Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fundies: Sodom, Gomorrah and Des Moines.......

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 08:31 PM
Original message
Fundies: Sodom, Gomorrah and Des Moines.......
:scared: :crazy: :freak:



from the American Family Association's OneNewsNow (the same "news" operation that banned the word "gay"):


Iowa court: Ban on same-sex 'marriage' unconstitutional

Associated Press and Charlie Butts - 4/3/2009 9:00:00 AM
Updated 4/3/2009 12:45 PM


DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court says the state's same-sex "marriage" ban violates the constitutional rights of homosexual couples, making it the third state where same-sex marriage is legal.

In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.

The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based homosexula rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six homosexual Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and the issue should be left to the Legislature.

Iowa judges 'crossed the line'

Douglas Napier, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, explains to OneNewsNow that the court overturned the state's Defense of Marriage Act. "The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled, and overwhelming supported by Iowans for 170 years in the history of Iowa," he notes. "There was simply no legitimate reason for this court to redefine marriage."

Napier asserts that the justices stepped out of their proper role of interpreting the law and have instead created new law. A recent poll, which compares to others, indicates 62 percent of Iowans are against homosexual marriage.

"And it's astounding the Supreme Court would usurp the role of the legislature, put a choke hold on the democratic process, and take that from the people of Iowa and claim to know better," the attorney exclaims. "They don't know better -- and the people of Iowa need to vote on a marriage amendment and put it in place and let the Supreme Court know that they can't speak for them."

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's Law School, had this reaction. "These activist judges are no more than proselytizing engines of social change," he offers. "That's not the role of a judge. They are to be umpires merely calling the balls or strikes. They don't rewrite the definition of marriage." And they do not go against the will of the people, he adds.

Staver believes the legislature ought to vote to put the issue on a future ballot. "There is no question in my mind ," he states. "They will move forward with a constitutional amendment to overrule this ridiculous decision -- which frankly, in my view, is no law at all," the Christian attorney comments. "The judges in this case crossed the line. This is an example of the kind of judge that should never be on the bench."

At present, the staff of the Iowa Family Policy Council is lobbying state lawmakers to put the issue on a future ballot.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=476460 (if Rick-rolled by the fundie filter, the story's in the onenewsnow area of www.afa.net )


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
petersjo02 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Charlie Butts?
Too clever by half.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Sadly, it's not a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Iowa Family Policy Council is lobbying state lawmakers to put the issue on a future ballot.
Well the procedure for amending the Iowa constitution is by now all over the internet. It ain't easy. Iowa has a relatively paltry 46 amendments which is very low for a state.
An amendment must be approved by the House and Senate (50% +1) in two consecutive seperate (election in between) legislatures and then passed by a vote of the people.
Since Dems hold pretty good majorities in both houses and both leaders have said they won't bring it up this legislature, that means it will be 2011 before it possibly sees the light of day. The repugs will try to beat up the Dems with this in 2010, but it sure didn't work last year. So it looks like it could be 2014 at the earliest. There could be a lot of marriages by then.
But the repugs will try to whip up the hate and make people think they can get a vote. As always it will be a cash cow for Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. "They are to be umpires merely calling the balls or strikes."
That's three strikes, Mr. Staver -- and no balls. Yer OUT!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC