RECENT  POSTS:  » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama  

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

10/30/2010

Video: Hey Iowa For Freedom: Rejecting state DOMA law doesn't mean ignoring it!

by Jeremy Hooper

Here's some more proud point-missing from the Iowa For Freedom coalition. This time from a voter who believes the state Supreme Court justices "ignored" the DOMA law, even if in reality, the Varnum panel quite openly and honestly found the law to be unconstitutional:

The down and dirty fact is that social conservatives tend to think any and all laws ever made that go against LGBT people and their rights are somehow cast in indelible stone, the likes of which can only to be reconsidered by a 50%+1 vote of "the people." In this mindset, the only decision that any court can reach that's in accord with righteousness is a decision that says, for the first time in American history's clearly archived inevitability, that a minority group's civil freedoms are to be ultimately determined by a majority of (largely) faith-motivated voters. As in always. As in only.

And it's not just in states where courts roll back prior bans, either. In jurisdictions like Maine, where legislators reversed bias and implemented civil freedom, these same suspects come out of the political woodwork, this time decrying the "activist legislature" as opposed to the "activist court." So don't be fooled into thinking it's only the judiciary that's the "bad branch" in the "pro-family" community's eyes. It's *any* branch that opens its eyes to equal protection and due process. It's *any* branch that does the right thing for America and her populace.

Now In Iowa, voters have a chance to do the right thing with this retention vote. And I'm not even saying that the right thing here is to automatically cast a "yes" vote for the three justices up for retention. No, no -- the right thing is to look at the judge's full record and to cast a vote based on a fleshed out, far-reaching assessment of the individual jurist's merits, and not a monolithic vote based on vindictive spite for the one certain pro-equality opinion.

***

*SEE ALSO: Our complete Iowa For Freedom Archive

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