Gay Patriot Header Image

Iowa Voters Reject Justices Who Mandated State Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

In Iowa, voters “removed three justices who participated in a ruling last year that made the state the first in the Midwest” to recognize same-sex marriages. While the governor appoints the justices in the Hawkeye State, they “have to stand for periodic retention votes, a system known as merit selection.

It seems voters approve judges a matter of course, but this time, a coalition of outside advocacy groups pushed for their removal because of their vote on same-sex marriage:

The outcome of the election was heralded both as a statewide repudiation of same-sex marriage and as a national demonstration that conservatives who have long complained about “legislators in robes” are able to effectively target and remove judges who issue unpopular decisions.

Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

“The risk of leapfrogging — or ignoring — public opinion on controversial issues was brought into sharp relief Tuesday,” New York Times writer A.G. Sulzberger observes, “when voters chose to remove all three justices who were on the ballot seeking new terms.”

“They are,” my former fellow Virginia Law Federalist Todd Zywicki writes, “the first Justices who failed to be retained since 1962, when the current system was implemented.”  Todd offers a good discussion of voters’ use of the power of retention, so just read the whole thing.  We could have avoided all this mess if judges deferred such matters to legislators who must answer to the people in biennial elections.

Todd’s post via Glenn Reynolds who offers, “I’m in favor of gay marriage, but I think it’s better that it happen legislatively. On the other hand, had these justices been retained it would have been democratic sanction for the decision. That’s a virtue of elected supreme courts.

Of the legislatures which voted to recognize gay marriage, four chambers changed hands in Tuesday’s balloting, with Republicans winning back both the House and the Senate in New Hampshire and Maine, the former by whopping supermajorities, the latter more narrowly.  The chambers in Vermont did change hands.

Would be interesting to see if the gay marriage vote had any bearing on the Republican gains.  My sense is that voters were more concerned about pocketbook issues; New Hampshire is notorious for tossing out big-government types.

Share

35 Comments

  1. Two things this post makes clear:
    1). Legislatures are unlikely to pass gay marriage because they will likely be removed if they do so, and
    2). The “Gay Patriot” blog is opposed to the only option left, relief from the courts.
    Yet, in California when the state legislators approved of allowing gay citizens to have marriage equality three years ago (before Prop 8), what did the conservatives do? Brought the law to court, but don’t point out that hypocrisy. It doesn’t fit the story line.
    But it shows the real agenda. We’ve seen this before with other minorities.
    In spite of the purist arguments against jurisprudence, sometimes the only place to make sure the constitution is enforced for all is via the courts.

    Comment by equality4all — November 4, 2010 @ 3:52 am - November 4, 2010

  2. Wow, you really don’t like us, equality. We don’t know why the chambers in ME and NH flipped. I would daresay it was the same basic set of issues that caused other legislatures to flip — it’s the big spending.

    I believe this should go through state legislators and expect to find that taxes and spending were more on people’s minds that the relationships a state chooses to recognize as married.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 4, 2010 @ 3:56 am - November 4, 2010

  3. Voters in Oklahoma passed an initiative that bans Shari’a Law in that state. You know, that theocratic set of laws that says gays must be put to death, the same set of laws the Imam of the Ground Zero Mosque (whom so many liberals support) says the USA should be compliant with?

    Comment by V the K — November 4, 2010 @ 6:09 am - November 4, 2010

  4. relief from the courts.

    Maybe if Gay Inc. wasn’t so hellbent on pissing off everybody? You’ve got that act down pat yourself: You come along insulting the blog and everybody on it and piss folks off, then you commence to whining about how mean everybody is.

    It’s mildly amsuing, yet horribly sad at the same time.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 4, 2010 @ 6:31 am - November 4, 2010

  5. equality4none,

    Please point out to me in the constitution where it says ‘straights’ have the ‘right’ to marry. Come on, if you can find it for ‘teh gheys’ I’m sure you can find it for the straights.

    .
    .
    .

    Oh wait, I’m requiring thought, not plattitudes. Sorry.

