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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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 ?