Our president Brian Brown sent us this photo of him with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal after their appearance together for the "No Wiggins" bus tour now taking place in Iowa:
Here's video of Gov. Jindal's remarks:
Here's how the local press covered the stop:
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal urged roughly 65 Iowa conservatives clustered in a small downtown park to make sure they vote this November in “what may be the most important election of our lifetimes.”
... Marshalltown was the 11th stop on the four-day, 17-city “No Wiggins” tour, which concludes Thursday in Orange City.
Iowans for Freedom, backed by conservative groups that include the National Organization for Marriage and Patriot Voices, a group founded by former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, are urging Iowans to vote “No” on a Nov. 6 ballot measure that will decide whether Wiggins retains his seat on the Iowa Supreme Court.
Wiggins is the fourth of seven Iowa justices who took part in a unanimous 2009 decision that legalized same-sex marriage in this state. The three previous justices were ousted following a similar campaign in 2010.
“This is after all the elites said this could never be done,” Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in Marshalltown remarks shortly before Jindal. He urged Iowans to “do this again” and promised that “we will do anything we can to help you.”
Find out more about the tour at NoWiggins.com.
“Paid for by National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, Brian Brown, President. Not authorized by any candidate, candidate’s committee, or ballot issue committee.”
31 Comments
This creates the possibility of seriously limiting the objective position of the judgeship. If a judge has to consider "popular" opinion in deciding cases, it will have a cooling effect on freedom and the fair application of law to ALL citizens.
@Richard -
Judiciary positions are not supposed to be political; technically, these should not be elected positions, but not as a matter of judges being able to have the freedom to be activist (which is what you seem to be in favor of), but to be impartial and able to decide cases solely on the facts and legal issues presented, not popular opinion.
Should judges be activitsts? No. Should judges be impartial and decide issues on the facts, yes. We seem to agree. Prop 8 was decided on the issues and facts. DOMA, so far, has been decided on the issues and facts. Are these activist judges or just judges who are impartial and you didn't like the outcome?
Mr Jindal should run for president. That was great.
There is a difference between legislative and judicial facts which Judge Walker decided to ignore. He even admitted that he "moved the strike zone." See http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/315096/former-judge-vaughn-walker-moving-strike-zone-ed-whelan So much for objectivity and impartiality.
The citizen of Iowa in their wisdom decided that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Government without the consent of the governed is tyranny.
I don't know what you or the judges are talking about Richard. But I do know I didn't like the outcome...
Oppression of a minority by a majority is also a form or tyranny that we rely on judges to correct. Just 'cus you don't like or agree with it, doesn't mean you get to control it. Lots of examples in law of this.
@Richard
There is no oppression going on.
"Just 'cus you don't like or agree with it, doesn't mean you get to control it. Lots of examples in law of this."
You haven't heard of the Dred Scott Decision then. Courts don't write the law, legislative bodies do. From my knowledge of the Constitution, the judicial system does not legislate. We aren't an Oligarchy.
I agree, they don't legislate. They do "judge". And when a law or laws are found to unfairly oppress a group or infringe on someone's freedom, then the judiciary gets to nullify that/those laws. Whether with race, sex, religion etc. there are many examples. Marriage has its share of laws that were struck down, even in the face of popular opinion.
This is a state issue what's Jindal doing in Iowa?
Richard,
Said unfairness must be clearly defined; it cannot be an arbitrary decision based solely on the passing whims of popular culture. You have no historic basis for your demands; no like type circumstance to relate to. In order for the judiciary to declare a freedom to change the meaning of what constitutes a marriage in these United States it must satisfy the burden of proof as laid out in procedures governing strict scrutiny.
By the laws of nature sexual depravity is held to rational basis review and can never trump the strict scrutiny protection provided to those groups who coexist by the laws of nature and natures God.
Great job done by Jindal. Judges have no right to legislate from the bench. If they wish to make laws then take your black robe off and get yourself elected or get your ballot question to pass.
This judge favors marriage corruption and does not give a hoot about the family or children then win your case fair and square before the voters. Our system in no way gives you the right to make and pass laws from the bench.
Also what about the checks and balances on judges. Any other job if you willfully are insorbinate then you are FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!! The people of Iowa should get to decide if you keep your job or if you should be FIRED!!!!!!
