Alex Blaze

Republicans take out a hit on the remaining Iowa justices

Filed By Alex Blaze | November 13, 2010 7:30 AM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Quote of the Day

"That is an issue that the people overwhelmingly said, 'We want to have a say in this. It should not be overreaching government or judges.' I believe the (justices) would still be in office had Mike Gronstal allowed that vote over the past two years. It would not even have been an issue." Gronstal is the Democratic leader in the state senate, and he has used his authority to block a vote on a proposal which would set the wheels in motion for a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Iowa.

You can lay that squarely at the feet of the Democrats. And I don't know if they want to be responsible for a redo of this in two years on a (judicial) retention vote or not, but I would think that many of their members who have professed that they think people should have a vote will be given the opportunity to do the right thing."

--Iowa Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley

Recent Entries Filed under Quote of the Day:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

It is my understanding that this nation is a Republic as in it's form of government. If I recall my understanding of that it means that majority rule is generally the case except when it comes to the rights of the minority. That the rights of the minority are to be protected even if the majority would not think so.

If all people are equal under the law, how can a nation that is supposed to protect the rights of the minority deny access to a government administered contract i.e. marriage to any part of people who wish to exercise that right? I have never, and will never understand how some claim marriage is only reserved for who a church says are an acceptable pair in a country that also claims to have separation of Church and State. In both these cases denial of access to a marriage contract which is a right available to a couple that consists of a male and a female, would seem to be basically making those who might choose to marry outside that traditional arrangement basically second class citizens.

It is also time that those within the Church come to terms with the fact they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they wish to not have the Government telling them what they can and cannot practice as far as their religious views, then they also need to try to keep their fingers out of the Equality issue for those who do not share their beliefs.