RECENT  POSTS:  » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org » PFOX rebrands; into group play, seemingly » Audio: Listen to this ADF spinmeister and his anti-gay spin » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead » Congressional right wing's right-side-of-history whip count: 8–271 » NOM, Manhattan Declaration turn Unitarian's anti-slavery, anti-war into pro-discrimination anthem » Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera tease America's coming anti-gay street revolts » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam  

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

10/07/2010

Video: Iowa for [denying courts should play same exact roles they played in other minority rights fights]

by Jeremy Hooper

To sum up what Iowa For Freedom's Bob Vander Plaats and WHO radio's Jen Green are saying in the following video: LGBT people have no right or responsibility to use the court system to keep discrimination in check. Not in California, not in Iowa, not in the the Florida adoption matter. To hear Vander Plaats and Green tell it, those who invoke "the laws of nature and nature's God" are simply not beholden to the constitutional assessments from one co-equal branch of government. At least not until "the people©" get to say if the constitution, as written, is hetero-y enough for their liking.

Have a listen:

How could using the retention vote be an abuse, Jen? Oh, in practical terms, no, the right to vote itself is not an abuse. But when one group who is motivated 100% by faith-based discrimination against LGBT people joins forces with anti-LGBT organizations like American Family Association and the National Organization For Marriage to vindictively oust judges who did nothing more than cast one opinion that supports a minority population in ways that they themselves do not? Well again: That's not an overstep in terms of the rights of citizenship, a role that allows people to cast a vote for whatever reason. But it is a completely callous, anti-intellectual, anti-civic, unprovoked, undeserved bout of retribution that is based on personal biases, not a fair, well-rounded assessment of the judges' overall performance. And that's what we're saying about this current effort. It's not that those who wish to deny gay people of rights CAN'T act like this one vote is the only way to drain the piss form their Iowa cornflakes. It's to say that they, as non-persecuted members of a state that includes good and decent LGBT neighbors, simply shouldn't act so damn unneighborly!

This Iowa For Freedom effort is all about providing a catharsis to the anti-marriage equality set, in hopes of keeping the momentum going until they someday get to turn this unanimous court ruling into a popularity contest. Also, as everyone involved admits: It's all about making an example of these judges, so as to send a message to the rest of the nation. That might be an acceptable thing to do, if the Iowa Supreme Court were a cheating ex-boyfriend and this vote were an effigial voodoo doll. But the fair and independent judiciary should probably command just an eensy bit more head voice and a little less personal heart fire than Iowa For Freedom is affording it.

***

*Oh, and about that David Barton who Vander Plaats mentions at 2:21: Right Wing Radio Host David Barton: Government Should 'Regulate Homosexuality' [Towle]

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