National Organization for Marriage shredding equality, not saving it
Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 at 04:41 PM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
6 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Violent attacks on gays in New York up 70 percent in 2013
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
Archives
In their ceaseless attempts to prevent gay people from enjoying the same legal rights that they take for granted themselves, they've done something unprecedented, something potentially so damaging to the fabric of the nation that its consequences have yet to be discerned.
This isn't hyperbole.
"Seventy-four judges were up for retention in Iowa and only the three who imposed same-sex 'marriage' on the state are now unemployed. Coincidence?" crowed Family Research Council executive director Tony Perkins last week.
Funded by unidentified donors from out of state, NOM and other anti-gay groups spent an estimated $1 million on attack ads that ultimately unseated three Iowa Supreme Court justices for ruling that the state constitution applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, and that both groups should have an equal right to marry.
For making this principled stand these judges were thrown off the bench. Say farewell to your independent judiciary. On his blog today, the Former Speaker of the House, Republican Newt Gingrich, praised what he called this “unprecedented and largely unreported decision.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, told the New York Times: “What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they might be voted out of office. Something like this really does chill other judges.”
This, simply put, is mob rule. This means if you protect an unpopular minority against the tyranny of the majority from now on you better look over your shoulder. Your job and your future might be on the line.
The net effect is a chilling one on the future of legislation to protect minorities through the courts, which is, after all, the source of every important piece of legislation that has improved the rights and lives of minorities.
6 comments
Page 1 of 1 pages
maloney | Nov 09, 2010, 01:31 PM EST
admo..I was referring to the voting, not the country. thank you. As in it's democratic to vote. duu.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Nov 09, 2010, 10:42 AM EST
I voted out every incumbent judge on the ballot, they're in there too long and need to be cleaned out, get some fresh blood in there. Same thing with the politicians, thy are like diapers and need to be changed often....They're NOT royalty and it was never intended for them to have lifetime positions. Let em go back out into the community and work under the rules they impose on the rest of us....Iteresting though that cahir writes on this subject at the same time ariana huffington is starting up her new george soros, divorce advice site. A bit of coordinated strategy. Is there a bit of george soros money injected into this site?
Report abuse
admo2005 | Nov 09, 2010, 12:53 AM EST
I live in Iowa, these justices are going to be replaced by members of the state Bar Association, and will very likely have the same position on the issue due to our state's judicial nomination process. It was a misguided effort and will ultimately be fruitless.
Also, to maloney: The U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.
Report abuse
Rebelforce | Nov 08, 2010, 10:27 PM EST
If blacks in the South had to depend upon elected judges, it would still be illegal for a black to marry a white.
Report abuse
maloney | Nov 08, 2010, 06:01 PM EST
It's called democracy.
Report abuse
Page 1 of 1 pages
Report abuse