Rising Hegemon
Supreme Court Justice - David L. Baker
Yes 45.8%
No 54.2%
Supreme Court Justice - Michael J. Streit
Yes 45.56%
No 54.44%
Supreme Court Justice - Marsha Ternus
Yes 44.96%
No 55.04%
This was a result of about three-quarter of a million bucks being dumped into Iowa by the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association and the Family Research Council.
The sort of thing that could be pulled off only in a strong Republican year, during a mid-term election. But they did it.
You may not know that the original district court Judge who first issued the ruling finding same-sex marriage a protected right, Robert Hanson was also up for retention. How did he do?
District Court 5C Judge - Robert B. Hanson
Yes 78973 66.34%
No 40071 33.66%
That's Polk County, the largest county in the State containing Des Moines and with a sizable gay and lesbian community.
So where did retention do particularly badly?
As noted by a commenter in this post yesterday northeast Iowa sends Steve King and his drool cup and straight jacket to Washington every two years right?
Sup Crt Judge Ternus
Yes 14.92%
No 85.08%
Sup Crt Judge Baker
Yes 15.42%
No 84.58%
Sup Crt Judge Streit
Yes 15.29%
No 84.71%
Says a lot about the role of knowing gays or lesbians as people...or maybe just knowing things in general.
[cross-posted at Firedoglake]
5 comments:
Hey, the bigots got their money's worth at Tuesday's sale, too.
There was a First Amendment reason to oust the judges in Iowa:
State of Iowa v Rosemary Baker
http://www.iowacourts.gov/supreme_court/recent_opinions/20041006/03-1465.asp
See claim III and IV. This lone decision stripped Iowans of almost all
free speech rights. The decision was the antithesis of Nebraska v
Drahota. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/drahota/
Clearly, when judges start getting involved and meddling in the law, it's time for them to go.
Only outside groups composed of Real Americans and with specially tuned Jesus Goggles can properly interpret the will of God as presented in the U.S. and state constitutions.
As intended by the original founding Puritans, the right of individual conscience and freedom of religion clearly means the right of the individual to be of the proper reformed religion and comply unquestioningly with its dictates and all others be damned as witches and heretics and prosecuted to oblivion.
And as intended by the original founding Puritans, the separation of church and state clearly means that the state, without interference of outside authority such as the supreme court, write and enforce the will of the pure and reformed church on separate parchment and in separate chambers by men appropriately attuned to the correct reformed religion.
In the good old days, ruined by activist judges, the separate and secular arm of the pure and reformed church was free to bring about harsh but fair coercion by the "separate" state, including the banishment and/or death to the individual for improper and/or insufficient religious beliefs and practice - improper abuse of freedom of conscience.
I believe that I correctly sum up the view of the dominant Palin wing of the Teapublican Party.
And, by Broder, and by all that is holy in the Tea Party, I think the Dems can only win by total submission to this kind of down home Real American Chutzpah. And, of course, pressing for secular holy war against Iran. And the Mooslims.
To harsh?
gay bashing is still allowed.
NOM likes to threaten
violence.
Post a Comment