Activist Judges Force Gay Marriage Upon People of Iowa
By Tony Perkins
As the nation is still absorbing the actions of activist judges in Iowa
that forced same-sex marriage upon the people of that state and
potentially the nation, the faithful in the Hawkeye State are working
hard to persuade the Democratic leadership in the state legislature to
move quickly to protect marriage.
Iowa is a key state in picking our
nation's Presidential candidates every four years, though if the
nation's heartland should go forward with eradicating marriage that
special status might quickly change. Persuading the state Democrats
will not be an easy task.
For over 40 years the state was a Republican
majority state. However, in 2006 and 2008 Tim Gill, a homosexual
billionaire seeking to take out legislators across the United States
who support traditional marriage, flooded the campaign coffers of
Democratic candidates at the last minute, effectively buying the
Democrats a majority in the legislature -- and ensuring that Iowa would
not pass a marriage amendment.
The homosexual activists also have a
close friend in President Barack Obama. On Friday night the President
issued a press release on the Iowa decision saying that he supported
civil unions rather than same-sex marriage but that the states should
decide the matter.
Within two hours the President was forced to change
and re-issue his press release after homosexual activists complained
that the first version did not include the words "equal protection." I
spoke over the weekend to Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family
Policy Council. They are working hard in the state and you can help
them with both prayers and financial support.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
It is the historic right of all nations or tribes to decide what their marriage laws are. Marriage is a ancient and profound concept touching on the identity of people on something so important to everyone.
For some mere judge to up and say that the people of a nation do not and never did have the right to decide on marriage laws is to rejection ancient right of all mankind. There is nothing to trump such a right especially if its based on religious ideas for many nations. If the people don't decide then who does?
Nothing in any other part of a peoples law can be construed to overthrow BASIC ANCIENT rights in serious customs and lifestyle laws.
America has the greatest concept of law based on the people in mankind's history but at present terrible problems with hiring proper law people.
Her's a chance for republicans to take on liberal agendas and separate themselves from Obama cheerleading.
Religion is not the basis of law in the USA. Our founders were dedicated to that ideal. Our laws are based upon personal liberty, and making sure that the rights of one person do not infringe upon the rights of another.
Thus, we have the freedom to believe and worship as we choose, and if our religion tells us that a person is not a suitable marriage partner, we have the right to follow that religious belief, if we like. Other people have the right to follow THEIR own religious beliefs and not to have someone else's forced upon them.
If you wish to find a society where all people's actions are dictated by the religious beliefs of a single religious tradition, there are some lovely countries in the middle-East where this is the case.
Just thought I'd poke in here to bring up the following.
Brown v. Board was considered judicial activism when it was ruled by the Supreme Court.
That's all.