Or so the Marriage Derangement Syndrome crowd would have you believe.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’ll reiterate: There actually is nothing in the U.S. Constitution – the SUPREME law of the land – which actually gives any governmental entity in this country any power to prohibit same-sex marriage, but that never stops the religionists-who-claim-they-want-smaller-government-except-where-more-government-helps-them-force-religion-down-the-throats-and-up-the-asses-of-people-who-don’t-wanti-it. We all know that the anti-gay-marriage crowd is just a front for broadened christofascism and that the arguments against same-sex marriage are pure skunk shit (as the experience of states where it has been allowed proves.)
But the folks who have been pushing same-sex marriage to the front of ‘the agenda’ – steamrolling the more pressing employment/housing needs of individual LGBs (not to mention Ts) – continue to not get it.
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.
Vote totals from 96 percent of Iowa’s 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.
Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.
The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservative activists had hoped.
“It appears we’re headed for a resounding victory tonight and a historic moment in the state of Iowa,” said Bob Vander Plaats, the Sioux City businessman who led a campaign to remove the justices because of the 2009 gay marriage ruling. “The people of Iowa stood up in record numbers and sent a message … that it is ‘We the people,’ not ‘We the courts.’ “
But, of course, the LGB(T) rights movement will continue to be ‘We, the gays whose personal desire for the tax benefits of marriage – you know, being able to shelter our obscene incomes and buy five cherry red sports cars instead of four – drives us to not give a shit about anyone else,’ not ‘We the working class LGBT people who actually have to interview for jobs in jurisdictions where assholes like Bob Vander Plaats can hang out ‘LGBTs need not apply’ signs.
Of course, Iowa isn’t one of those juristictions.
Well, for the time being anyway.
Gov.-elect Terry Branstad might be close to a trifecta: Republican majorities in the House, Senate and, of course, the governor’s chair.
Results were still coming in late Tuesday, but tracking from the Associated Press showed the trend was for Republicans to hold 24 of the 50 seats in the Iowa Senate and 58 of the 100 seats in the Iowa House.
The results mean that a vote to start a constitutional amendment process to end marriage rights for same-sex couples is possible if Republicans capture control of the Senate.
And repeal of the state’s trans-inclusive state ENDA is but two DINO votes away.
Oh, but there is no backlash to same-sex marriage…
And, even if there is, it doesn’t harm anything else….
Sure, part of this was the illegally-funded, U.S. Chamber of Shipping Jobs to India attacks against Obama and the Dem Congress.
But how much?
- 1st District: Braley declares victory, but Lange won’t concede
- 2nd District: Loebsack fends off foe
- 3rd District: Leonard Boswell survives a rough campaign
- 4th District: Latham glides to 9th term
- 5th District: King returns to Congress
None of the Iowa Democratic congressmen lost; and creepshow zombie Republican senator (Up)Chuck Grassley wiped out his Democratic challenger.
The Iowa state suff was the Iowa state stuff.
So now, there are three vacancies on the 7-member Iowa Supreme Court; and its a coinflip as to whether time or any other reason might cause another vacancy or two on the court during the next four years. Guess who gets to fill those vacancies? Terry Branstad – who signed the anti-gay-marriage law that the Iowa Supreme Court invalidated in Varnum v. Brien.
Does the MDS crowd really think its beyond the realm of possibility that, once there are at least three solid anti-gay justices (and at least one or more scared ones), that the illegally-funded christianist minority in Iowa won’t somehow manage to push a case in front of the court that will allow it to ‘revisit’ the holding in Varnum?
Sadly, it probably does.
Even sadder, it probably rationalizes that the constrictive Goins-v.-West-Group-will-look-good-by-comparison interpretation of that 2007 Iowa ENDA that will eventually come from such a court – assuming that said ENDA lasts long enough for a trans case to get filed pursuant to it – is not something that can be placed at the feet of the MDS crowd.
Remember all of this when you see the continued salivation over the progress of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger anti-Prop 8 case out in the Ninth Circuit.
Who among you actually thinks that – should the Ninth Circuit either affirmatively uphold the anti-Prop 8 ruling or procedurally prevent the ruling from being appealed – the ‘congress’ that was elected yesterday won’t be able to get its Herbert West on and re-animate the election-year fear, paranoia and Democrat cowardice of 1996 in order to, now successfully, ram through a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment and send it out to the states for ratification?
That’s what I thought.
The same people who masterfully prevented Prop 8 from happening in the first place (NOT!) and – now counting the rejection of the Iowa Supreme Court justices as the functional pre-equivalent of an anti-marriage referendum – are batting 0-for-forever in stopping anti-gay-marriage referenda.
As well as the same people who are still shocked and feather-ruffled by the anger of trans people who refuse to bend over and accept the ‘expertise’ of ‘our LGB(T) leaders’ on this, much less ENDA.
Yes, I’ve blogged about the Iowa retention vote – in support of the justices.
But, as I noted:
In that post, (Uo)chuck Hurley was talking about re-criminalizing gay sex. That’s not likely. But, people who already had some freedoms – pre-Varnum v. Brien freedoms – are going to lose them as a result of the backlash to Iowa same-sex marriage.
Any bets that there will – somehow! miraculously! – be a ‘compromise’, and that only some people will lose the freedoms that they had prior to the gay marriage ruling?
Any bets as to who those some people will be?
In your hearts – and minds – you know what the answers are.