Sunday, April 5, 2009

Iowa Supreme Court legalizes sodomy-overturns 170 years of state law.

On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court spat on Christian America, and favored sodomy. It ruled that state's same-sex "marriage" ban violates the constitutional rights of homosexual couples, making it the third state where same-sex marriage is legal.

As reported by, "In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional.
The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based homosexula rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six homosexual Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. The suit named then-Polk County recorder and registrar Timothy Brien.

The Polk County attorney's office claimed that Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and the issue should be left to the Legislature. Douglas Napier, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, explains to OneNewsNow that the court overturned the state's Defense of Marriage Act. "The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled, and overwhelming supported by Iowans for 170 years in the history of Iowa," he notes. "There was simply no legitimate reason for this court to redefine marriage."

Napier asserts that the justices stepped out of their proper role of interpreting the law and have instead created new law. A recent poll, which compares to others, indicates 62 percent of Iowans are against homosexual marriage.

"And it's astounding the Supreme Court would usurp the role of the legislature, put a choke hold on the democratic process, and take that from the people of Iowa and claim to know better," the attorney exclaims. "They don't know better -- and the people of Iowa need to vote on a marriage amendment and put it in place and let the Supreme Court know that they can't speak for them."

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University's Law School, had this reaction. "These activist judges are no more than proselytizing engines of social change," he offers. "That's not the role of a judge. They are to be umpires merely calling the balls or strikes. They don't rewrite the definition of marriage." And they do not go against the will of the people, he adds. (Listen to audio report)

Staver believes the legislature ought to vote to put the issue on a future ballot. "There is no question in my mind [they wil do that]," he states. "They will move forward with a constitutional amendment to overrule this ridiculous decision -- which frankly, in my view, is no law at all," the Christian attorney comments. "The judges in this case crossed the line. This is an example of the kind of judge that should never be on the bench." At present, the staff of the Iowa Family Policy Council is lobbying state lawmakers to put the issue on a future ballot.