NOM BLOG

NOM Pledges $100,000 to Defeat Pro-SSM Iowa Judge

 

The Quad City Times:

Conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats announced the launch of an effort Saturday to defeat Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins in the Nov. 6 judicial retention vote similar to the way voters sent a trio of justices packing two years ago for their role in a 2009 decision that paved the way for same-sex marriage in Iowa.

“This is about freedom, not just about marriage,” Vander Plaats said in unveiling Iowans for Freedom’s 2012 campaign to oust Wiggins — who is one of four Supreme Court justices who will be up for retention this fall — during the sold-out Family Leader’s Family Leadership Summit that drew 1,000 activists to the Point of Grace church in Waukee.

“We see this as a freedom and constitutional issue important to all Iowans. If courts are allowed to redefine the institution of marriage, every one of the liberties we hold dear is in jeopardy.”

To kick off the campaign, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage pledged that his organization would provide a match of up to $100,000 the contributions that are made during the next two weeks.

36 Comments

  1. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    "If courts are allowed to redefine the institution of marriage, every one of the liberties we hold dear is in jeopardy.”

    Exactly.

    Kudos to Bob Vander Plaats and NOM!

  2. Posted August 13, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Excellent job, NOM.

    The single most important election result of 2010 was the astonishing defeat of three judicial activists by the People.

    This never happens.

    Until now.

    Message sent.

    Let's continue to inform judicial activists that the People are fully awake now.

  3. Richard
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    So... by denying a freedom to a minority, your freedom is at jeopardy? This makes absolutely no sense. It's like a slave owner arguing that freeing a slave infringed on his/her constitutional property rights.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    @Richard,

    Basing rights on whoever holds sway is the very definition of tyranny. Our Civil rights have always been rooted in the laws of nature; as opposed to the laws of whatever holds sway today.

    There is no Constitutional right to change the meaning of what constitutes a marriage; even those corrupt jurisdictions that sided with your fellow miscreants had the decency to acknowledge this to be true.

  5. Good News
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    @Richard
    We're fighting to keep our children's sexual habits from being changed, manipulated and used by the powers that be and the commercial world. We want our children to be educated and encouraged in their heterosexuality.
    One word that names the heterosexual union, apart and different than an eventual word that would name the homosexual union, is our best arm in defending our children from sexual manipulation and confusion.
    I am not talking about those born that way, but about the protection of the 80 to 98 percent of the children who were not born that way, but who can be enticed to play that way and develop habits that way.
    How does the heterosexual couple having a unique word to name its union hurt you?
    Taking the word marriage away from uniquely naming the man-woman union hurts us.

  6. Richard
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Doesn't hurt me a bit- I'm straight, and married. The problem is that the word marriage has not been a constant and even in the last few hundred years has changed its definition. The bible itself refers to multiple ways in which to use the word marriage. Usually at the expense of women. Marriage has been used to descirbe same-sex marriages in the past and holds no harm in its use that way today. Giving a small group this right in no way dminishes any other same called relationship.

  7. Randy E King
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    @ Richard,

    Aside from Emperor Nero's reign; when has the word marriage been used as anything else but a reference to the joining of opposites?

    Just because you believe the world is flat does not mean we have to take your word for it.

  8. Posted August 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Can someone please explain to me how the citizens of Iowa keep reelecting the polar opposites Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin?

  9. OvercameSSA
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Oh, good, another homosexualist trotting out the tired argument that the word marriage has been redefined before.

    Marriage, the union of a man and a woman has always been just that: the union of a man and a woman, because a man and a woman are the way that children are created; a fact that is unique to man-woman couples only, and a hugely important distinction from same-sex couples.

    Same-sex couples are mere imitations of male-female couples; there is no point in the coupling of same-sex couples, except to imitate male-female couples; whereas the coupling of males and females carries the potential for creating other human beings. Real basic stuff here that homosexualists try to sweep under the rug.

  10. OvercameSSA
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    @Richard said: "Giving a small group this right in no way dminishes any other same called relationship."

    On the contrary, equating always non-procreating couples to procreating couples diminishes the perceived value of the procreating couple. This, in turn, diminishes the appeal of marriage to heterosexual couples; straights do not like to be equated to homosexuals.

  11. OvercameSSA
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    How much of a loser must someone be to hijack someone's use name on a blog? I've dealt with such losers before; that's why my user name is what it is.

    Sounds like another homosexual who's jealous of those of us who have overcome our disordered urges. Sorry, dude, no same-sex attraction here.

  12. Zack
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    Judges who legislate from the bench have no place working in the Judicial Branch of the government.

  13. Good News
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    @Richard
    The difference between today and all history. Is that today a man and a woman do not have to come together for a child to be born. Before the man-woman union could stand strong in the knowledge that only they could 'make' children. Today this is no longer the case. So now more than ever a different words need to be used for these two different unions, so that our children can grow in a clear understanding that there is indeed a fundamental difference between these two unions.
    The commercial world wants to blur as much as they can this fundamental difference, in order to teach our kids that it does not matter, married to opposite-sex or same-sex your potential for having your own children (thanks to the medical and commercial world, is the same.
    Why are you so mean? Just because you're not hurt, you don't take into consideration the hurt that you are doing to others, by taking away the only world that uniquely names the man woman union? Don't you realize that maybe not everyone is as cold and strong as you are?

  14. Richard
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Wow, I'm a homosexualist, mean, cold and strong? Sorry folks, I'm just a good ol' American straight married boy who never had an attraction to another guy. I just see the falacy and falsehood that is presented here and have to respond. How many non-procreating couples have you offended here. Marriage is not just about children. It is about so much more and same-sex couples should be given the right as much as anyone. Read the latese DOMA decision and the judges reasoning pretty much sums it up, in my hombgel opinion. Hate the sin, love the sinner is just an excuse to plain hate.

  15. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    The only government interest in marriage is uniting children to their mother and father.

    Even children born in a laboratory have one mother and one father.

    The opposition has a convenient disconnect concerning these facts, and would like to share their delusions with others.

  16. Good News
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    @Richard
    I truly don't know why you keep on bringing up you sexual preferences and marital status etc. It has nothing to do with the discussion. You are (on this Blog) simply someone who does not want one unique word to name the man-woman union, as apposed to someone who does want a word for this purpose. Even the homosexual issue is, at the root of it, secondary in the rational desire to have a name put on the man-woman union.

  17. Good News
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    Is that Jekyll or Hyde on luck #13?

  18. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    @ Good News, it's Dr. Jekyll. Not trying to be argumentative with you, but the even if sperm is transported in a test tube to the egg, that sperm is still from a man who is the baby's father. Same with the egg.

    Just my two cents.

  19. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    Good. Time to dismiss activist judges who legislate from the bench.

  20. Richard
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    @14- Marriage is a choice. Children are not an integral part of that relationship but a choice couples make in the course of their relationship. The word marriage has had many different definitions throughout history and cultures. You demean adoption, childless couples and all parents who do not come to be parents in your preferred process. I see many traditional marriages that result in abuse in myriad forms and I see same-sex couples raising great kids. I strongly disagree with you and yours. Simple, really.

  21. Posted August 13, 2012 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    @Richard 16:

    Yes, we disagree in foundational ways as to the meaning of the word "marriage".

    "Marriage is a choice."

    >> We agree here.

    R: "Children are not an integral part of that relationship"

    >> But procreation is the sole reason for the state to recognize marriage. The state derives a benefit from marriage- the next generation best nurtured- that it derives from no other relationship.

    The question of infertile couples is a red herring- obviously fortune tellers cannot sit at the courthouse and read tea leaves as to which couples will and won't procreate.

    Instead, the state recognizes that so long as marriage unites the two genders, nature will take care of the rest.

    "but a choice couples make in the course of their relationship."

    >> No. Procreation, for most of the history of the human species, had nothing to do with "choice". Sexual relations between man and woman involved choice- procreation was something hoped for (or against).

    R: The word marriage has had many different definitions throughout history and cultures.

    >> Every one of those definitions, throughout all history, in all cultures, involved the union of the two genders of our species.

    R:You demean adoption, childless couples and all parents who do not come to be parents in your preferred process.

    "Demean"? I do not understand how it demeans an unmarried person to be truthfully referred to as an unmarried person.

    Will the next lawsuit on discrimination grounds be based on the demeaning of non-married persons, by refusal to call them married?

    Oh, wait, that's exactly what same sex marriage already claims........

  22. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    "Children are not an integral part of that relationship but a choice couples make in the course of their relationship."

    Yes, they are, as implied in laws regarding annulments, consanguinity, presumption of paternity, and paternity rights.

    "The word marriage has had many different definitions throughout history and cultures"

    At it's core, it has always universally been the public union of a male and a female. SS"M" is a complete leap away from that core requirement.

    "You demean adoption, childless couples and all parents who do not come to be parents in your preferred process. I see many traditional marriages that result in abuse in myriad forms and I see same-sex couples raising great kids. I strongly disagree with you and yours. "

    Straw man arguments.

  23. Richard
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    @ 19 and 20. No, I disagree and stand by my comments.

  24. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    At @21; you are welcome to your opinion, but the law agrees with the inherent child interest of marriage.

  25. leviticus
    Posted August 13, 2012 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    Voting is the best cure for an activist judiciary. Romney is our best hope to return democratic will of the people to the judiciary.

  26. Posted August 13, 2012 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    The Iowa Supreme Court held that "equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation" Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 at 877 (Ia. Sup. Ct. 2009), citing Cass R. Sunstein, Sexual Orientation and the Constitution: A Note on the Relationship Between Due Process and Equal Protection, 55 U. Chi. L.Rev. 1161, 1163 (1988) "The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society's understanding of equal protection resistant to change". id.

    The defeat of Iowa Supreme Court justices demonstrated what the " the standards of [this] generation" were.