FIRE WIGGINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Noe makes an excellent point about checks and balances. If there is no possible check on judges, then they, not the people are the sovereign.
The Iowa constitution does not allow for a mob to replace judges. Nor does it allow for the whole court to be removed in one election. Nor can the people overturn the court's decision in this case except by constitutional amendment. What Iowa has is a system designed to allow the citizens of Iowa to make a sober and deliberate judgment on whether they have confidence in their judges or not. I would rather be ruled by the citizens of Iowa than by a panel of judges that do not have the confidence of the people.
HS,
Governor Jindal has the same right you have to travel to Iowa and voice your opinion. No passports are required to visit Iowa. Out-of-state politicians, campaigners, lobbyists, fundraisers, consultants, and activists of many persuasions visit Iowa and forty-nine other states every year to exercise their free speech rights.
"No literate person can comprehend the Fourteenth Amendment to mean what the Statists in academia claim it to mean. The 14th Amend. was intended to grant African-Americans the same rights that exist for all Americans, not to install the wholly foreign regiment of economic and social egalitarianism." (M. L.)
No where in this amendment is power granted unto judges to redefine the meaning of marriage. Furthermore, marriage law is implemented equally, to all citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Judges simply do not have the authority to affect social "justice" via legislation from the bench, especially when, quite clearly, there is no inequality in application of marriage law to any citizen. Those who disagree subscribe to the Statist views of distortion of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution (to paraphrase M. L.), wherein the individual exists to serve the state, which is wholly un-Constitutional.
Hi Publius, DoE, Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. They cannot be removed by vote. They must "shall hold their offices "during good behavior.", not for making decisions that an individual might not like.
US Constituition does not provide a proscription for all types of situations now presenting themselves in the 21st century. Someone must decide how the Constitution applies to those situations.
DoE, this is just wrong, as I argued yesterday. "there is no inequality in application of marriage law to any citizen". A gay man cannot marry the person they love, A straight person can. You can argue all kinds of stuff about the law applying equally regardless of gender or orientation but if you don't have an argument that considers what it means to be a human being in love with another then, sorry, but what is life all about? Is it about just legal rights and contracts? If love doesn't have some part to play in an argument about marriage then I just don't know what NOM is for, why they exist. Furthermore, I know that outside the small world of NOM commenters, the majority of human beings believe strongly and clearly that marriage is about love (and other things but love for sure).
A gay man can't marry the person they love - simple as that. No amount of finessing words written by man's hand can change that fact without equal marriage.
Your statement does not resemble any thing even close to careful thought.
The will of the people stands "by default."
That means the people have control unless the opposition can decisively prove to the court that a fundamental right was violated.
If, hypothetically, a lesbian teacher wanted to wear a see-through plastic bag to class with nothing underneath, who controls that?
Are you going to say, "just 'cus the people don't agree with it, doesn't mean they get to control it"?
Why not think that through, instead, and explain who gets to control and why?
A judge, by the way, is also obliged to uphold the will of the people where no violation of a fundamental right has been decisively proved.
A judge must be viewed as an agent of the people, and not as the ruler of the people.
A judge does not get to control "just cus" he likes or dislikes something. Rather, a judge is duty bound to uphold the will of the people unless violation of a fundamental right was decisively proved.
If a judge overrules the will of the people based on anything less than that, he should be removed from office for trying to substitute his will for that of the people.
So, Paul, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the state has a compelling interest in licensing and regulating romance. Can you provide historical and legal precedence for your claim?
And, for the sake of clarity, if you could please provide a list of the immutable characteristics of "gay," to help us understand your definition of "gay man."
@Daughter of Eve
Nicely done.
DoE,
Arizona permits marriage between first cousins, but only if at least one of the individuals is unable to procreate. I wouldn't call this "state regulation of romance," but it seems to fit your definition of that action.
Your question about the immutable characteristics of being gay is somewhat nonsensical. The vast majority of behavioral scientists believe that sexual orientation, whether gay, straight or bi, is itself immutable.
The inconvenient fact remains that the Iowa supreme court decision was (1) unanimous, and (2) included Republican-appointed judges. These judges were indeed "impartial and able to decide cases solely on the facts and legal issues presented, not popular opinion." Too bad they're being punished for doing exactly that, based solely on popular opinion of their decision.
DoE knows full well what the characteristics of a gay man (or a lesbian) are. She will almost certainly say that NONE of them are immutable. (Y'know, the "it's NOT like RACE meme). DoE thinks she's being supremely clever by saying that NO ONE is denied a license to marry "SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX." So no, Paul, I'm not so sure she values LOVE in these relationships at all. I won't speculate as to whether or not she (or any of the other anti-equality) posters on this board have ever found love in their lives. But they don't seem to see it as a key component of marriage. At best it's secondary to some perverse sense of duty. I suspect there's a lot of the "lie back and think of England" sensibility in the anti-equality movement. Or stated another way, : Iif I have to be miserable, everybody else does too."
Love has never been a requirement for marriage; the laws of nature are not based on transitory and temporal emotions that cannot be explained, or quantified.
At best - or worst - some 13 countries allow for the desecration of marriage in their society; whereas some 200+ remain true to the laws of nature.
So, in other words, Gregor, you've got nothing. No surprise there.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, except of course for the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment.
That the final arbiter has already defined marriage as consisting of one man and one woman (in Murphy v. Ramsey) and has already addressed the claimed 14th amendment issue (in Baker v. Nelson) doesn't seem to phase Paul. What does "final arbiter" mean if you don't accept their rulings?
Gregor, commenters on this blog frequently point out that we all have exactly the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. In fact no less a court than the Supreme Court of the United States once ruled in 1883 that anti-miscegenation laws were constitutional because they applied equally to all: everybody of any race had a right to marry a person of their own race. This was the same argument the state of Virginia made in Loving v. Virginia. Of course we know how that turned out.
Actually, John B., you don't tell the whole story. "White" people weren't allowed to marry anyone but other white people. Minorities were allowed to marry either a person from their own ethnicity, or another. For example, an African-American could marry a Hispanic person, or a Chinese person, etc. Thus, the laws were not applied equally, to all citizens, across the board. Interestigly enough, you forgot to mention that nowhere did these laws introduce sex segregation in marriage, even as they were enacting racial segregation (of white people only). Of course, we know how that turned out.
". . . Second, they base their deficient legal argument on an inaccurate understanding of what the miscengenation law at issue in Loving v. Virginia actually outlawed. This common misunderstanding popped up twice during the debate at UVA, and I had to correct it. Many people, including many law students, incorrectly believe that the unconstitutional Virginia law banned everyone from having an interracial marriage, but it did not. It banned only white people from having an interracial marriage. Therefore, an African American man could marry a woman of Asian descent in Virginia. Although this would be an interracial marriage, it would have been a legal marriage under the Virginia law, because the man and woman would not be white people. The Supreme Court looked at this racially lopsided law that obviously promoted white supremecy, and rightly declared it unconstitutional.
Therefore, Loving v. Virginia does not apply to Prop 8 because Prop 8 applies to everyone. Anyone can enter into a marriage of one man and one woman. Prop 8 does not apply in some lopsided fashion, as the Virginia law applied only to white people. Also, not all states had laws banning interracial marriage. Virginia did not have such a law for the first 100 years of its existence. Racial restrictions on marriage to promote racial “purity” are not at all universal like the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Loving v. Virginia does not mean that Prop 8 is unconstitutional."
~Alliance Defending Freedom
Re comment 24.
Baker v. Nelson came after Loving v. Virginia. We also know how that case turned out. And Daughter of Eve correctly points out that the Virginia law was was inherently arbitrary, as is any definition of race, especially with the so-called 1 drop rule. 1 drop ancestry made you black, but 1 drop didn't make you white.
But I get it. The Supreme Court is the final temporary aribiter. In other words, not really final. Stare decisis means nothing if you don't like the decision.
Democracy is a better protector of liberty than unchecked, arbitrary, and capricious judges. Dictatorships have courts, but no dictatorship allows real democracy once it is in power.
We fought World War I to make the world safe for democracy, but we don't seem to believe the citizens of Iowa deserve to have one.
In 1862, Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all US territories thus defining marriage for the sake of Federal law as the union of one man and one woman.
In Reynolds v. United States (1876) SCOTUS upheld Congress' right to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman; citing as its rational basis "procreation in a rational basis to limit marriage to one man one woman pairings."
Marriage corruption supporters have nothing to support their ridiculous assertions to the contrary.