Memo to R.S.: This is not an ouster, but a retention vote. What happens if they are not retained? --- someone else gets appointed. If they legislate from the bench they should not be retained as well. The people through their elected Legislators have the right and the duty to place limits on human behavior. This we call making LAW. The Legislature determined that the word marriage and the union thereof should be protected; hence they passed a law to do just that. That the State did not put up an effective argument to the Court is not remarkable owing that the AG is a Democrat and very likely his stable of Attorneys are like minded.
It is an insult to the people that the “narrative” is used to misdirect and discredit the move to not retain three judges (eventually all) on the Iowa Supreme Court. The “narrative” i.e. to marginalize, criticize and demonize the opposition. With that being done a constructive debate is not possible; a clever move by the Progressives.
This brings me to my question. It seems to me that society and lawmakers have not only the right but responsibility to determine which couple can claim the title -- married. i.e. we do not allow adults to marry children [whose rights are violated here?], we do not allow brother and sister to marry [whose rights are violated here?], we do not allow 1st cousins to marry [whose rights are violated here?], we don't allow multiple spouses [whose rights are violated here?].
As I learned during our trip to Alaska this past June Eskimo Tribes have rules as well. A Beaver can not marry a Beaver, nor an Eagle marry a Eagle, but a Beaver is free to marry an Eagle and an Eagle is free to marry a Beaver.
To me this is not a deal about rights ( as I have attempted to point out in these paragraphs), but about tradition and what is good for the society as a whole.
I may be in error, but there is no right that my spouse has or I have as her spouse that can not be granted by a lawyer drawing up the proper papers for the individuals involved.
So then -- what is this deal all about?
I am not able to answer that question because of all the “used oats” scattered around by the homosexual lobby. Perhaps it is just as simple as -- having the State legitimize their union which many religious people find to be against the order of God as found in Moses' Book of Genesis. It is beyond my ability to stop same sex fornication. They can call this union something else --- anything but marriage, which to me is reserved for a man and a woman together. In my Church marriage is a sacrament, a grace given by God. So then the Iowa Court was wrong in this decision and the Legislature (Governor signing same) was and is correct in determining who can claim the title -- married.
Regards,
John Stiegelmeyer
Vinton
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".
After reading your rambling manifasto, I have to ask what are you putting in your TEA. Nothing is the ruling requires churches to perform same-sex marriages. It is interesting to me that those wanting strict adherance to the Constitution, state and federal, unless they disagree with what the Constitution says. The Iowa Constitution strictly states that it is unlawful to discriminate against a segment of society. Either you beleive in the Constitution or not. tea partiers and the right wing can not have it both ways. John, please tell be specifically how the ruling to permit same-sex marriage has adversly affected your marriage. If you say it hasn\'t, what then are you afraid of?
JS