County Judge Robert Hanson decided Thursday that he will make the laws for Iowa. He struck down the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and ordered Polk County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.Posted on 09/02/2007 8:12:06 PM PDT by monomaniac
Dr. Dobson calls it a 'purely political ruling.'
County Judge Robert Hanson decided Thursday that he will make the laws for Iowa. He struck down the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and ordered Polk County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Roger J. Kuhle, an assistant county attorney, argued the issue is not for a judge to decide. The county, home to state capital Des Moines, is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action, called it another example of a judge legislating from the bench.
“Once again, we see an activist judge handing liberal activists what they have not been able to achieve legislatively or at the ballot box: government sanctioning of same-sex marriage," he said. "This purely political ruling proves yet again that nothing short of a federal marriage-protection amendment is sufficient to preserve one-man, one-woman marriage in our nation.
“By striking down Iowa’s DOMA, Judge Robert Hanson has shown he believes the desires of adults should trump what’s best for children. His ruling represents social engineering at its worst.”
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit, Varnum v. Brien, on behalf of six homosexual couples in Polk County District Court on Dec. 13, 2005.
"Sadly, little consideration seems to be given to the next generation of children," said Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst for Focus Action. "One judicial decision could change the definition of marriage for every Iowan and deprive more children of either a mother or a father."
Arrogant liberal jerk. Hopefully he will end up before the Judicial Disciplinary Board.
He’s probably hoping to end up on his knees before the Lambda homosexual activists.
The only way I know to bring a final end to “judicial” legislation, at both the state and federal level, is to make any “landmark” judicial decision subject to the ratification process required of any constitutional ammendment. Then judges will stop attempting social engineering from the bench, because their decisions will never be ratified unless it meets muster by the people through elected officals subject to removal from office.
If this was so at the national level then Roe v Wade would never have gotten enough votes to be ratified in the early seventies. Admitedly, some good “social” engineering like Brown vs the Board of Education would never have been ratified either in 1954. However, I think racial equality (which still really doesn’t yet exist) would have come at least to where it is now without the Brown decision. Plus, the old “separate but equal” was just plain ole bad law. Things were never really “equal.”
I think Americans are capable of change, when called for, without the tyranny of judges.
The key is for the executive branch involved to tell the judiciary that making laws is the prerogative of the legislature, and refuse to enforce all rulings which abrogate the legislature’s authority. “How many army divisions does the judiciary command?”
“The key is for the executive branch involved to tell the judiciary that making laws is the prerogative of the legislature, and refuse to enforce all rulings which abrogate the legislature’s authority.”
So very true. However, when was the last time we had a chief executive with the cajunees to do just that? I think it was Andrew Jackson.
Government of the people, by the judge and for the liberal activists. Forget the Gettysburg Address. It is no longer valid.
Whether he is an activist judge or not (and I believe he is), the real problem is not liberal judges, it is a basic flaw in our legal system.
No matter who you are or how looney your theories or ideas about law, all you need do is do alot of judge shopping. Sooner or later, you will find one that agrees with you.
As much as I disagree with the judge on this ruling, one disputed ruling does not make him a “renegade.” What other decisions did he make to “deserve” that title? There is not even a summation of previous decisions to agree or disagree with.
Even worse, there is no discussion of the judge’s reasoning or cited case law in this baseless attack. The vast majority of judges do not decide a case just on the "reasoning" of the way they want it decided, but rather how they read the law. There are many occasions where a judge wants and wishes the law laid the foundation for ruling the other way, but the law itself is defective, so he has no chance to rule the way they want to rule.
This article is just wa-wa-wa. He may be a leftist renegade, but the author gives absolutely no proof of that statement, just her unsupported accusation.
Our anger should really be directed towards those that refuse to impeach jackasses like this. That’s the only way to solve the problem, get them off the bench and make an example of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.