and asked for their help.

          • Anonymous

            Homosexual Iowans did have other homosexuals and their multiple organizations come to Iowa on their behalf to convince the judges it should be Iowa’s new law. They are like little kids at a candy store having a temper tantrum, badgering their parents (weak politicians & judges) repeatedly until they give them what they want just to silence them and stop their tantrums! For Iowans – that was a sad day in our history! Now they know how the majority feels if given the opportunity to vote on the subject!

          • Anonymous

            I will confess I’m not from Iowa and therefore the majority of the attention on this issue that I was exposed to was from the two out of state special interest groups. So, I stand corrected that the exposure within the state could reflected a different ratio.

            I will point out on little thing though, the voters didn’t vote on the subject of gay marriage, they voted on judicial retention. The cause of the votes entered on the retention might have been the marriage decision, but the truth is no one knows how a vote on a constitutional amendment could turn out. You still have to get the proposed amendment through two sessions of both houses of your assembly and then it goes up for a popular vote…

  • Anonymous

    Congratulations Iowans!

  • Anonymous

    They were fortunate that removal is all that happened to them,

    These Judges are guilty of violating the constitution,
    have breached their oath, usurped authority
    and should be prosecuted accordingly with felony and treason charges.

    • Anonymous

      wow – stupid much? ..and WHERE did you Get you LAW DEGREE? …Where did you study Constitutional Law? Yea…didn’t think so….

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1314195742 Rain Mist

      This person’s opinion does not represent all Iowans. Just the stupid ones.

  • Anonymous

    How so? I read their finding and the constitution was mentioned endlessly in detailed arguments ending in their ruling. Their logic seemed flawed at times, but I just skimmed it.

    I really don’t like the ruling, but I really don’t like bullies either. What bothers me is how one or two people can say the ruling violates the constitution (King, for example) when they endlessly mentioned it in their ruling. Is anyone here a lawyer?

    What I heard is outside lawyers came in and outargued those wanting to uphold the law. I think I heard them bragging on Iowa Public Radio.

    I wonder where these new outsiders will brag? You know, the ones who put up all the money this time out to defeat the judges the other outsiders talked into the ruling in the first place?

    • Anonymous

      There really is no merit to the claim that the ruling violated the constitution. They want to argue the idea of legislative supremacy, and disregard the role established by the Iowa constitution for the court. The claim rests on the idea that the court’s role is to apply and uphold the laws passed by the elected representatives of the people, and that by declaring a law unconstitutional they have moved from their role into the role of creating legislation.

      The whole idea overlooks the fact that the court system doesn’t enforce the laws passed, their job is to apply and to interpret those laws. Enforcement is the role of the executive branch. The court is required to interpret the laws in order to apply them. Every time a case is presented before a judge we ask them to interpret the law. There are very few cases where one party does not have to rely on interpretation.

      The writers of the federal and Iowa state constitutions also required the courts to act as the check and balance to the other branches in the creation and enforcement of laws. The Iowa constitution tasks the supreme court with being the court of correction of errors of law. An error of law being an act of law, statue, or procedure that is presented to the court and argued to be in violation of the protections provided under the constitution.

      These protection were included to protect against a tyranny of the majority. The framers understood that the majority might pass laws that adversely impacted a minority and that that adverse impact might not be addressed because it wasn’t the will of the majority. So they allowed for judicial review of the laws.

      Basically all this really boils down to is the fact that because their discriminatory marriage act was seen by the court for what it was they want to cry foul. They made their arguments and they didn’t hold up, or like you said the other side outargued them and it hurt their feelings.

      Equal rights is a tough concept to deal with, because it requires you to accept people, opinions, beliefs, or ideas that aren’t yours. The problem is that if one group isn’t equal then no group is equal and no one’s rights are protected when they are in the minority.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chael-GetRhythm-Montgomery/100001405037625 Chael GetRhythm Montgomery

    I don’t have time to read through all the comments here; however, I wanted to mention (if it hasn’t been mentioned here already) that according to one report I heard yesterday, there would be nothing in Iowa law that would stop Chet Culver from reappointing the three ousted Iowa Supreme Court justices before he leaves office in January. If Terry Branstad protested this action, the argument could be made that two of the ousted justices were originally his appointments.

  • Anonymous

    It all boils down to definition.
    Simple definition of WITCHCRAFT
    FEAR BASED
    DOMINATION
    INTIMIDATION
    MANIPULATION
    CONTROL

    Simple definition of MAN MADE RELIGIONS LIKE ISLAM
    FEAR BASED
    DOMINATION
    INTIMIDATION
    MANIPULATION
    CONTROL

    Simple definition of POLITICS AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM
    FEAR BASED
    DOMINATION
    INTIMIDATION
    MANIPULATION
    CONTROL

    Simple definition of ACTIVIST JUDGES MAKING LAW FROM THE BENCH
    FEAR BASED
    DOMINATION
    INTIMIDATION
    MANIPULATION
    CONTROL

    Simple definition of GOD
    LOVE BASED WITH FREE WILL
    HE WILL NOT DOMINATE
    HE WILL NOT ITIMIDATE
    HE WILL NOT MANIPULATE
    HE WILL NOT CONTROL WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION

    LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF WITHCRAFT GOING ON THESE DAYS.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rohit-Adriano-Nair/15304753 Rohit Adriano Nair

      You, sir/ma’am are the simple definition of an idiot of the highest order. Four words for you: read the old testament.