  27. Publius
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 12:52 am | Permalink

    The people of Iowa, by virtue of their constitution, have the right to pass judgment on their judicial as well as legislative and executive officers. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    Of course, voting a judge out of office does not change the law. In the case at hand in Iowa, that will likely require a constitutional amendment, a significant challenge, but one that we have seen met in state after state. Most of the people of Iowa, which was never a slave holding state, don’t see traditional marriage as akin to slavery. If a judge in Iowa did establish a right to slaveholding, the citizens of Iowa would vote that judge out. Remember, slavery wasn’t ended by the courts, but by the people. If a judge decided that there was a right to polygamy, the citizens of Iowa would likely vote that judge out even though some might argue (as we hear often on this blog) that the definition of marriage has not always and everywhere been constant and some might argue (again often on this blog) that changing a fundamental definition in marriage law wouldn’t affect their own marriage personally.

  28. Good News
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    @Richard
    All the organs and chromosomes of the human species are present in the man-woman union. And in committed union all the possibilities and complexities of the human species (independent of State) are also present, whether in symbol or in reality.

    When looking at a couple in this committed union you, and our children, are looking at the human species, and all it represents, in one entity.
    Whether this “ONE-human-species” has children or not does not change what it is.
    This thing deserves to have a name given to it before the subject of homosexuality or children even come up.

    PS. I would say that a healthy and fully functioning “ONE-human-species” will have children outside of choice. It will simply and naturally happen all by itself.
    We as humans only have the choice to “try to not have babies”. Having babies comes on its own, without a choice. Becoming married (becoming the “ONE-human-species”) is a choice.

  29. Good News
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    @ I agree with you “Dr.” Barb. #16
    But our new laws and society are going to be making this point harder and harder for our children to clearly see and appreciate.
    (And that one day we might not need to combine a part of man to a part of woman in order to create babies still will not change the uniqueness of the man-woman union, nor will it take away the validity of this original union having a name given to it.)

    And you can get argumentative any time you feel it worth the while. The punch of a sparing partner is not the same as one thrown by an adversary. Though the hit can be equally hard; one is to strengthen (the 'cause') the other is to destroy it.
    Best wishes to you,

    (The 'cause'? Saving the word and idea of 'marriage' for our children.)

  30. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Richard wrote, in post #3,
    > So... by denying a freedom to a minority, your freedom is at jeopardy?

    Is this the homosexuals' new thing, describing themselves as a "minority"? We're all minorities. I do some things that less than half the population does; homosexuals do some things that less than half the population does.

  31. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Randy E King wrote, in post #4,
    >
    > Basing rights on whoever holds sway is the very definition of tyranny. Our Civil rights have always been rooted in the laws of nature; as opposed to the laws of whatever holds sway today.

    "Gays are in vogue."
    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/10/25/the_media_and_bullying/page/full/

    >>
    The school authorities can ignore the beating up of Asian kids but homosexual organizations have enough political clout that they cannot be ignored. Moreover, there are enough avowed homosexuals among journalists that they have their own National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association -- so continuing media publicity will ensure that the authorities will have to "do something."

    But political pressures to "do something" have been behind many counterproductive and even dangerous policies.

    A grand jury report about bullying in the schools of San Mateo County, California, brought all sorts of expressions of concern from school authorities -- but no definition of "bullying" nor any specifics about just what they plan to do about it.

    Meanwhile, a law has been passed in California that mandates teaching about the achievements of gays in the public schools. Whether this will do anything to stop either verbal or physical abuse of gay kids is very doubtful.

    But it will advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted. Our schools are already too lacking in the basics of education to squander even more time on propaganda for politically correct causes that are in vogue. We do not need to create special privileges in the name of equal rights.
    <<

  32. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Good News wrote,
    > I am not talking about those born that way, but about the protection of the 80 to 98 percent of the children who were not born that way

    God save us from the homosexual propaganda that people buy.

    *80* to 98%?

    "Born that way"?

    God give me strength.

    1. [Associated Press] "... multiple studies concluded that a high number of people who experience sexual attraction to members of the same sex early in their adult lives later cease to experience such attraction."

    2. BORN OR BRED?
    http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

  33. John B.
    Posted August 14, 2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Hey, never mind that it was a UNANIMOUS decision by the Iowa Supreme Court that even the Republican-appointed justices signed onto. The judges are clearly supposed to base their decisions on popular opinion, not the law or the constitution, right? Heck, why have judges at all, why not just put every state supreme court case up for a popular vote. After all, the average guy on the street understands state law and the state constitution better than any stupid supreme court judge, right?

  34. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 1:26 am | Permalink

    Redefining marriage is extra-Constitutional. No one has that right, not even a judge.

  35. Posted August 15, 2012 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    JohnB:

    The people of Iowa understood the decision of their justices very well, remember?

    ""....equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation".

    The people of Iowa employed this reasoning to demonstrate the standards of this generation.

    Isn't democracy wonderful?

  36. Posted August 15, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Next time I sign a contract with fine print, I'll say the circumstances must have changed.

    After all, the ratification of the 14th Amendment was a contract.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.