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

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

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.

Chuck Hurley (File Photo: The Iowa Independent)
Chuck Hurley (File Photo: The Iowa Independent)

Chuck Hurley: Ousting Iowa Supreme Court justices was ‘God’s will’

By Jason Hancock | 11.03.10 | 10:56 am

In an interview with the American Family Association’s, Iowa Family Policy Center President Chuck Hurley praised voters for ousting three Iowa Supreme Court justices from the bench over their 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, saying Iowans “stood up to judicial tyranny.”

“God is our ultimate authority, and we think that we did God’s will by standing up to the three judges who would try to redefine God’s institution and say that marriage is anything other than one man and one woman,” Hurley explains.

Outgoing Governor Chet Culver (D) could appoint liberal judges to replace the three, but the IFPC president says they can also be ousted if necessary.

While touring the state on a 20-city bus tour encouraging Iowans to vote “no” on retaining the judges, Hurley said that not only should Iowans revoke marriage rights currently enjoyed by same-sex couples, but that laws should be passed pertaining to homosexual acts as well.

“Every culture should have safe and sane laws regarding sexuality,” Hurley said, drawing comparisons to laws that forbid incest and pedophilia.

National anti-gay organizations like the Mississippi-based American Family Association spent more than $1 million in the campaign to oust the three judges. 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, and the vote is already being praised by the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage as a huge victory.

Follow Jason Hancock on Twitter


  • Anonymous

    Iowans don’t want this filthy lifestyle choice polluting the GOD ordained institution of marriage. Homosexual marriage has been voted down in every state where it was put to popular vote. In every state where it is legal, it was forced on them by liberal activist judges. Ternus, Baker, Streit … good riddance!

    • Eric Welch

      Ironically, Jesus and Paul said little about marriage, more about divorce. They did want to promote celibacy, however. Check it out. As far as Hurley’s comment re God’s Will, one should note that Obama’s election was equally God’s will. Marriage consists of two forms, one which is required, the other not. The state grants the right to “marry” as that union conveys inheritance and property rights. Then, if you want, you can have that union “sanctified” in a church of your choice. Churches will always have the right to sanctify any particular type of union or not. UP to them. At least as long as we have separation of church and state. If we become a theocracy, all bets are off. People are using their own brand of religion to define what the word means in their own context and want it applied to everyone else. That’s dictatorial, not democratic.

    • Anonymous

      I hope you are judged as much for your hatred as you judge others for loving someone.

    • MetalNick

      And how do homosexuals marrying each other affect your life at all? You, your “Christian” friends, and your imaginary friend are only considered about power and controlling other people’s lives. Please leave this state.

    • Robert Galyean

      You speak for all Iowans now, Mary?
      You’re doomed.

    • Peggy Cooper-Lubbers

      The only pollution that occurred by ousting these three judges (FOR DOING THEIR JOB, I MIGHT ADD) is a pollution of the judicial system, by ignorant people such as you! All this has acomplished is sending a message to judges everywhere that if they give an unpopular ruling they may lose their job. Who in the hell does that help? The judicial system is in place to CHECK the politicians…. we already have enough politicians (ON BOTH SIDES) speaking for the people… we need REFEREES! You don’t boot a referee simply because you disagree with his call! GET YOUR HEAD IN THE GAME!

  • Anonymous

    When someone protests as much as Hurley, something’s up. He’s got some sort of fetish, homosexual or otherwise, he’d never want seen in the light of day. I’m tired tired tired of hypocritical religious crusaders. Keep you faith, guilt & unhappiness to yourself. Mary Waterton, if you were truly a follower of God you would have more compassion. I’m saddened by your words of “filthy lifestyle choice.” I hope one of your children or grandchildren comes out to you one day so you have to understand on a personal level.

  • Sarah Pappalardo

    I’m still horrified that people like Mary Waterton use religion to back their bigoted opinions that I am filthy.

    Really Mary? I am filthy? Do you think that, if I can never get married, that the gay will just…go away? Really?

    There are a few verses in the Bible about self-righteousness. Look them up sometime.

  • Anonymous

    It is sad that bigots can post their hateful thoughts in a public paper.

  • Anonymous

    I am surprised that this kind of hatred and bigotry gets published. How embarrassing for you and your state. Evolve!

  • Anonymous

    I am more concerned about the influence of HATRED and FEAR polluting our state by our (somewhat) newly elected governor and other GOP leaders than the apparent influence of gays and homosexuals. Four more years of fear!!

  • MetalNick

    I’m so embarrassed to be an Iowan right now.

  • Anonymous


    There are many liberals who are trying to argue in support of “gay marriage” claiming that it is protected under the constitution under the “equal rights” clause.

    Most of these making such proclamations have no idea of the law and do not understand the “Equal Rights” clause.

    If “equal rights” is to be taken literally and if it means therefore that gays can also “marry” each other (of the same gender) because a man can marry a woman, then why can’t a any man marry his sister or his mother? Or marry 5 women simultaneously? Or his dogs and cats? They have “equal rights” too.

    The liberals cannot answer that question.

    “Equal rights” simply means that the govt. cannot discriminate against one compared to another SIMILARLY SITUATED according to a list of criteria. The list of criteria the govt. can use can be quite long and is for the govt. to set.

    The criteria for marriage is that it is between an unmarried adult man and an unmarried adult woman. Homosexual adult men are not denied the right to marry an adult woman. So they do have equal rights.

    Judges are required to follow the law, not legislate from the bench. Their exceeding their legal authority is illegal (sort of like ultra vires). Lawyers and Judges are supposed to set an example of law abiding citizens, not flount the law. These Judges effectively abused their office for political ends, to placate the liberal establishment. Their tactics were intellectually corrupt and dishonest and that is what led people to label it as “judicial tyranny.” The general public had more common sense and so rightly removed them from power.

