Judges Fired!

On Tuesday, November 2nd, Iowa voters decided the fate of three of the seven judges who decided that Iowa should legalize gay marriage.

They were fired.

Hopefully this will send a message throughout the country that the people do not want a small handful of people making decisions of that type, and  magnitude, in that fashion.  The decision of seven people did not strike down a new law, but in effect, created a new law of the land.  The attempt by legislatures to put into writing what had been the common practice, understanding, and law, of the state for one hundred and fifty years should not have been declared unconstitutional.

I am surprised by the observed response of the media.  It has been kept pretty quiet.  You would think that something that has never happened before would be a bigger story.  It has been a strange response.  I am curious to see what will be the ramifications of this action of the people of Iowa.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to “Judges Fired!”

  1. NotAScientist Says:

    “Hopefully this will send a message”

    It did. And that message is it shouldn’t be a question for local areas and states. Gay marriage should be legalized nationally and be done with it. When opponents of SSM finally realize that absolutely nothing has changed for them, they may finally settle down.

    • Pastor Curt Says:

      The message is that a handful of judges should not make this decision on a local, state or national level.

      What would change is the public definition of marriage, and obviously, some people still feel strongly that marriage is between one man and one woman.

      • NotAScientist Says:

        What would change is the government’s definition of marriage.

        Your personal definition, or the definition of your church, could be whatever it wants. As no one is legally preventing one man and one woman from getting married, nothing would change for you.

        Not liking what other people are allowed to do, I’m sorry, isn’t good enough.

      • Pastor Curt Says:

        First, thank you for maintaining a civil tone in your response. I appreciate it.

        I recognize that a man and a woman can still get married, and that I do not have to perform gay marriages, nor even change my religious view on the topic.

        My concern is based on two reasons, religious and philosophical. Religiously, I believe that homosexual acts in humans are sinful. The more that we tolerate and practice sin, the closer we draw to suffering serious consequences. Philosophically, I believe that the foundation of a strong society are strong families. Strong families are comprised ideally of two parents (male and female) in a loving, lifelong commitment, maintaining relationships with their children and extended families.

        Over the years our society has deteriorated in many ways. Sin of many varieties abounds. Families are not at all what they should be in an ideal world. Of course, this world is not ideal, and many people do not share my religious views, but one of the wonders of democracy is that we can express our opinions and beliefs about what society should be, and maybe, sometimes, our voice may make a difference.

  2. John Anngeister Says:

    You fired them for doing their duty. It’s your constitution that you don’t like, obviously. I think the firing of the judges is due process for your anti-constitution majority in that state, and I have no problem with the people speaking out in this way, but it’s clear they don’t understand what a court system is supposed to do – protect folks from angy majorities who wish to set the constitution aside.

    Firing the judges is much better than letting that kind of self-righteous majority re-write the constitution.

    Most of the country thinks Iowa is pretty stupid (by the way).

    • Pastor Curt Says:

      They were fired because we believe that they overreached their authority. It was not considered unconstitutional for marriage to be between one man and one woman for all the years prior to their decision. They created something new, something that doesn’t exist is most of the rest of the country.

      Some have suggested making an amendment to the constitution as an option. Isn’t democracy wonderful?

      Insults do not support your argument.

      • NotAScientist Says:

        “It was not considered unconstitutional for marriage to be between one man and one woman for all the years prior to their decision.”

        And it still isn’t unconstitutional for marriage to be between one man and one woman. Only now it is constitutional for it to be between two men or two women also.

      • Pastor Curt Says:

        I should have said “exclusively” between one man and one woman.

      • John Anngeister Says:

        I am very sorry for that ‘stupid’ remark – it looked like I was calling the whole state stupid. I was thoughtlessly refunding a remark made by another Iowan blogger on the subject of these judicial recalls.

        But it’s clear you do not understand the basic principle of judicial protection against the tyranny of majorities. Getting that kind of protection is the whole reason for writing constitutions. If your group ever finally dwindled to the point where you were really a persecuted minority (like our Savior) you would see more clearly that the majority view of sin and error should have nothing to do with a state’s constitution.

        I think your concern with sin is the crux of the matter, and your attitude toward your book on sin is what has disabled the thinking of the evangelicals in this question. But my previous paragraph points out that its not about sin and error, but about preventing majorities from attacking folks who don’t agree with them.

      • Pastor Curt Says:

        This post originally addresses the belief that the majority of Iowans believe that the court went beyond its’ authority. The legislative action was not outlawing homosexual activity, nor preventing anyone from living in a committed lifelong relationship with a partner of the same sex, nor preventing people in such relationships from getting housing, nor jobs. It was merely putting into writing what had been the accepted practice since the state’s inception. An understanding which is still the law in the vast majority of the United States, and indeed the world.

      • John Anngeister Says:

        ‘putting into writing’ you say

        But lawmaking is a much more serious matter than these sorts of symbolic gestures which claim they are only putting things in writing.

        As soon as symbolic gestures become laws, they are subject to the court’s review.

        And thank you for conducting this discussion with such cool-headedness. I would never have shown up here if you hadn’t tagged your post as ‘philosophy’. None of your other tags are on my tag-surfer. But I had to take issue when I sensed you were using the word ‘philosophy’ to stand for folksy prejudice. Then I dropped the ‘S’ word like a fool. Thanks again for allowing discussion.

      • Pastor Curt Says:

        So without the “symbolic gesture” there would be no gay marriage in Iowa, and that would not be unconstitutional? Yet the striking down of a “symbolic gesture” established a new law allowing gay marriage? That may have been right in the eyes of a few judges, but not in the view of 55% of Iowans. Our government is a system of checks and balances. It is fortunate for us in Iowa that we have the opportunity to provide a check of the system.

    • Anonymous Says:

      John — most of the country??? you can say that but it does seem to take away any credibility you might have had.

      • John Anngeister Says:

        How convenient for you that I have lost all my credibility.

        ‘Most of the country’ was a reference to the fact that hatred of gays is not yet a majority opinion in the population as a whole. But the word ‘stupid’ was a careless repeat of something I read on another blog. I’m sorry about that.

        So you yourself are ‘most of the country’ then? Watch your credibility there.

      • Pastor Curt Says:

        Who said anything about hating gays? Not approving of gay marriage is not the same as the hatred of gays. We are called to offer the love of God to everyone, not hatred.

        Each of us on this blog is expressing their own opinion.

      • annonymous Says:

        My credibility? I did not state my opinion about this matter but certainly I would not presume to think I could speak for ‘most of the country’. I was merely pointing out that that particular comment lends itself to lack of credibility.

        There are people on both sides of this issue. The only real way to know who has the majority is to put it to a vote. Iowa did just that. Now granted it doesn’t change anything but it does give a strong message to a small group of people (7 to be exact) that they DO have to answer for their decisions.

        Apparently marriage is a huge issue for them. Seems like there was an issue in California awhile back also.

        i will state my opinion very clearly on the other matter that you brought up. Hatred of homosexuals ought NOT to be anyone’s opinion. That said I can’t make people feel one way or another. But I can make my voice heard!

      • Pastor Curt Says:

        Gay marriage is a divisive issue and should discussed rationally with wide participation.

  3. NotAScientist Says:

    The problem is that, the way our government works, you cannot outlaw something merely because it is a religious sin. There has to be a demonstration of harm of some sort. Otherwise, something like ‘freedom of speech’ would be outlawed.

    • Pastor Curt Says:

      There are many ways that something is determined to be wrong. Religious proclamation is one way. Utilitarianism (in its’ most basic form) uses pleasure and pain. Conventionalism allows society to determine what is right or wrong. Intuitivism basically says that we can ‘just know’ what is right or wrong. I could go on, but you get the idea. Determining right and wrong is not so simple as “do no harm”.

  4. Gary Says:

    Wow, I am gonna throw my two cents in here.. I dont care what people decide to do amongst themselves in the privacy of their own domain..BUT, as evidence by what is happening with the “lets pass a law that mandates something that is not the majority norm, and force them to like it.” We all know they’ll pass the law and then I will have to accept that kind of thinking as normal. So now a minority has done what they accuse me of doing. My church does not condone sin, why should we pass a law forcing that, because we all know someone will feel slighted and take it to court to fight a battle over it, and with judges like we just fired, they’d probably force my church to marry gay couples and sin against God to make man happy.. From experience this not a wise move. I can bear witness to the consequences for for this type of front. Please pardon my spelling.. I think my computer keyboard is bad..I need a new one.

    • Pastor Curt Says:

      I too, am concerned about the direction society is headed. I will never perform a gay marriage. I am concerned that someday, simply proclaiming that human homosexual activity is a sin will be considered ‘hate speech’ and will become illegal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: