Unprecedented: Iowa voters oust three judges over gay marriage ruling

[Wolfman1982]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/unprecedented-iowa-voters-oust-judges-gay-marriage-ruling/

Iowa voters have voted to remove three state Supreme Court justices, siding with conservatives angered by a ruling that allowed gay marriage.

The vote Tuesday was the first time Iowa voters have removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

The three who weren't retained were Chief Justice Marsha Ternus (pictured above right) and justices David Baker and Michael Streit. They were the only justices up for retention this year.

They were on the court of seven justices who unanimously decided last year that an Iowa law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's constitution.

Gay marriage opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign. A group of former governors, lawyers and judges said the justices' removal would threaten Iowa's independent judiciary.

Financed largely by out-of-state organizations opposed to gay marriage, those pushing against the judges were successful in turning the vote into a referendum on the divisive issue.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican who led the campaign after losing the Republican nomination for governor, told a crowd of cheering supporters at an election night party peppered with red signs declaring “No Activist Judges.” “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

Though the Iowa election was the most prominent, similar ouster campaigns were begun in other states against state supreme court justices running unopposed in retention elections — judges whose rulings on matters involving abortion, taxes, tort reform and health care had upset conservatives.

Together they marked the rapid politicization of judicial races that had been specifically designed to be free of intrigue. Over the last decade, just $2 million was spent on advertising in retention elections, less than 1 percent of total campaign spending on judicial elections in that period, according to data compiled in a recent report released in part by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. More than $3 million was spent on retention election races this year, easily eclipsing the figure for the previous decade, according to the Brennan Center.

A similar campaign was mounted in Illinois, also involving a retention election, which Raw Story reported on exclusively here.

3 Iowa justices removed after gay marriage ruling

Iowa voters remove 3 high court justices who sided with decision that made gay marriage legal

Staff
AP News

Nov 03, 2010 03:22 EDT

Iowa voters have voted to remove three state Supreme Court justices, siding with conservatives angered by a ruling that allowed gay marriage.

The vote Tuesday was the first time Iowa voters have removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.

The three who weren't retained were Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit. They were the only justices up for retention this year.

They were on the court of seven justices who unanimously decided last year that an Iowa law restricting marriage to one man and one woman violated the state's constitution.

Gay marriage opponents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign. A group of former governors, lawyers and judges said the justices' removal would threaten Iowa's independent judiciary.

Source: AP News

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is horrifying stuff.

 

[Wolfman1982]

This is horrifying stuff.

Yeah it is, and I have just read in Danish , that hate related crime has gone up.
And that includes both racial, and LGBT related crimes. Sorry to go offtopic.

Danish Article

Gramstrans "translation"

 

[none2_none2]

This is disgusting, but it doesn't shock me.


On a slightly different topic, I always struggle with election decisions on judges whether they should retain office or not. Not because I want only pro-gay judges, but because I do not know their record. However, if they are obviously anti-gay, I don't wan them to stay in office.

Granted it is good that judges don't politic to maintain their office. Still, it is difficult to get an idea of their record to know how to rationally vote. I found a site for my state's judges, but the recommendations were based on their peers -- other judges and lawyers. That didn't sit comfortable with me as I don't see that as impartial. The site also gave some of their legal decisions that they wrote. Yea right, those are easy to read and digest...

Anyway, I happen to dig a little deeper and found out that two of my state's appellate judges up for a vote were in office years ago when they rendered the majority opinion on the State vs Limon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_v._Limon).

(Basically, Limon and another kid lived in a group home for the developmentally challenged. At the time, Limon had turned 18 a few weeks earlier, and the other boy would turn 15 within a month. Limon offered to give a BJ to the other boy. The other boy agreed. Then asked him to stop -- which he did. Anyway, word got to the police, and Limon was sentenced to 17 years of jail. My state had a Romeo and Juliette law which stated that if two young people close in age engage in sex, that the sentence was only 15 months. Well, that law was only for opposite sex. Limon's lawyers didn't argue that he broke the law, but that he should have been able to be part of the Romeo... law except for its bias...)

Anyway, at the point that it got to the state appellate court, the judge (Judge Green) writing for the majority (2 out of 3) said some rather bigoted things. The second judge (Judge Malone) on the majority dismissed some of the extreme views, but still upheld that the state has a vested interest in distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual activities since proof shows a higher risk for disease among gays. He admitted that lesbians do not have this same risk, but to made an exception for them would have been perceived as sexist. (Yea right.) FYI, for those that like legal readings, here was that decision:

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2004/20040130/85898.htm

I would point out the following excerpts:

"...Marriage and Procreation

In addition, traditional sexual mores concerning marriage and procreation have been important to the very survival of the human race. In rejecting the statutory right to sterilize a convicted felon, Justice Douglas declared: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 86 L. Ed. 1655, 62 S. Ct. 1110 (1942). Throughout history, governments have extolled the virtues of procreation as a way to furnish new workers, soldiers, and other useful members of society. The survival of society requires a continuous replenishment of its members.

On the other hand, sexual acts between same-sex couples do not lead to procreation on their own. As the State correctly points out in its brief, "protecting and advancing the family has been a legitimate governmental aim" throughout written history. Moreover, the family is commonly recognized as the unit for the procreation and the rearing of children.... "

"...Further, Limon's "had he been a female" argument is flawed. There has been no evidence that limiting the applicability of K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-3522 to members of the opposite sex was motivated by a gender bias. Although K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-3522 is gender specific, it creates no discernible difference between the sexes. For instance, K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-3522 neither disadvantages nor advantages men or women. The statute places both men and women under the same restrictions and similarly excludes them from the statute's applicability when they engage in same-sex sex acts. We determine that the classification embodied in K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-3522 is not quasi-suspect. As a result, Limon's argument that K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-3522 discriminates based on gender fails..."

The second quote is a real hoot to me. Limon gave a blow job -- meaning he put is mouth on penis. To say that the law isn't biased seems silly. A woman could do the same act and there would be no consequences. In the judges mind the law is fine because the woman isn't allowed to go down on another girl. What flawed logic.

Anyway, for this November election, I voted that both of those men should not retain their position. Odds are, they are still in, but I felt good that I at least took the time to find this out. (As for the other judges, since I didn't know I left their retainment questions blank.) I just wish that my vote would have made as much difference as the bigoted majority did in Iowa.

 

[Wolfman1982]

none2_none2: I remember the GLBT chatter went into an uproar over State v. Limon . Since we went into extremely angry mood swings there, hell I was even using some really "colourful" words in that thread. And even today, that case makes me cringe, and grind my teeth BIGTIME in anger. And thank FUCKING god, that he was released. But damn that was TOO fucking long before he got released , in my mind any way.

 

[none2_none2]

none2_none2: I remember the GLBT chatter went into an uproar over State v. Limon . Since we went into extremely angry mood swings there, hell I was even using some really "colourful" words in that thread. And even today, that case makes me cringe, and grind my teeth BIGTIME in anger. And thank FUCKING god, that he was released. But damn that was TOO fucking long before he got released , in my mind any way.

I agree that it was way too long, but at least it wasn't 17 years. I think the important thing to learn from it is that we should keep track of judges that have crazy ideas about gay rights. I don't keep track of how often judges are put back on the ballot, but the point is at least this time I bothered to research (took a while by the way) and at least try to vote out such stupid judges. It does seem like a big setback in Iowa, but I don't know what more we can do when the population turns on the judges that are trying to expand freedoms.

There is a good reason that we are a constitutional representative democracy as opposed to just a right out democracy. Such a setup is supposed to keep freedoms that might otherwise be trampled by the emotional whims of the majority. It is very possible that gay rights will eventually have some setbacks. I think our best hope for our rights is if we have a turn around in the economy where jobs rebound. I think as conservative as our country can be, when people are working and occupied, they are a bit less likely to pay attention to what their neighbors are doing in the bedroom. In bad times, people need scape goats, and LBGT always make for a good scape goat.