Sparks Fly at Iowa Judicial Retention Forum 10/19/2010

Three of the Iowa justices who ruled in favor of marriage equality are up for retention vote on November 2 ballot. Anti-gay activist and failed gubernatorial hopeful Bob Vander Plaats has launched the "Iowa for Freedom" campaign in an attempt to oust the judges. Out-of-state extremist organizations including the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association are footing the bill.

In a forum sponsored by the Iowa Independent and hosted by Simpson College, Vander Plaats faces off against former Supreme Court justices Mark McCormick and Robert Albee. Among the points of contention:
- Vander Plaats' contention that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, incest, and bisexual marriage (we don't get it either).
- Vander Plaats' refusal to answer questions about out-of-state special interest money funding his campaign.
- The propriety of ousting judges over one decision

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ForumGreatestHits

[Nonamearisto]

@struveinsky If you define "midwesternliness" as "live and let live", then why do most midwestern (Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, technically Wisconsin, and others with anti-gay marriage laws, like Indiana) states ban gay marriage in their constitutions? I for one see no conflict between barring something like gay marriage and "live and let live" any more than I see a conflict between "live and let live" and barring polygamy.

[whiyey]

If a doctor makes a mistake and you die, do you want them to operate on again?

[kenballer00]

@struveinsky

Also, they are not similarly situated. The defendants specifically said that heterosexuals have the potential to procreate accidentally and thats why they are given licenses while same sex couples cannot procreate accidentally but the Iowa supreme court practically ignored that in ordered to rule the way that they did. Not to mention the well established social science evidence compared to same sex parent studies showing this to be the best situation for kids being ignored.

[kenballer00]

@struveinsky

nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.

[struveinsky]

The problem is that he misconstrues the Supreme Court decision with the thinking that they are somehow telling him how he should live and how he should think. This is not the case. The decision does, however, ensure that people like VP cannot tell our Gay and Lesbian neighbors how they must live. This preserves individual freedom and responsibility, fosters neighborliness, and fits Iowa's general attitude quite well. Where VP would lament and say "Why Iowa?", I say "WHY NOT?"

[struveinsky]

Where he said that Iowan's were surprised when the decision came down, he is right. At first glance, the demographics of Iowa do not support gay marriage being allowed here. However, this state has often been at the forefront of civil rights issues, and it is our Midwestern tendency towards neighborliness and an independent "live and let live" mentality that fosters equality here. We are independent and don't like to be told how to live, thus Vander Plaats arguments, I suppose...

[struveinsky]

I also think that VP gives Iowan's too little credit. We are a state full of people who are tolerant of and respectful to our neighbors, families, and friends. We reach out to those in need, and we celebrate our successes. In that spirit, we generally believe the best in people and allow citizens of this state to live their lives without interference.

[struveinsky]

I for one am happy that our independent judicial branch in this state had the courage to make this decision, I think knowing that there would be some strong opposition to the rejection of DOMA. However, that is not activism, that is doing their job and making a decision with integrity and without fear that the popular tide might swing against them and cause them to lose their jobs. The integrity of an impartial, independent judiciary is more important and bigger than 3 individuals.

[struveinsky]

.it took the people to determine that slaves were not property. However, he seems to forget that it took NUMEROUS court decisions, often flying in the face of popular opinion which actually brought about equality, integrating schools, and doing away with Jim Crow laws. The Court Decisions, almost without exception, PRECEDE the tide of public opinion.

[struveinsky]

I think that the former supreme court justices along with Marsh Ternus are correct in their fear that the posturing of Vander Plaats will result in the possibility of judges bowing to political and popular pressure when weighing their court decisions. Courts are to be impartial and independent, which sometimes means that decisions that are RIGHT will necessarily be UNPOPULAR. VP uses an example of a court ruling that a slave WAS property in the 1850s, and saying that it took the people