Skip to content

Could We Also Bring Back Slavery?

April 4, 2009

What will the next item be on the conservative’s ‘to do’ list?

Within hours of the decision, the representatives of the Iowa Family Policy Center left the Supreme Court building here, and sought out state lawmakers in the State Capitol building just down the street.

Unlike some states that have barred the marriages with voter-led ballot measures, voters here cannot directly initiate constitutional amendments. Instead, an amendment would require approval by state lawmakers during two legislative sessions, and then approval by voters at the ballot box. That means the earliest a prospective ban could take effect would be 2012.

Opponents of same-sex marriages want state lawmakers, who are a few weeks from finishing their annual legislative session, to begin the process now. But the idea seemed to have no backing among legislative leaders; both chambers here are controlled by Democrats.

“We’re just going to say no to amending our Constitution and putting discrimination into our Constitution,” said Michael E. Gronstal, a Democrat and State Senate majority leader, who noted that such an amendment had failed in the Senate several years ago, even before the suit that led to Friday’s ruling, and would, he said, most likely fail again.

2 Comments
  1. April 6, 2009 6:40 PM

    If you read the text, and I think everyone should, you will find the answer was given by the judges to your thoughts. One of the roles of the court is to insure that the elected representatives do not over-step their bounds, and that the minority are protected from the majority.

    Page 15

    “….times can blind us to certian truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress…”

    Courts are (should be) insulated from political charges, and therefore better suited to make these decisions.

    Finally, “America didn’t even get to vote on it” is really a most disturbing statement. Whose rights are less so that they should be denied by a majority vote?

    I think that if the majority were all of your point of view that gay people would never get their full rights. Is that your view of a democratic republic?

    We saw the film “MILK” today and I think it a movie that might be of value to those who never see the other side of the issue of gay civil rights in this country. When I saw it today I thought of some people I know in my family that could learn a few things about the world if they ventured out of the box to see it.

  2. Thomas J Canton permalink
    April 6, 2009 4:16 PM

    In a democratic republic, the people should rule through their elected legislators and executives. Judges decide cases of law, not of policy or morality.

    Judges have the benefit of legal education and experience, but that does not make them morally superior.

    Redefining marriage is a perfect example of a policy issue judges are not empowered to make. When judges overstep their constitutional role, it’s not just our rights that suffer, but democracy itself. Same-sex marriage has come to our front yards through America’s Heartland, and America didn’t even get to vote on it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: