Leave a Comment Sagesse
Deconstructing Iowa for Freedom’s straw man argument
October 28, 2010
Cross-posted at Good As You.
By Jeremy Hooper
The Iowa Supreme Court didn’t make law. They didn’t execute law. They most certainly didn’t amend the constitution. In the 2009 marriage equality decision, the unanimous panel of justices did nothing more than determine that the “protect marriage” crowd has no constitutionally kosher reason for denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples (i.e. they did their jobs):
Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has
been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding
plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on
sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the
fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.
This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection
analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative
classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.
Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the
remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner
allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil
marriage.VI. Conclusion.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa
Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of
procedendo.33
AFFIRMED.
All justices concur.
Varnum decision [G-A-Y]
The “protect marriage” folks are the ones who are trying to amend the constitution, in order to turn the state’s most precious governing document into a weapon that will bind the court’s gavels and ultimately de-bond the state’s same-sex unions. The “protect marriage” kiddos are the ones trying to declare themselves the judge, jury, and executor of a civil marriage system that’s governed largely by personal faith views. The protect equality (and fear quote usage) team is the one defending minority rights from majority tyranny, fair-minded courts from wrong-headed retribution, and civics from incivility.
But Bob Vander Plaats, the current Iowa For Freedom head and a former high school principal himself, doesn’t want you to realize that his side failed to make winnable arguments in court, or that the same court is continuing the independent judiciary’s long history of ensuring minority rights are upheld in this country. Instead, he wants to continue reducing the Iowa matter to a false “people vs. the courts” meme in a way that confuses adults and middle schoolers alike:
“Middle School Civics teaches us that it is the power of the legislature, who represents the people, to make law. The executive authority to execute law belongs to the governor. And, most importantly, it is only the people who are authorized to amend the constitution.
The Iowa Supreme Court is granted none of these powers by our constitution. Yet, this unelected body usurped the powers granted to the legislature, to the governor, and to the people when they ruled Iowa to be a “same sex” marriage state. If judges can redefine marriage, they can redefine who should pay taxes and how much, who can own and carry a gun and whose private property rights get protected – or do not.“
ALL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE [Iowa For Freedom]
Can judges hear arguments in cases of tax law, gun ownership, or private property rights? Well yea. Duh. But why is that presented as a straw man negative that’s meant to punish evangelical conservatives!? Our courts hear cases on any number of matters. Again: That is the role! But the outcome is determined by legal merit, not some sort of “let’s get ‘em” mentality. That vindictive mentality belongs to the team that wants to hurt gay people and their allies in the equality fight, co-equal branches of government be damned!
If we had to choose the most annoying aspect of this current Iowa For Freedom campaign (which is kind of like choosing our favorite to indoctrinate), it has to be this complete removal of merit from the conversation. Vander Plaats and company never talk about the fact that every situation must pass legal muster in order to move forward: Instead, they want the high court jurists to sound like willy nilly rogues who all went to law school at Personal Liberal Whim U.
Filed under: NOM Exposed,NOM Tour Tracker-Iowa,Right-wing
60 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ann S. | October 28, 2010 at 4:14 am
Let's hear it for an independent judiciary!
Vote YES YES YES to retain judges!
2.
Ann S. | October 28, 2010 at 4:14 am
(and check the box)
3.
Kathleen | October 28, 2010 at 4:17 am
√
4.
Jonathan H | October 28, 2010 at 4:27 am
Sometimes I'm very frustrated by my inability to understand this sort of thinking. Other times, I'm glad I can't warp my mind to that level.
Yeah, I just hate subscribing without saying anything.
5.
Gregory in Salt Lake | October 28, 2010 at 4:30 am
subs AND WAY OFF TOPIC….
in addition to "it gets better" our local PFLAG president introduced me to "Different but AMAZING"… passing along because I found uplifting and perfect antidote to the hate videos we've been review past few days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K96U0Y-KZGY&fe…
more videos here: http://differentisamazing.com/
((HUGS All!))
6.
Ronnie | October 28, 2010 at 4:36 am
"Iowa for Freedom"
Yeah I still do not see where "Freedom" stands for …
Fascist..Reich..&..Erroneous..Evil..Dictators..Oppressing..Mortals
: I …Ronnie
7.
