Activist Judge Overturns Iowa AntiGay Marriage Law

[Upchurch]

Well, any time their anti-gay God wants to duke it out, man fairy against fairy tale tail, I'm ready!

Fixed it for you, dear

Just remember: you started it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Cool info Mr. Brown!

Thanks !

 

[ponderingturtle]

The sad thing is that opponents of gay marriage are picturing scary, sexy gays getting married. Leathermen and porn stars and drag queens. And then them doing threatening, erotic things at the wedding reception, thus throwing terror into the straight population with their sexy, sinful antics.

When it actually looks like the gays who get married or want to are the boring, ordinary-looking couples who go to the hardware store on Saturdays to pick up tile to fix up their bathroom, not to find reinforced ceiling hooks for their sex dungeon. It's hard to think of anything less threatening than people settling down. Thats when they stop going out and picking up strangers and dancing on tables and doing all the things that scare the straights if they're flipping through the channels and come across a pride parade on the news.

I am sure there are plenty of heterosexual couples who go out to get ceiling hooks for their sex dungeon.

Well probably not every weekend.

 

[Brown]

News flash, from the Des Moines Register:

A conservative political activist is demanding that the Iowa Legislature impeach Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson, who ruled in August that the state's gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional.

Bill Salier, a Nora Springs farmer and former Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, said Wednesday that he is passing around a petition seeking the judge's impeachment. Salier said Hanson's ruling is the latest example of judges abusing their power in order to impose their personal beliefs on Americans.

"He's advancing what he wants to be the law, but he cannot pass law because he is not a representative or a senator or a governor," Salier said. "It's a malfeasance of his office, and he needs to be removed for it."

Well, hello, Salier!

All right, that was a cheap shot, but this isn't: Chances are excellent that, based upon this "activist's" remarks, he either has not read the ruling that he is so steamed about, or he has not made the first effort to try to understand it.

So not only is he a loudmouth, he's an ignorant loudmouth as well. And the punch line is... (wait for it) ... he's quick to say that anybody who doesn't agree with him is stupid.

According to the Register, the response to his individual's activity has been laughter.

 

[patrick767]

I'm confused. How is this not the very thing the judicial branch should be deciding? It concerns individual rights as they relate to the constitution (state constitution in this case).

The courts have long existed as a check on the power of the majority to deny the rights of the minority. That is one of the most important purposes that they serve. Yet the Right would label any rulings they don't agree with as inappropriate "legislating from the bench" by "activist judges". Isn't this claim completely ridiculous? Without so-called activist judges, what would have become of America's civil rights era? Many of the most important breakthroughs in rights have been the result of judicial rulings. Judges help prevent the tyranny of the majority.

By design, the only way to overcome these rulings is to change the constitution. Unfortunately some states have done just that, but at least such a move makes sense from a governmental perspective.

 

[Cleon]

I'm confused. How is this not the very thing the judicial branch should be deciding?

It's really very simple.

When the judge rules in your favor, he is Upholding The Law.
When the judge rules against you, he is an Activist Judge who is Legislating From The Bench.

Any questions?

 

[Miss Anthrope]

It's really very simple.

When the judge rules in your favor, he is Upholding The Law.
When the judge rules against you, he is an Activist Judge who is Legislating From The Bench.

Any questions?

Still awesome, I see!

 

[Terry]

And if the legislature pass a gay rights bill, then obviously it needs to be vetoed by the governor, because "the people should decide".

 

[Random]

It’s bigotry, plain and simple. Sure they have a wide variety of arguments to back up their position, but the arguments are all either stupid or depend on untestable “Religious” beliefs. And the bible thumpers don’t impress me at all. While they are willing to criss-cross the country trying to ban gay marriage, I have yet to see them devote similar resources to banning shellfish, polyester, or credit cards. This is not obeying the word of God, this is hating gays and using the word of God as an excuse.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

This is not obeying the word of God, this is hating gays and using the word of God as an excuse.

At our house we call this Christianity, one of a wide range of One True Religions.

 

[Brown]

Further update:

According to the Des Moines Register, a group has decided to try to push the Iowa Legislature toward a constitutional amendment to keep those disgusting homos in their place ... I mean, to prevent same-sex unions.

To emphasize that their convictions are based upon something other than evidence of need for such an amendment, the protesters are including a "prayer walk."

Some have characterized the "prayer walk" as an inappropriate attempt to influence the Iowa Supreme Court. That's actually quite funny. Knowing the members of the Supreme Court, the effect that this event is likely to have on them is about as close to zero as can be. Not a one of them will let fear of impeachment, lack of retention or other political stress influence their analysis of the case. That's just not how this court does business.

