Posts Tagged ‘Iowa Supreme Court’

Judges Fired!

November 4, 2010

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

Iowa’s Opportunity

October 28, 2010

Iowa has an opportunity on November 2nd to send a message to the judicial world.   Three of the judges responsible for gay marriage becoming a reality in Iowa are on the ballot this coming Tuesday.  If enough Iowans vote “no” on the ballot, these three judges will be removed from Iowa’s Supreme Court.  It will not repeal the law, but it would send the message that judicial activism will not be tolerated.  Why do I call the legalization of gay marriage an example of judicial activism?  Iowa became one of a handful of states to allow gay marriage, not because of legislative action, nor by a vote of the people, but because of the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court.  When something that was illegal for over one hundred and fifty years, becomes legal, by the decree of a small group of judges, that is judicial activism to me.

It should not be tolerated.

 

Judging Judges

August 25, 2010

This November, in Iowa, three of the judges that made the decision to allow gay marriage in Iowa will be on the ballot.  The people of the state are given the opportunity to ratify their appointment, or not.  This is an opportunity to express how we feel about their work.  It will not change any laws, but it may send a message about what the majority of the  public thinks about their decision.  This could make a difference in what happens in other states.

The Iowa Supreme Court  created something new in our state by allowing gay marriages.  It is my opinion that the judges exceeded their authority.  I am glad that I will have the opportunity to express my opinion with my vote in November.

It may be legal, but it’s still a sin

April 27, 2009

Today in Iowa, gay couples can apply for marriage licenses.  It is now  legal for two men, or two women to get married in Iowa.  The state supreme court made that decision.  It was the result of much hard, well planned, work by a group of gay activists, some from outside of the state.

It may be legal, but it is still a sin.

Leviticus 18:22 says “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.  It is an abomination.” 

This passage is quite clear.  The penalty for practicing homosexuality under Mosaic law was death.    Some say, correctly, that Jesus never addressed the topic of homosexuality.  There was no reason for Jesus to address the issue with a Jewish audience.  It was not an issue up for consideration. 

Others may say that we are not under the Mosaic law.  They are correct. However Paul, whose primary work was with Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire, which widely accepted homosexual practice,  is quite clear in addressing the issue. 

I Corinthians 6:9-10 says “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.  Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 

Lawyers may have been successful with their arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court, but ultimately it is God, to whom we will answer.