Mouse | October 28, 2010 at 4:41 am
Freedom from homosexuals, of course.
Has Clint McCrance been fired yet?
8.
Sagesse | October 28, 2010 at 4:42 am
Subscribing to read later.
9.
Kathleen | October 28, 2010 at 4:44 am
They can't fire him; he's elected. The pressure is on to get him to resign. He hasn't yet.
10.
nightshayde | October 28, 2010 at 4:49 am
I'm still rooting for a lightning strike.
11.
StraightForEquality | October 28, 2010 at 4:52 am
✍
12.
Anonygrl | October 28, 2010 at 4:53 am
Probably because Clint wants homosexuals to apologize to him for their provoking him into writing that fb post.
That is the latest tactic, right?
13.
Ann S. | October 28, 2010 at 4:54 am
That's working so well for Ginnie Thomas and the Kentucky Stomper.
Oh, wait . . .
14.
Ben | October 28, 2010 at 4:55 am
We can simulate one, you know. Just get a Van der Graaf generator — or another similar type of device — hidden in his office, turn it to an extremely high setting, and get an opposing charge built up in the bastard, maybe putting an opposing charge on his chair or some such. If we can get the voltage to pass across his chest, it'll stop his heart (if it's high enough, and he probably isn't in peak shape). However, I don't think this is a feasible plan, nor do I really condone murder.
15.
Cat | October 28, 2010 at 5:02 am
It's really scary to see how some people are desiring a 'democracy' where everything is decided by a simple majority vote of the people. That is of course until they find out that it can also be used by others to restrict their rights…
Voting on judges by the public is the wrong way to implement a means for removing judges who fail at their job. Having three separate branches of government that can't just fire each other willy-nilly is based on centuries of experience, but some people are willing to ignore all the problems this "fourth branch" will cause, just to win a single issue. Now judges are voted on based on the decision they make, and not on whether they arrived at their decision in a proper and responsible manner.
16.
Michelle Evans | October 28, 2010 at 5:25 am
I was hoping that someone can provide the context for one of the things being said on the JudgeBus tour. They keep using the word unimagined, I believe it is, to say how the judges made their decision, and thus how they supposedly pulled the right to same gender marriage out of thin air.
Does anyone here have the context of that quote within the Iowa decision?
17.
nightshayde | October 28, 2010 at 5:28 am
I really want nature, itself, to take this bastard out.
1. If an actual person bumps him off, he/she would likely get into trouble.
2. If an actual pro-equality person bumps him off, it will make us all look bad.
3. Safety.
4. If he is felled by some sort of natural phenomenon, we can all point & laugh, & say that God did it because he/she was clearly displeased with the fact that this idiot is using oxygen so many other creatures could put to much better use.
18.
Michelle Evans | October 28, 2010 at 5:28 am
Don't know if anyone has gotten the latest email from the idiot brown shirt Brian Brown, but I found it very interesting in the apparent lies he states–yet again. It is my understanding that he left the tour almost immediately, and yet in his email message, he keeps ta;ling about how he is still there and witnessing all the goings on personally.
Gee, maybe he is still with the tour, he just is hiding out from Arisha on the bus so he won't have to answer any actual, real, logical questions. Of course, knowing that BB is hiding in a closet is nothing new.
19.
nightshayde | October 28, 2010 at 5:36 am
I don't know that there's a single quote from the Iowa decision — but I know many of the pro-discrimination folks (teabaggers included) rail about courts interpreting the Constitution in ways they don't think the Founding Fathers meant for the Constitution to be interpreted.
We all know that's doublespeak for "the courts keep telling us we have to be nice to those icky sinful gay folks," but the sheeple aren't quite bright enough to figure that out.
Whenever they do this, they seem to conveniently forget that the Founding Fathers (at least some of them) were ok with the concept of some human beings owning other human beings and with the idea that women are not equal to men. Of course, I'm sure many of them still think whites are superior to other races, that the races should not intermingle, that their particular brand(s) of Christianity should be the basis for all laws in this country, and that women should go back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
20.
nightshayde | October 28, 2010 at 5:38 am
I'd say you should stick with being glad you can't warp your mind to that level.
You can't understand that sort of thinking because you are a rational person who can actually think in a critical manner — and do it for yourself.
21.
Richard A. Walter (s | October 28, 2010 at 5:38 am
These are the same folks who claim they are only trying to protect marriage, yet their actions over the past several years have proven that their ultimate goal is our total extermination. This is the same group of people who praise the government of Uganda because of the Death penalty for gays in Uganda. They want the same thing here.
22.
nightshayde | October 28, 2010 at 5:38 am
Well yes — the darn gays and their rabid homosexual activist friends are all mean and nasty for putting him in a spotlight.
23.
Kathleen | October 28, 2010 at 5:39 am
I've always just taken it to mean that the judges have found rights protected by the Constitution (in this case, the state's constitution) that the original drafters didn't imagine they were protecting.
24.
Mouse | October 28, 2010 at 5:50 am
You got it, Nightshayde. If you ignore all of their behavior and don't believe that actions have consequences, or that they should, then you can make a totally convincing argument to stupid people that we're the bullies and they're the victims.
That makes them so happy, because they want so desperately to be crucified so they can be more like Jesus than everybody else, although they prefer that their crucifixion not use actual nails and avoid actual suffering. They really just need to go through the motions of having suffered more than everybody else so they can feel superior for their righteousness.
25.
Michelle Evans | October 28, 2010 at 5:50 am
I'm sure that is the meaning. I was just hoping to get the actual quote from the decision. The NOMbies keep using the judges word "unimaginable" but they always fail to give the full quote.
26.
Anonygrl | October 28, 2010 at 5:53 am
Yes, I believe you are correct. I think what conservatives conceive 'unimagined' to mean that the framers of the Constitution never imagined a particular scenario, so the Constitution should not be used to cover the issue.
It is a tactic used by strict constitutionalists, who resemble, in many ways, and often are biblical fundamentalists. It is the same nonsense that Christine O'Donnell recently got nabbed for when she tried to use the "where does it say 'separation of church and state' in the Constitution?" silliness in front of a room full of lawyers and law students. Strict constitutionalists believe that the Constitution is NOT a living document, that it is static and must be used exactly as it was written.
It is an extremely difficult position to maintain in our country, where society has grown, laws have changed, judicial interpretation has evolved…
27.
Mouse | October 28, 2010 at 5:55 am
I might rethink my "There's no such thing as god" platform if lightning struck him dead.
It's not that I wish him dead (as I would much rather he live to suffer the consequences of his actions), but if god proved her existence to me by lightning bolting this McClance, I would apologize for ever doubting she existed and go tell everyone she's real and she's badass.
28.
Judy | October 28, 2010 at 6:16 am
To combat this idea of "unimagined" interpretation, Rachel Maddow, on her TV show, found one of the original writers of the Alaska constitution (the state is only 50 years old). He spelled out clearly that constitutions are meant to be living, changing documents. He went on to say the many ways things have changed in the last 50 years, which demand newly imagined applications. Here is someone who wrote it, saying it needs to be a living document.
29.
John B. | October 28, 2010 at 6:28 am
In a nutshell, the Iowa Supreme Court did not "make law" because the marriage laws already exist. They merely determined that these EXISTING laws must apply as equally to same-sex couples as they do to opposite-sex couples.
30.
JonT | October 28, 2010 at 6:28 am
☮
31.
Hank (NYC) | October 28, 2010 at 6:58 am
NOM and their ilk all have problems with the truth. Truth and facts are all about spin to the nombies.
32.
grod | October 28, 2010 at 7:00 am
@Cat
Did the Judge(s) arrived at his/her decision in a proper and responsible manner?
In the last days of this campaign, how can that statement be turned into the 'ballot question'?
33.
Cat | October 28, 2010 at 7:35 am
I haven't read the decision, nor followed the trial much, so I can't say. It's common sense to believe they did do their job well, unless there's proof otherwise. And I haven't seen or heard any… Screaming "activist judge!" doesn't provide much basis.
Not sure what you mean by your second question… It seems there is a strong "Yes Yes Yes" front in Iowa, so let's hope they out-voice the "No No No" camp.
34.
book in Tracy | October 28, 2010 at 7:57 am
Sounds like the way they interpret the Bible, too!
35.
Steve | October 28, 2010 at 8:28 am
You don't need living people for that:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
– Thomas Jefferson, 1816
36.
Chris B | October 28, 2010 at 9:55 am
News Flash: The Supreme Court recently DID rule on who can own guns. In a court case, they threw out a DC law that prohibited hand guns.
And if the legislature made a law that declared Catholicism or the Baptist religion illegal, the Courts would DEFY the will of the legislature and throw out that law too, because it is unconstitutional.
That's the "checks-and-balances" part of the system.
The truth is, the judges ruled in a way you don't like, so you want to punish them. Idiots.
37.
Rhie | October 28, 2010 at 10:19 am
Not even a majority, in most cases. Prop 8 was decided by a plurality. That is why we have legislatures. The general public cannot be trusted to vote as a group for the good of the county, state or country,
The courts are also the check for tyranny of the majority by ruling with the Constitution and precedent even when the will of the people is against it. That's what they are doing here.
38.
Rhie | October 28, 2010 at 10:22 am
Or the icky women or the icky people of color or…
It's the same argument used against those groups. It was wrong then, and wrong now.
39.
Rhie | October 28, 2010 at 10:25 am
That always makes me laugh. If the Founders didn't intend for the Constitution to change and expand as our country did then why did they write in a process for amending it?
40.
Ann S. | October 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
Well, I certainly have heard the argument made that only rights that were originally in the Constitution OR added by amendment are really rights.
Strict constructionists — I don't get them. I have to wonder if they're really sincere, because they seem capable of being quite "activist" if they feel like it. Scalia, I'm looking at you.
41.
Rhie | October 28, 2010 at 10:29 am
And, how about the Constitution itself?
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Why have this if it is intended to be static?
If they want to talk precedent, just point out that the Constitution couldn't even be ratified without amending it ten times – the Bill of Rights.
42.
Rhie | October 28, 2010 at 11:08 am
So wait. One the one hand they say they know for a fact that the Founders intended the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to stay the way it is forever and ever. On the other they say that amendments 11 on are legitimate as well even though some contradict each other?
As Spock says, that is illogical.
43.
Jonathan H | October 28, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Ann S.
At least one of the Founders (Hamilton?) was opposed to a Bill of Rights for that reason, he thought specifically providing for some rights would be used to claim that no others exist or are guaranteed. As a compromise we got the 9th Amendment:
This has usually been interpreted to mean that if a right isn't mentioned in the constitution or otherwise isn't addressed by law, then we are assumed to have it.
I've pointed out the 9th to the sort of people you mention, and while they pretty unanimously claim that it doesn't mean that, they never can explain what it does mean.
44.
Ann S. | October 28, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Jonathan, I think we should start a "Ninthers" movement. If there can be "birthers" and "Tenthers", how about "Ninthers"?
45.
Jonathan H | October 28, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Ninthers! Heheh, count me in, Ann!
46.
Rhie | October 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I like it!
47.
Kathleen | October 28, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Michelle, I found this in the Varnum decision (Iowa's Supreme Court case which extended marriage rights to ss couples)
"Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time."
48.
elliom | October 29, 2010 at 2:42 am
What's more, the courts are only doing their job. Read the US Constitutuion. There's no doctrine of judicial review there either. But then read the decision in Maybury v. Madison. SCOTUS ruled that it definately IS the job of the courts to say what the law is, and to invalidate laws contrary to the Constitution. What's more, judges are appointed, not elected, PRECISELY to insulate them from fads and trends, so they may apply the law impartially.
.Back to Vander Plaats' statement, let me finish it for you, 'cause you left something out:
<cite>Middle School Civics teaches us that it is the power of the legislature, who represents the people, to make law. The executive authority to execute law belongs to the governor. The right to interpret the law is the providence of the courts And, most importantly, it is only the people who are authorized to amend the constitution.</cite>
I guess it's time you go back to Middle School. You seem to have forgotten some things.
49.
elliom | October 29, 2010 at 3:06 am
Ninthers. I like it…I REALLY like it.
This one amendment belies all constructionist arguments about only those rights enumerated are protected. ALL rights are protected, enumerated or not. Rights not recognized in the past are still rights, and were as unconstitutional then as they are now, we just didn't realize it at the time.
I also believe the constructionism is at odds with, and can't really survive under, a common law system such that the US has. Our law is fluid, relying as much on precedent as on legislation. As such, our law cannot be static and unchanging, as this is contradictory to reality. The Constitution was written such that it requires interpretation, as its language is, in many areas, vague and abstract, and the meanings of the words are left open to definition. (eg: What is a "case?" What is a "controversy?") It is the role of the courts to supply those definitions, and as language itself is fluid, those definitions also change over time. The life of the Constitution is build into the document itself.
Had the Framers intended the Constitution to be a static, unchanging, permanent thing, they could have made it so. Other countries have constitutions written in such a way. (eg: France's Code Law system.) They chose otherwise.
50.
elliom | October 29, 2010 at 3:08 am
Need edit button……should read:
and voilations were as unconstitutional then as they are now, we just didn’t realize it at the time.
51.
elliom | October 29, 2010 at 3:24 am
Which brings up a point that I always think is sorta left as a footnote, if even mentioned at all, but it does have potential ramifications (good and bad).
<cite>The Congress, … on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which … shall be valid … as Part of this Constitution, when ratified … by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as [either] Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress….</cite>
Nutshell: There are two ways to amend the Constitution. If 2/3 (or 34) states ask Congress to call a convention, then it has to do so, and if 3/4 (or 38) states ratify in convention, it becomes constitutional law.
How many states have anti-equality amendments? How many more would be willing to call a Constitutional Convention? Are there 13 states willing to vote it down at Convention? Just because this method has never been used doesn't mean it won't ever be used.
52.
Ann S. | October 29, 2010 at 3:29 am
I'm a little frightened of what such a convention might do right now.
53.
Bob | October 29, 2010 at 3:35 am
ditto Ann,
54.
Rhie | October 29, 2010 at 9:43 am
Did you mean to reply to someone else? None of what you say here seems to have anything to do with my comment. Could you explain further? .
I wasn't arguing with the anti-equality bunch. Was there something I said that wasn't clear?
And, I don't need to go back to middle school. Everything I said is correct. You are also correct. Did you think I was disagreeing?
55.
Rhie | October 29, 2010 at 9:46 am
Well put, elliom. Agreed.
56.
Ann S. | October 29, 2010 at 9:48 am
Rhie, I think elliom's comments are more aimed at Vander Plaats.
57.
Richard A. Walter (s | October 29, 2010 at 9:48 am
Here we have someone who is courageous enough to come out and risk everything to save our LGBT teens from bullicide. And he is coming out without being pushed out by scandal. And he did this video with his congregation.
Warning: There are commercials that will interrupt every so often.
http://www.livestream.com/bishopjimswilley/video?…
58.
Rhie | October 29, 2010 at 10:15 am
Ooooh. That makes more sense. I was just confused because it was a reply to me.
Thank you, Ann.
I apologize, elliom for misunderstanding you so much. Sorry!
59.
bigdogbite50 | October 31, 2010 at 11:44 pm
We blacks hate your so call civil rights movement of equality to equate the black agenda and history with homosexuals, pedifiles etc– The rash of suicides seen by your homo community will continue because you can't make what is naturally corrupt incorrupt– these people deaths are on the heads of all who support them- they die now or die later its the fault of the homosexual, lesbian supporter– you should lose lots of sleep– guilty-guilty -guilty– blacks don't like–stop using us as your reason for immorality—
60.
Ronnie | November 1, 2010 at 12:51 am
As someone who is African American & Gay, I say you should shut the f@#k up you Fascist homophobic murdering pig. You don't speak for all of us. You only speak for yourself, you selfish, un-American POS……You have their blood on your hands trash bag.
hahahhaa…you think you're a "moral" person…right….& rocks have ears…f@#K off Triple K wannabe…. >I ….Ronnie
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.