A few years ago, the Iowa appellate courts made some high-profile decisions in a case that received nation-wide attention. There was considerable protesting at the time, with public demonstrations. There were letter-writing campaigns to influence the judges' decisions. And the Iowa judges did what they thought was right, even as unpopular as it was. Although lay commentators around the country lined up against them, the Iowa judges said they decided according to the law, and they ignored the demonstrators and letters. One judge was quoted in the local newspaper as saying that he would read enough of a letter to see what it was about, and if it pertained to a pending matter, he would unceremoniously throw it into the trash. The Iowa decision eventually held up, and the case was at an end, despite the outcome being highly unpopular. (Read a brief summary of this case at the Time Magazine web site.) In light of this history, it is unlikely that a well-mannered public demonstration will have any effect upon consideration of the legal issues that the Court must face.

 

[Brown]

Further Update:

The Iowa Supreme Court's decision is expected tomorrow, 3 April 2009.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Just a reminder: The decision can be found here.

"Page Not Found"

 

[GreyICE]

"Page Not Found"

Please note dates. September != April.

 

[Upchurch]

And 2009 > 2007

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Please note dates. September != April.

I'm attempting to bring it to the attention of someone so that, just maybe, someone will actually have another link to the ruling so that I can read it. Next time I'll remember just to keep my mouth shut and not be able to learna damn thing.

 

[marksman]

if you thinks this is confusing, as a New York lawyer why his Court of Appeals is higher than his Supreme Court.

Because, in NY, the "Supreme Court" only references it being "supreme" to other trial-level courts, like civil court, traffic court, housing court, village court, etc. See? That wasn't confusing at all.

New York simply set up its court systems in the 1600's, well before the US Constitution declared the Judiciary to be embodied in a "Supreme Court of the United States" with the trial courts below it.

In most States the trial court is the "Superior Court", which is inferior to the Appellate Courts (which are inferior to the Supreme Court). They are called that because they are "superior" to the other trial courts. New York just picked "supreme" instead of "superior".

The federal courts are the least confusing. They named their courts after jurisdictions. The lower courts accept all cases in a judicial district and this are called "District Courts". The appellate courts are divided into circuits and are thus called "Circuit Courts". And they are all inferior to the highest court in the land, the "Supreme Court". (Well, except there are separate Bankruptcy Courts in each district... okay. It's a little confusing.)

 

[Brown]

The link to where the opinion is expected to be is:

http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Opinions/

Click "Most Recent Opinions."

As of this writing, the opinion is not there yet. There is a notice, however, that an opinion in the case of Varnum v. Brien is expected to be filed on April 3.

As indicated in a story in the Des Moines Register, the Court is gearing up for the inevitable protests, whatever the result may be.

The judicial building and the surrounding grounds “are not public forums for private use,” court administrators said in a written statement. “The judicial branch reserves the right to restrict private activities in the building and on its adjoining grounds to ensure the administration of justice at all stages is free from disruption, interference, and undue influence.”

Activities such as press conferences, rallies and other public gatherings will be confined to the lower terrace on the building’s north end, and the public sidewalk adjacent to Court Avenue, court administrators said. Access to the building must remain “open and unobstructed at all times,” the statement said.

When a decision involving intense emotion and heightened public interest is decided, news organizations and political activists rush to report what the Court said. This often leads to misleading reporting, because it may take hours to give a court opinion due consideration and analysis.

Nevertheless, chances are that folks will look first at the cover page of the opinion. "AFFIRMED" means that the lower court's decision was upheld and prohibitions on gay marriage are unconstitutional under the Iowa constitution. But if the result is anything else ("REVERSED AND REMANDED," AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED," etc.), then that means: You have to read the opinion to see what the Court did. It does NOT necessarily mean that the gay marriage ban is constitutional.

Those skimming the opinion are also usually interested in how many justices voted each way. In Iowa, there are split decisions, just as there are in the US Supreme Court. But Iowa has a history of trying to issue unanimous opinions in as many cases as possible. (A few years ago, Chief Justice Roberts announced that he would try to achieve more uniformity of assent to opinions from the US Supreme Court. So far, he has failed. But Iowa has a history of success.)

If the decision is "AFFIRMED," I think it is possible but tending toward unlikely that the decision will be unanimous. If the decision is anything else, I think it is possible but moderately likely that the decision will be unanimous.

 

[jj]

Of course the judge will be harshly villified.

A losing district attorney commented, after the judge ruled, that this matter should not be decided by a judge.

Yeah, so WHO is supposed to rule on matters of law? Pat Robertson?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, so WHO is supposed to rule on matters of law? Pat Robertson?

By who ever makes the right decision obviously.