The vast majority of judges (federal, State and local) believe the law is whatever they rule it to be from time to time. They respect no other part of any other government and definitely have no respect for the People.
All very well in law, but in fact...
Four years ago, an innocent woman was put to death by a relatively petty probate court judge, after appeals upheld his decision. She had committed no crime whatsoever. She had not reflected on her situation and requested to be killed. She was killed brutally, slowly, over 13 days.
The state governor did not dare lift a hand to interfere.
Alan Keyes does indeed know what he is talking about regarding the Courts. It is simply Judicial Tyranny
*
If the alive unborn had the threat power of O ba ma’s ACORN goonsquad, we would not be living under Roe v Wade. Because the alive unborn are powerless, judges authorize they be slaughtered indescriminately at the whim of a female avoiding responsibility for her actions. The blackrobed oligarchy saunters onward and we the people are shown more and more to be mere subjects of the ruling federal oligarchy now infested with democrats.
Alan Keyes wrote this? It is the most powerful, articulate statement that I have seen from him.
Why is Iowa paying 50 people to be members of its state senate and 100 people to be members of its lower house? The judges will decide what the laws will be—why bother having a legislature? It’s a needless expense.
bookmark.
It’s not so much “Judicial Activists impose same-sex marriage on Iowa” as “The Iowa Constitution imposes same-sex marriage on Iowa”. The decision was unanimous, and obvious. If people don’t like it, and there are very, very many who don’t, then the constitution must be changed.
Quote:
Now that we have addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The County’s silence reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling
This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .”). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.
End Quote
All of the secular reasons for banning same-sex marriage were dealt with by the court, and found to be inadequate - though that is of course debatable. It should be a matter of fact and evidence though, not philosophical, religious or political belief.
What is needed is to change the Iowa constitution so that particular religious beliefs are favoured over others. It’s quite possible, even probable, that the majority of Iowa voters want that, but if so, they need to say so explicitly, and amend their constitution accordingly.
I know, IA joins the list of disappointing states. Pretty soon she will have 44 or 45 sister states on the list.
Hear A Good Interview With Ambassador Dr. Alan Keys
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio
Douglas V. Gibbs, Interviewer
I disagree with Keyes on this point, but only insofar as he thinks heterosexual factionists are moving this agenda forward.
In fact, there has been a biggish battalion of homosexual lawyers, according to a story I saw at 365gay.com a few years ago, working on this project to overthrow marriage for more than 25 years, going back to challenges that were organized and thrown up against Texas's sodomy laws in 1981 (the same laws that were finally struck down, after being affirmed in 1985, in 2003's Lawrence decision).
The object of the campaign is to obliterate the heteronormative institution of marriage, precisely because it is society's recognition of natural order and its imprimatur on heterosexual marriage as the proper arena for procreation and cohabitation, and all the supports that society offers normal families -- supports both moral and substantive, of which homosexuals are insanely jealous.
He would be this nation's first LEGITIMATE black president!!!
LOL!!!
SOT