Posted on 04/23/2009 6:52:49 PM PDT by steve-b
A former legislator filed an ethics complaint Thursday against a northern Iowa lawmaker, claiming he violated his oath of office by urging county recorders to defy a court ruling legalizing gay marriage.
Ed Fallon, of Des Moines, filed the complaint against Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton.
"It's really important that state lawmakers respect their oath of office and we have really serious questions about whether that's happening in this case," Fallon said.
Fallon pointed to public comments Bartz has made urging recorders to refuse to comply with an April 3 ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court striking down the state's ban on gay marriage. Fallon argued that the oath of office lawmakers take requires them to follow the law and urge others to do the same.....
The complaint also questioned whether public money was used to develop and maintain a Web site that Bartz used to promote the petition.
Fallon noted that the Web site lists as contacts Republican legislative staffers "who are entirely funded at taxpayer expense."...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
The attorney general of California (Mr. Moonbeam) is trying to thwart the will of the voters and legislature too. He isn’t making the national papers for it.
whatever happened to civil disobediance?
“’It’s really important that state lawmakers respect their oath of office and we have really serious questions about whether that’s happening in this case,’ Fallon said.”
“John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”
-President Andrew Jackson
Bartz is my State Senator. A decent guy.
Fallon is a putz.
A judicial fiat does not=law, therefore they would be Violating their constitutional oaths BY instituting the Iowa Sup. Ct. ruling.
This guy has it bass-ackwords!
Civil Disobedience..? Since when did the sup ct become supreme legislator & executive in that state?
What’s a ‘Mrriage’?
Legislators don't take an oath to the courts, but to the constitution of Iowa.
Seems a lot like what Gavin Newsom did in SF, except reversed.
Getting back to reason, no law has been enacted allowing for homo-"marriage" so the legislator is within his full rights to advocate resisting a court decision's implementation. I hope he's joined by others.
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.