Iowa Congressman Calls for ‘Help’ in Overturning Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Ruling

CNS News ^ | April 8, 2009 | Pete Winn

[DesertRenegade]

Rep. Steven King (R-Iowa) is calling for help to fight last week’s Iowa Supreme Court decision creating homosexual marriage in the heartland.

“I am asking for help from across the country, so that we get people that will come in and raise this issue, so that at least Iowans understand, by the time they go to the polls in 2010, the difference between marriage and same-sex marriage,” he said Tuesday.

King told CNSNews.com that “most Iowans don’t support same-sex ‘marriage’ ” – and don’t want judges to impose what he called “a radical redefinition of marriage.”

“This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said.

King, now in his fourth term in Congress, said opponents will to try to get a constitutional convention approved in 2010 to overturn the decision.

[DesertRenegade]

This whole pandering to same-sex attraction disorder has gotten out of control. Now is the time for people to step up to the plate and turn back this movement to normalize deviancy. As parents, it is chilling to hear what the militant homosexual movement is attempting to do to brainwash our impressionable young children.

[Frantzie]

Steve King is a good man. The GOP needs more like him and Michelle Bachmann.

[Ann Archy]

HOW can WE HELP????? HOW???

[farmer18th]

Let me guess: The Iowa State Constitution doesn't have any clause that reads "persons who have abnormal sexual attraction to the same sex, or animals, or multiple instances of said attraction, have the same rights to marry as other citizens, however many number of marital alliances may be desired."

Was this something that "emanated" from the penumbral glow of the document itself--or did these legal whores make up their own law?

Am I the only one who thinks these sort of jurists should be sent to Gitmo?

[Dacula]

The GOP Leader Mr. Steele will surely make a comment about this ruling and stand up for the Republican party principles.

---

HOW can WE HELP????? HOW???

[massmike]

Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools

http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

[yongin]

9 years ago, gays were contend with civil union or domestic partnerships. Now they want gay marriage. Iowa is under complete control of the Dems. It will be hard to get a ballot amendment up. Elections have consequences.

[El Cid]

Can't the Legislative Branch impeach renegade judges?
Do the people need a recall campaign?
At least 2010 isn't that far off - for his Constitutional Convention - but these judges need to be impeached for overstepping their bounds. The executive and legislative branches seem to have ceded their duties to the men in black robes. Not good for our system of government.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Is it possible, somehow, for conservatives to force this issue in federal court, since federal law explicitly defines marriage as a man and a woman?

Doesn’t federal law trump any state laws in a case where those laws conflict with each other? Shouldn’t the federal marriage law override state laws?

Are there other areas of law in which states are allowed to have different laws from the federal government? Can anyone think of any examples?

Maybe this is an area where conservatives could have the upper hand in court. Maybe.

[navygal]

My kids already know that they can walk out of the classroom.

[gondramB]

Like it or not this will largely be decided in the supreme courts - state Federal - Its important to remember how inter-racial marriage became legal.

It was Loving v Virginia in 1967. Public support for black civil rights was about the same as public support for gay rights is today. In Loving, the supreme court ruled that marriage is “a basic civil right of man.”

So I don’t think it does any good to fight gay marriage with legislation. Nor do I think that you will ever get a federal amendment passed.

Until this week, I thought the only way gay marriage would not become the law of the land was a Federal supreme court that would back off on Loving.

But Iowa is a game changer. It only takes one non-liberal state to apply a Loving type decision and I think the game is over.

[Dilbert San Diego]

The gay agenda has advanced, no question.

Once they get same-sex marriage institutionalized, they will move on to the next items on the agenda. This won’t be the last time we re-define marriage. The next step in their agenda is to get to legalized gay and straight group marriage.

First they wanted to get the concept of homosexual marriage into the law. When that concept of same-sex marriage is established, then they will move on to group marriage. They will claim that monogamy is discriminatory against those who want more than one partner.

Any definition of marriage is going to discriminate against someone who wants to live their life a different way. One issue in this whole debate is whether society is allowed to have any standards at all, and who sets those standards. Are liberal judges going to set all of the social norms from now on?????????

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Thanks for the link

[squarebarb]

Yes, that’s what’s going to happen in Iowa.

What most people haven’t so far realized, it seems, is that what is ahead is litigation, litigation, litigation.

Parents having to constantly monitor gay teachers to keep them from offering age-inappropriate sexual materials to little kids...

Homosexual organizations now demanding recognition of their marriages by Iowa churches...

Demanding gay families depicted in textbooks...

Homosexuals couples now demanding church adoption agencies adopt to gay ‘couples’...

Endless law fights.

I suspect that as in other areas gays and lesbians are already ensconced in the school system as they are even here in Texas cities.

Lesbians in elementary school and gays in high school.

I even wonder if the big teacher’s union is not heavily homosexual at the top level.

At any rate, parents are going to be caught up in one legal fight after another when gays start pouring sex education to their kids.

[cvq3842]

I don’t see the analogy to interracial marriage at all.

[DesertRenegade]

Here you go: http://steveking.house.gov/

[Ann Archy]

THANKS!!

[gondramB]

>>I don’t see the analogy to interracial marriage at all.<<

The argument will likely go like this- if marriage is a fundamental civil right then it takes a compelling public interest to limit it - so public health - blood tests for disease and incest could limit marriage- likewise age limits because of the ability to form mature intent.

But otherwise, I think the eventual impact of Loving is that consenting adults will be able to be married and that the full faith and credit clause will cause states to honor marriages from other states.

I’m not even sure what would limit marriages to two people except that it may be another 30 years before that decision.

[cvq3842]

Understood. thanks.

I see the issue of marriage as not “straight and gay” but men and women. They are different: legally equal but not identical or interchangeable. The law specifically recognizes this by allowing “sex segregated” bathrooms, locker rooms, barracks, etc., even though racial segregation has been outlawed.

Thanks again for your response. I do fear for the society being created around the ruins of what I grew up with.

[freedomwarrior998]

Do a bit of research. Loving isn't the controlling precedent, the United States Supreme Court's summary decision in Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810, (1972) is the controlling precedent as a matter of Federal Constitutional law.