    • Anonymous

      http://cheezburger.com/View/4137761024

      I think you may mean ‘simpleton’s definition’.

  • Anonymous

    Fear not, when the Great Noodly One returns none of these issues will matter, for all are equal in his eyes, and his Great Noodly Appendages are enough for all.

    • Anonymous

      Are you wearing your pirate regalia? Be careful, or He may smite you with his great Meaty Balls!

  • Anonymous

    Homosexuals are not a protective group of people. They are trying to get their psychological disorder established as a group and open the door for other perverted behavior like bestiality, etc. They are not a protective group just because they share an immoral belief doesn’t equate them to the status of an actual human being. They are human beings of all races with a sexual retardation of the mind. They are only about 2 percent of the country if that, but the media and other crooked people who share the liberal mindset some how have the funds to distort the will of the people but shocking the majority or not fooled……

    • Anonymous

      There’s something especially amusing about someone posting about “retardation of the mind” while murdering what is probably their native tongue.As far as I can interpret, this person thinks homosexuals are human beings and also not human beings, and while they’re not good shields, they may be doormen. Doorpeople. Also, members of the media are apparently a type of non-straight person with a lot of money, despite all we hear of fledgling reporters living on low wages. I’m not really sure what to do with “but shocking the majority or not fooled”. Would any of the other idiots care to serve as interpreter?It’s kind of fascinating, in a grim way, to read these posts. They suggest that the majority of pro-equality people are well educated and well spoken. While the majority of the anti-equality are, well…not. Although, to be fair, it may not have been the education that was lacking; perhaps there was little to work with in the first place. Regardless, perhaps the lawmakers should consider which ones they’d like to retain in their state, and which ones they’d like to drive out. I love Iowa, but I love non-discriminatory laws even more, and I can get a good job anywhere, even in this economy.

  • Anonymous

    You quote Acts 15, but did you include Act 15:20 (especially the part about sexual immorality) or are you simply ignoring it for you have heard the voice of God telling you to ignore it?

    Christ said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. …” (Matt. 5:17- 20)

    Christ does not abolish “the law”, He fulfills it. In Him, we are counted as righteous, that is true for all (Jews, Gentiles, heterosexual, homosexual just to name a few), this I do believe, but I certainly do not see Christ pronounce 2 men’s (or 2 women’s) sexual relationship as “God ordained marriage”. Again, if you have heard from God about it, well, I must not be reading the same Bible as you do.

    The justices have a responsibility to the people — interpreting the laws, not making laws, nor going against the people’s will. If the justices did as their personal beliefs demand of them, then, they are to be commanded as human beings, but not as justices. As they failed their role to interpret the law passed by people they serve, it is within people’s rights to vote them out of office. In this case, the proper judicial procedure has been carried out, yet because it is not the result you agree, you cry foul. Do you think they don’t need to be responsible for their own actions and face the consequences? Or do you think they are such elites, so much more intellectually above the people that they should be exempt from answering to the people whom they serve?

    • Anonymous

      The judges apply the law, if you don’t like it, change the law, not the judges. The rest of the world watches this and wonders why judicial independence and the rule of law should be thrown away.

      • Anonymous

        People made the law, and people liked the law. It was the Justices who threw out the law — which is not their place to do — that’s why the justices were “voted” out. This is all part of the “process” playing out according to procedure. Seems to me, you are the ones who want to change the laws, and tried to circumvent the proper procedure because you don’t have the public support for it.

        The rest of the world is watching, so what? Do they expect the American laws (in this case, Iowan laws) to affect them? Or do they expect them to affect the laws in America? Do you think the rest of the world is going to tolerate Americans or American government to have any say in their domestic laws? Why, then, do you even think the rest of the world should have any say in American domestic laws?

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    I was asked what I didn’t understand about legislating from the bench. what many of you seem to not understand, a law passed by the legislator must be able to withstand constitutional scrutiny. The judges when asked to review the law, determined as written it could not. Solution, pass a law that can withstand that legal scrutiny. The Justices simply did their jobs.
    What is unfair is outside state money and political interests interfering with Iowa Politics and elections.
    Wiki – Gerrymandering is when a political group tries to change a voting district to create a result that helps them or hurts the group who is against them. It is named after Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814). Gerrymandering works by wasting votes. It puts more votes of winners into the district they will win so the losers win in another district.
    While not directly the case here to me it is similar when outside state money and influence tampers with state elections and outcomes. It simply should be against the law, I can’t belive it isn’t.

  • Anonymous

    I am a caring and supportive neighbor (my dad was born in Iowa!) so it’s Holy Ground-Wakan- to me….I am in awe of your progressive and forward-thinking stance on gay rights—-everyone in the nation should be as forward-thinking and evolved as your beautiful state–Thank you —send some of those forward-thinking vibes down here……! Now, I’m going to donate some money to One Iowa..!

Switch to our mobile site