    The fact of the matter is that the ‘right’ of straights to have their binding legal contracts recognized by the government doesn’t exist. The ‘marriage license’ sold by the government does have limitations on it, defined by the people. Baker v. Nelson (since you love the courts) was a 9-0 decision saying that the definition of marriage was left to the states. So the states can put any restrictions they choose on it, so long as they don’t disciminate.

    So I, as a male, can marry any one (at a time) female of my choice, subject to the laws of the state of residence, and have that union recognized by the state. Please explain to me how you are denied the same benefit of government recognition. I’ll be waiting, since I know you can’t. You’re not willing to engage in a discussion, you’re just here to spread hatred and bile.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 4, 2010 @ 6:58 am - November 4, 2010

  6. This is just were I disagree with most people on this blog, I think the idea of people voting judges in and out of office leads to several problems. The fact is these judges interpreted the law of their state and unless they were grossly wrong, why would another set of judges vote differently?

    Its not the judges fault the legislature and the governor, well former, decided not to take up the issue after the ruling. I think the people should change their legislature if they wanted to change their law and amend their Constitution.

    I hope judges who are voted in next will judge with the best of skills and not because they want re-elected. Also, only three of the judges weren’t re-elected, two of them who were in the ruling survived. So it wasn’t a full sweep of the court, so not everyone was moved equally to remove them.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — November 4, 2010 @ 7:19 am - November 4, 2010

  7. der,

    Having family in Iowa, I understand why it was a target.

    To have the constitution ammended, it takes the legislation and the referrendum. Unlike Ohio, (and lets face it, the People’s Republic of California) it is hard to ammend the constitution. Now if that’s better or worse is an argument for another thread, but that’s the point of Federalism isn’t it? :-)

    The recent convention vote was shot down because, in part, it is bascially rewriting the entire thing.

    Ohio elects its judges too, and we’ve fought against attempts to have them appointed by the executive and approved by the legislature (personally I’m all for it, it’s difficult to find all the candidtates’ voting records). Since many Iowans think the court was playing around, inventing ‘rights’ from the shadows of Iowa’s constitution, then they made the judges pay for their actions.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 4, 2010 @ 7:46 am - November 4, 2010

  8. Maybe if Gay Inc. wasn’t so hellbent on pissing off everybody? You’ve got that act down pat yourself: You come along insulting the blog and everybody on it and piss folks off, then you commence to whining about how mean everybody is.

    It’s mildly amsuing, yet horribly sad at the same time.

    Where was he/she being insulting? From what he posted, you’re seriously pissed off? That doesn’t make sense – his entire post is an argument that courts should be the focus for gay marriage advocates. Are you so incredibly thin-skinned that people with different opinions than your own are inherently insulting?

    Comment by Levi — November 4, 2010 @ 8:09 am - November 4, 2010

  9. Gary Bauer, chairman of Campaign for Working Families:

    “Judges do not have the right to legislate from the bench. Nor are they the supreme authority of the land. The voters of Iowa made that clear last night. Campaign for Working Families was proud to join the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association and Iowa for Freedom in an extensive media campaign exposing the radical record of these robed political activists. I am proud that Iowa voters stood up and said ‘Enough!’”

    Comment by rusty — November 4, 2010 @ 8:32 am - November 4, 2010

  10. No, if he was Levi, that would make him as thin skinned as you.

    E4none’s insults are legion in the short time he’s bee on. Like here: “It is homophobic when T partiers pretend to be gay people. If there are any actual gays here, they are either being used or cynically selling out.”

    Or here: “This is obviously not a gay site. It is a public fraud.”

    Or this one here“Our favorite child pornographer, V the K…”

    See, unlike when I point out you’re a self admitted socialist, believe that you’re somehow superior and that democracy is overrated, instead the ‘stupid electorate’ should be pulled kicking and screaming into the future, I use links to your own words. It’s hard to say I’m insulting you by showing just how ugly and repulsive you truly are.

