RECENT  POSTS:  » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years » Video: Mississippian who made soldier his lifestyle choice seeks freedom based on unchosen orientation » One of America's most anti-gay organizations rallies for the Duggars; because of course they would » Photo: Stop! Turn around! Don't let NOM force you onto the dead-end pier that is their cause!  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/18/2010

Iowa For Freedom: Comment moderation perfect metaphor for campaign itself

by Jeremy Hooper

Well of course they still haven't posted either of the two (perfectly fair, in no way inflammatory) comments that we have left in their supposedly open forum. But the so-called "Iowa For Screen Shot 2010-10-18 At 11.17.42 AmFreedom" coalition has, in a completely separate post, put forth three of their readers' arguments for voting out judges who did nothing more than join the unanimous opinion that removed gender discrimination from the state's civil marriage laws:

Last week we asked, “why do you oppose judicial activism?” Below are a few great responses:

Bret V. writes, "Because judges are not elected. Therefore they can't be held accountable to the people. The judiciary is not supposed to represent one side or the other. They are to look unbiased at the law, period."

Ed B. writes, "Somehow, we've been convinced over the years that there are not three equal branches of government. We've forgotten that the judiciary isn't superior to the executive or legislative. Their function is NOT to make law! Fortunately, Iowa has a mechanism to remedy judicial appointees that don't understand this fact."

Bev S. writes, ""The end of the rule of law is the beginning of tyranny." quote from west wall of Iowa Capitol Rotunda."

Why Do You Oppose Judicial Activism? (a new post where they've posted these supposed comments, rather than let them play out in the old post's open comments section the way true "freedom" would) [IFF]

Okay, let's see here:

Bret V.: By "represent one side or the other," you must mean decide on cases on the bases of the arguments and evidence presented to the courts. Because that's all the seven member Varnum panel did. And yes, it's EXACTLY what the court is supposed to do! To a tee.

Ed B.: No, you who carelessly toss around the "judicial activism" claim have just undermined the role that one certain co-equal branch of government plays in civil rights. Nobody is saying that the judiciary should be superior. Nobody is asking the judges to make marriage law. We are simply asking the judiciary to play the exact same role that is has throughout civil rights history. A role that disallows the other branches of government from passing or executing laws that don't mesh with constitutional guarantees, and proudly prevents "the people" from overstepping the bounds of responsible citizenship!

Bev S.: The rule of law is exactly what the Iowa For Freedom coalition is lashing out against! Those who oppose civil marriage equality for LGBT couples do not want equal protection and due process to apply to same-sex duos. Period. True tyranny would be allowing a minority group's civil marriage right to be definitively decided by one, largely faith-based majority vote.


Oh, and Iowa For Freedom: It's pretty ironic that you all are so aggressively lashing out against judges and making this all about "the people" and "democracy," when you have appointed yourselves the judge and jury of what kinds of comments you will allow to weigh in on this matter, even though a democratic forum with only the most fair and understandable of limitations would be easier, more transparent, and more in the spirit of the national dialogue that you pretend to crave!

Screen Shot 2010-10-18 At 11.17.31 Am-1
***

*UPDATE: Now IFF has allowed one other comment to go up on their old post (the one where both our and the above three comments should have appeared). But not our response to it:

(forgive the grammatical error in the 2nd line -- should be "have" not "has")
Screen Shot 2010-10-18 At 10.37.32 Am

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails