Judicial Retention Loses in Iowa Send Clear Message
(Harrisburg) – In April 2009 Iowa’s Supreme Court chose to declare that state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. In November 2010 three of those judges are out of a job, specifically targeted because of their judicial activism from the bench.
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), a statewide organization which supports natural one man one woman marriage, once again notes the anger expressed by the voters over the redefinition of marriage.
“Iowa voters have made it clear since last year’s decision that they strongly oppose their Supreme Court’s decision to overstep its authority and legislate from the bench by imposing so-called same-sex marriage on the state. Yesterday they had an opportunity to hand deliver that message through their vote,” commented Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
Most of the homosexuals applying for ‘marriage licenses’ in Iowa are from the surrounding states with constitutional amendments defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. So, in essence the Iowa Supreme Court also imposed its will upon Iowa’s neighbors.
“Even before this 2009 decision Iowans had tried unsuccessfully to get their legislative body to give them an opportunity to vote on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Their legislators told them their DOMA was good enough. In Pennsylvania we’ve faced the same scenario with a legislature unwilling to give the people a vote on the definition of marriage. The judicial decision in Iowa should have been a warning to Pennsylvania’s legislators that our DOMA is not enough,” Gramley said.
Perhaps the loss of three judicial retention races in Iowa specifically over this issue will get Pennsylvania legislators’ attention. This is the first time Iowa Supreme Court judges have ever lost a retention vote.
“The issue of protecting marriage is just as important to Pennsylvanians and our legislators need to act before our DOMA is challenged and the question is placed into the hands of judges. Creating laws is not in a judge’s job description; however in too many states it has been the courts which have legalized same-sex marriage. Perhaps our newly elected Pennsylvania legislators and governor will better understand the issue and allow the people to vote,” Gramley concluded.
# # #