    But then again, you believe brown people can’t comprehend democracy, so we shouldn’t be surprised, you can’t comprehend freedom either.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 4, 2010 @ 8:46 am - November 4, 2010

  11. rusty,

    “Losers: Iowa supreme court judges Ternus, Baker, and Streit. Historic and unprecedented victory for judicial accountability. Big loss for activist judges. Highlights how wrong the Left is when it claims that voters don’t care about same-sex marriage.” – Brian Brown

    Note how he hits it on the head though. It’s not an issue for the courts. Democracy worked.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 4, 2010 @ 8:51 am - November 4, 2010

  12. Oh, and addendum for der, Republicans did make gains in Iowa, so we’ll see if they put that ammendment through the legislation this cycle.
    (and another Levi shredding post is in the filter)

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 4, 2010 @ 8:53 am - November 4, 2010

  13. The funny part is how gays and lesbians try to claim “constitutional rights” while demanding that voters be stripped of their right to vote on matters that concern them.

    Gay-sex marriage is not written into the constitution. The right to vote is.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2010 @ 9:56 am - November 4, 2010

  14. Voters in Oklahoma passed an initiative that bans Shari’a Law in that state.

    Which means diddly-squat. This is about as meaningful as a majoirty of the “sense of the [chamber]” resolutions passed by each House to quibble with the president, the other House, express how much they just loooove Ladybug Day, or whatever. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is what matters when it comes to the imposition of shari’a law, not a waste of time like this ballot initiative.

    Comment by John — November 4, 2010 @ 11:48 am - November 4, 2010

  15. Note how he hits it on the head though. It’s not an issue for the courts. Democracy worked.

    Indeed it did. Of course “democracy” is not what the US or Iowa state Constitutions establish. Instead there is this thing called a “republican form of government” you might have heard of before. You may like the results of what just happened in Iowa but wait until activists on both sides take this to its logical course: money flooding into states like we saw from the Religious Right here to influence judicial “retentions” which will quickly morph into outright election campaigns with all the associated trappings just like we see for the executive and legislative branches. Now, if that’s the direction everyone wants to go in I’m okay with that. Yet let’s stop lying about “judicial activism” which for most folks only applies when a decision is made by the courts they do not like. Ditto for how the courts supposedly “violated” the “will of the people” since as elected judges they are in effect the People’s representatives now in the Third Branch. This campaign waged in Iowa does nothing more than help turn the courts into a mere Judicial Congress instead of a being an independent court of law. But hey, someone is going to remind me how the libs have done “X,Y,Z” (which doesn’t surprise me) to help this process along to distract things so it’s all good. Again, not much of a difference between the nutjobs on the left or the right because they’ll all screw the whole process over if it helps benefit their pet cause.

    Comment by John — November 4, 2010 @ 12:02 pm - November 4, 2010

  16. John, you’re off base in your last two comments, I believe.

    First, as to the Shar’ia law in the state; The unfortuantely precident of the courts looking to foreign law for inspiration is already through the gate. And with our friends in Europe we also see an elevation of Shari’a as a seperate court system. A pre-emptive move to insure the repugnant aspects of Shari’a are not enshrined makes sense in this case. (And you may say I’m playing ‘blame the liberal’ feel free to cite any case where the ‘conservative’ court members cited foreign law in their decisions. I’ll be waiting)

    As to Iowa, I suggest you read the concept of ‘Federalism’ In this case, Iowa’s constitution did work as designed. A republic relies on the consent of the governed. The judges overstepped that consent, and the Legislature failed in their duty to correct the balance. So the governed revoked their consent and we’ll see if the next Iowa Legislature will comply.

    (and compliance works both ways. If the Legislature passes the ammendment so it goes to a popular vote, then the people get to exercise their mandate again. If the governed decide at that point they don’t want the social change, then they can kill it there, and punish the legislature as they see fit.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 4, 2010 @ 12:53 pm - November 4, 2010

  17. The Founding Fathers were opposed to this sort of electoral retaliation against judges. From Federalist Paper #78:

    That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

    http://wakingupnow.com/blog/nom-the-people-your-founding-fathers-warned-you-about

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — November 4, 2010 @ 4:48 pm - November 4, 2010

  18. Wish we could do the same with the Federal Courts!

    One of the most dangerous problems in America is that the Constitutional checks on judicial power have been all but abandoned.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 4, 2010 @ 4:51 pm - November 4, 2010

  19. Rob, at least someof the founders may have felt the way about the Federal Government. It doesn’t change the states as ‘laboratories of democracy.’

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 4, 2010 @ 5:39 pm - November 4, 2010

  20. First, as to the Shar’ia law in the state; The unfortuantely precident of the courts looking to foreign law for inspiration is already through the gate.

    There is a big difference between vigilance and paranoia. It doesn’t bother me if folks want to restate the obvious in legislation, but to have a campaign for a worthless initiative based more on political fear-mongering than anything else is This is the same kind of crap the left pulls too. I have zero fear of shari’a law in this country and there is nothing indicating that it is even a real possibility in the future. If you want a law to make clear that foreign laws and court decisions cannot be the basis of state/Federal judicial rulings, that’s fine but this singling out of shari’a law like this is just a solution in search of a problem. Or better yet, sheer political pandering.

    And with our friends in Europe we also see an elevation of Shari’a as a seperate court system.

    That’s their stupidity and their problem to deal with. Citing European nations as an example, most of whom lack a written constitution like ours, is a waste of time.

    A pre-emptive move to insure the repugnant aspects of Shari’a are not enshrined makes sense in this case.

    Such pre-emption was already done in 1791 when the 1st Amendment was ratified, in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified and for Oklahomans in 1907 when their state constitution was adopted (see Art. II of this document).

    As to Iowa, I suggest you read the concept of ‘Federalism’ In this case, Iowa’s constitution did work as designed. A republic relies on the consent of the governed. The judges overstepped that consent, and the Legislature failed in their duty to correct the balance.

    A republic indeed does rely upon the consent of the governed, but courts do not nor should they ever lest we fail to have even the semblance of impartial justice but instead mob ‘justice’ which is no justice at all for anyone.

    So the governed revoked their consent and we’ll see if the next Iowa Legislature will comply. (and compliance works both ways. If the Legislature passes the ammendment so it goes to a popular vote, then the people get to exercise their mandate again. If the governed decide at that point they don’t want the social change, then they can kill it there, and punish the legislature as they see fit.)

    Except the electorate didn’t express such an explicit desire, that is what you are reading into the results from Tuesday. Perhaps they wanted to just punish the justices over a perceived violation of process, unwisely I believe, and don’t really care about an amendment. You are forgetting that the voters also left the Democrats in charge of the Iowa Senate, whose Majority Leader was known before the election to oppose moving an amendment forward and just re-affirmed this today to the press. Now they can remove enough Democrats the next time if they choose to, but an anti-SSM amendment becomes more and more difficult every year that passes by design of the constitution the people themselves adopted I might add.

    Comment by John — November 4, 2010 @ 6:13 pm - November 4, 2010

  21. OK, I have to fall on E4all’s side on this one. Having been slammed in New Jersey by judiciary dictation of education funding, I fully understand the abuse of power that the courts can wield. However, it seems many of you would render courts so useless as to barely justify their very existance. Are so many of you actually on the side of OBAMA in his constant interfering with the court decisions lifting DADT restrictions? And I repeat, this is someone who is absolutely no fan of the lawyers but even they and the judges have their place in this country’s governmental checks and balances.

    Comment by PopArt — November 4, 2010 @ 7:58 pm - November 4, 2010

  22. PopArt,

    I agree the Judicial branch does have the job of interpreting the constitution of the Federal/State. I also feel that part of the checks and balances is the people being able to replace their officials. The other side of this (and I and others blasted W on this) the Legislature and the Executive both swear to honour and discharge the constitution. So what’s the course when the court says the Constitution says one thing, and the other two branches say “no, it doesn’t”? Nothing in the Constitution says the court is the final arbiter All three branches have their own internal removal process, in addition to the simple ‘vote the bastards out’ method of the Legislative and Executive. Some states allow direct votes on judges, some states don’t.

    Iowa, unlike California and Ohio, doesn’t have the direct referrendum method of giving the legislature the collective bird.

    Only an idiot (or, apparently e4) votes solely on one issue. So far, the people of IA have not gone the constitutional convention route, and enough people (apparently) have not decided judicial hijinks are enough of an isssue to vote their state senators out.

    Of course, in an ideal world, the judges/politicians etc, would do what’s right and not what’s expedient, or what keeps them in power.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 4, 2010 @ 8:39 pm - November 4, 2010

  23. Furthermore, what Rob Tisinai conveniently forgets to quote is this:

    Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both;

    When you consider that Rob Tisinai and the leadership of the gay and lesbian community wholeheartedly disagree with this statement and believe that the power of the people is subordinate to legislators and judges, their attempt to invoke the Constitution becomes farcical.

    Rob Tisinai says that the people have no right to determine or vote upon their constitution. He apparently has forgotten the first three words of it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2010 @ 11:29 pm - November 4, 2010

  24. A republic indeed does rely upon the consent of the governed, but courts do not nor should they ever lest we fail to have even the semblance of impartial justice but instead mob ‘justice’ which is no justice at all for anyone.

    Two words: “Alcee Hastings”.

    According to John and his new friend Rob Tisinai, it was unconstitutional and wrong to remove him from his Federal judicial post.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2010 @ 11:37 pm - November 4, 2010

  25. However, it seems many of you would render courts so useless as to barely justify their very existance.

    Given the choice between curtailing the power of the courts and the power of the voters, the Constitution makes the choice clear.

    Judges lose, voters win.

    This is not an idle thought process, PopArt. This is a point at the very core of the American experiment — that those who govern derive their power solely from the consent and ordination of the governed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2010 @ 11:46 pm - November 4, 2010

  26. According to John and his new friend Rob Tisinai, it was unconstitutional and wrong to remove him from his Federal judicial post.

    Still having problems with telling the truth I see. You lie just like the wackiest of liberals, but given how extremists like you on the right are no different than them it’s to be expected I suppose. Accepting bribes and perjury under oath, both of which Hastings was impeached and convicted for by Congress, clearly fall under “high crimes and misdemeanors” as outlined in the Constitution.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2010 @ 7:10 am - November 5, 2010

  27. John,

    So you do agree that there should be a method of removing judges whose decisions are, shall we say, lacking moral clarity?

    Good, so do the people of Iowa.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 5, 2010 @ 8:01 am - November 5, 2010

  28. Nope, John, just catching you in your rhetorical trap.

    A republic indeed does rely upon the consent of the governed, but courts do not nor should they ever lest we fail to have even the semblance of impartial justice but instead mob ‘justice’ which is no justice at all for anyone.

    You had a screaming hissy fit that being allowed to remove judges compromised their “impartiality”.

    I simply pointed out that our Founders were considerably smarter than you were and thus allowed for the removal of judges as a check on their power.

    All you’re doing is trying to attack people for them exercising their constitutional right to vote judges out of office, as is clearly outlined in the Iowa constitution.

    This is where you get really dangerous, John. You make up things that appear nowhere in the constitution, like the right to gay-sex marriage, but you adamantly oppose and decree as wrong things that are clearly in the constitution.

    When one considers how gays and lesbians like yourself refuse to enforce provisions that are in the constitution while compelling voters to accept things that are not, one can see very quickly that your sexual orientation makes you unfit to serve in public office, act as a judge, or serve in the military. Your sexual orientation and your allegiance to it above all else compromises your ability to act in accordance with the constitution.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 5, 2010 @ 10:15 am - November 5, 2010

  29. So you do agree that there should be a method of removing judges whose decisions are, shall we say, lacking moral clarity?

    Whether I agree or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Constitution provides a method to remove officials who are impeached and convicted of “high crimes and misdemeanors” like Hastings was. You believed I thought otherwise or are you taking lessons from NDT on opposing strawmen?

    Good, so do the people of Iowa.

    Good for them. That they have the ability to refuse to retain any judge wasn’t at issue. The wisdom and method of such was what was being discussed.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2010 @ 11:11 am - November 5, 2010

  30. Nope, John, just catching you in your rhetorical trap.
    More like demonstrating once again what a clueless ass you are. Are you really this dense? Stating that subjecting judges to a popular vote just like politicians are is wrong in no way means they are not subject to removal for crimes against the law.

    I simply pointed out that our Founders were considerably smarter than you were and thus allowed for the removal of judges as a check on their power.

    For crimes, yes. Subjecting them to popular elections? Please do present your evidence, NDT because what you’ve given thus far in no way supports your contention.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2010 @ 11:20 am - November 5, 2010

  31. Actually John, the discussion was about IA’s court elections. Even when you tried to hold up the founding fathers (to whom Iowa was a spot of French land) I pointed out that the IA constitution does allow for popular election of judges.

    As NDT pointed out (and you conviently forgot to quote) you’re the one who said “A republic indeed does rely upon the consent of the governed, but courts do not nor should they ever” (emphasis mine) Alcee Hastings removal was, an example of him being removed by ‘the consent of the governed’ (in this case through their elected represenatives).

    Likewise, Iowans may ammend their constitution as the governed (Though Iowa has restricted it to through their represenatives just like the federal government has for the removal of judges) Ohio, as I stated elsewhere, has a more direct approach of ammending our constitution.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 5, 2010 @ 12:08 pm - November 5, 2010

  32. Actually John, the discussion was about IA’s court elections. Even when you tried to hold up the founding fathers (to whom Iowa was a spot of French land) I pointed out that the IA constitution does allow for popular election of judges.

    Actually it was Rob T. that brought up the Founders by quoting from the Federalist Papers, not I. The most you can say about my previous comments on this is that I possibly implicitly referenced them by referring to the US Constitution. That the Iowa Constitution allows for retention votes on judges wasn’t in dispute. The wisdom and method of such was.

    As NDT pointed out (and you conviently forgot to quote) you’re the one who said “A republic indeed does rely upon the consent of the governed, but courts do not nor should they ever” (emphasis mine) Alcee Hastings removal was, an example of him being removed by ‘the consent of the governed’ (in this case through their elected represenatives).

    Now that’s a stretch worthy of NDT, Livewire. I generally expect better from you. Hastings wasn’t removed due to a loss in an election but because he was impeached and convicted. The two are not equatable no matter how hard you try and make them be.

    Likewise, Iowans may ammend their constitution as the governed (Though Iowa has restricted it to through their represenatives just like the federal government has for the removal of judges) Ohio, as I stated elsewhere, has a more direct approach of ammending our constitution.

    Again, where was this ever in dispute? Iowans may vote to retain or not retain their judges. Iowans may vote to amend or not amend their constitution once their legislature has approved the proposed amendment twice. Yellow and blue make green. 2+2=4. Again, that the Iowa Constitution allows for retention votes on judges wasn’t in dispute. The wisdom and method of such was.

    Comment by John — November 5, 2010 @ 1:18 pm - November 5, 2010

  33. Oh, Johnny boy, your arguments arguments are falling.

    You said the judges should never rely on the consent of the governed. Yet there are methods even at the federal level for just that. Walk away from the argument. You lost it. The People of Iowa have the right to govern themselves. You’re just upset they’re using it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 5, 2010 @ 10:43 pm - November 5, 2010

  34. How many people writing comments actually care enough about equal marriage (not gay marriage, nor “gay-sex marriage” as one idiot proclaimed) to want to be married to someone of the same sex? I visit this blog hoping each time hoping to find some clue that it offers a logical and compassionate approach to gay issues that have not been usurped by the left. More often than not, I see only an attempt to uphold the status quo of social conservatism devoid of both logic and compassion. I guess for some out there as long as there is gay porn in abundance and basic instincts are satisfied then the legal validation of equal marriage and equal families will remain an abstract for you. Good for you, but shut up and let the rest of us fight for our marriages and families: we don’t expect you to do it for us.

    Comment by Tony — November 5, 2010 @ 11:39 pm - November 5, 2010

  35. [...] that we should be “past identity just for the sake of identity politics.”  Then, commenting on the Iowa judges (who ruled in favor of state recognition of same-sex marriage) being v…, he pointed out that “a strategy that relies solely on the courts is a flawed [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Yes, America, Conservative Ideas Do Benefit Gay People — November 8, 2010 @ 11:31 pm - November 8, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.