    The Iowans are truly a shining example of an intelligent democracy.

    • Peggy Cooper-Lubbers

      OMG the dog, cat, brother, sister argument is so played out! If you want to get into the logistics of why you can’t “marry” your sister, well I’m sure you would be able to figure that out by looking at your children???? Gay people obviously can’t procreate so that tired a** argument doesn’t hold water. Equal rights mean “EQUAL RIGHTS” there was a time that people of different races were denied the right to “marry” under your same worn out arguments. The plain and simple fact is that my marrying of another woman does not infringe on anyone elses rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So why deny my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in order to satisfy someone else’s since of MORALITY?

    • Anonymous

      This liberal can answer your question. Marriages between siblings would still be considered incest and punishable according to state law. In fact I would like to point out that the law these judges ruled on allowed for marriage between one man and one woman, and there didn’t seem to be any issue with relatives rushing to get their marriage licenses after it passed

      Polygamist marriages/bigamy are also criminal acts under Iowa law. And therefore would remain illegal under any marriage equality act.

      The dog and cat, horse or pig argument is absurd on the face, but I will provide the answer for you. An animal can not consent to a contract. A marriage license as issued by the state for legal purposes is a contract, and therefore both parties have to be able to consent. An animal cannot give consent…

      BTW, this is also the reason you wouldn’t see marriages between adults and children. A minor child cannot consent to the terms of a contract either, so therefore the state could not issue a marriage license in that case… even if you over look the fact that it would be a criminal act of child sexual abuse.

      Your argument about the similarly situated class is almost correct. The court compared the class denied the benefit under the law and the class that benefited under the law and found that the class denied benefits under the law was one that was arbitrary or irrational. They actually based the decision on similarly situated class partly on the arguments the attorneys made in support of the law… and they found them not compelling enough reasons to actually merit the separation of the group from the class of Iowa citizens as a whole.

      The court actually discussed this argument in it’s opinion because the county attorneys actually used this to defend the marriage act. This just proves it discriminates against gays, and that the discrimination is totally based on inclusion in the class.

      As far as the judges being required to follow the law and not ‘legislate from the bench’ , you seem to have a lack of understanding with regard to the court’s role in the checks and balances system of government we operate under. The supreme court, in the Iowa state constitution, of acting as the court of correction of errors of law. An error of law is a law, act, or procedure passed by the legislature that is brought before the court for a determination of constitutionality on the argument that it violates a part of the constitution.

      I don’t understand why this is so hard to understand, they did their job as defined under the state constitution. The legislature is not prevented from passing another law defending marriage, provided they can come up with a better one.

    • Anonymous

      Since you cross posted this to another forum, with the same misunderstood points, I’ll go ahead and post it here also, just so I can make sure it clears up any proclamations made on a misunderstanding of the law or judicial process. It would appear that you are the one who appears to not understand the law you are throwing around. There is no equal rights clause in either the Iowa or the Federal constitution. There are, however, equal protection clauses in both documents. The difference between equal rights and equal protection is what is most important here… The intent of the constitution, both of them, to provide equal rights to all citizens is shown in the wording of the equal protection clause. This is straight from the Iowa constitution —Article 1, Section 6 — All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.As far as your statement about equal rights meaning the government can’t discriminate again one class established by law over another similarly situated class, you’re wrong again. The idea of the similarly situated class is a standard of judicial scrutiny applied to arguments against the application of equal protection to a class created by an act of law.

      Similarly situated is actually on the list of criteria, not what the list of criteria is used to support of refute. In other words it means that the state has to prove that the class (gay people) are not entitled to equal protection because of a legitimate purposes of the law… You can’t just pick out a certain group and decide to exclude them from the party because you don’t like them… This is the same reason mothers make kids invite the unpopular kid to the birthday party… it’s rude to single someone out because you don’t like them. I hope that this makes these rather difficult concepts a little easier for you to understand. I wouldn’t want you making proclamations about the law when you don’t understand what you are proclaiming about.

  • Anonymous

    It’s funny that this misinformed mouth breath and his ilk missed their chance to actually take a crack at the Varnum decision. Everyone got so wrapped up in ousting the judges that they ignored the only legitimate way to overturn Varnum, and that was via a constitutional convention. We voted against having one. The court won’t be able to rule on this issue again because it is barred res judicata. Iowans were duped by out-of-state groups, and manipulated into focusing on the wrong issue all so these groups could use our state to threaten future courts that may have to render politically unpopular verdicts. Thank God we as a state failed this civics exam and that gay marriage is here to stay.

    Mary: you’re ignorant and make my beloved state look bad.

    Aristotle_747: Your “legal argument” lacks most if not all merit. It’s clear you have the same degree of understanding of Constitutional Law as the man in this Onion Article (,2849/). If you actually have a law degree I shudder to think what Tier 4 toilet you crawled out of errr graduated from with a law degree.

    • Peggy Cooper-Lubbers

      Lovin this comment! I noticed that as well, while trolling through the results. I didn’t however notice that it was the only way to overturn the ruling. Funny how Chuck Hurley is calling the ruling “Judicial tyranny” because that is exactly what I thought the ousting of judges for doing their jobs was, except I was calling it RELIGOUS TYRANNY ?

  • Anonymous

    Chuck Hurley should stop uttering stupidies and get his facts right about homosexuality. As for God, he has no proof of his existence so please, he should keep him/her out of the discussion until further notice. This is increadible: are people really THAT stupid? What the HELL is wrong with those nutcase right-wing Christians? Please, someone stop them, they are getting out of hands…

Switch to our mobile site