While this is obviously good news, the sad part about it is the fact that it
does nothing to annul the same-sex "marriage" law in Iowa.

Also, it should be pointed out that in discussing the gay and lesbian
minority of Iowa, the following article leaves out one very important word.
It is a very UNGODLY minority, who shall have no place in the Kingdom of
God, unless they repent of their sins. As the Apostle Paul writes:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be
not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [homosexuals],"
1 Corinthians 6:9, KJV

Exactly how some people -- including liberal preachers, and the modern,
wayward, liberal churches -- ignore the truth of that verse, is beyond me.
What is says is as plain as day. There are no unrepentant gays in Heaven.
Period.


Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends Signal to Bench

A same-sex marriage ruling sparked a removal campaign.

By A. G. SULZBERGER

November 3, 2010


DES MOINES -- An unprecedented vote to remove three Iowa Supreme Court
justices who were part of the unanimous decision that legalized same-sex
marriage in the state was celebrated by conservatives as a popular rebuke of
judicial overreach, even as it alarmed proponents of an independent
judiciary.

The outcome of the election was heralded both as a statewide repudiation of
same-sex marriage and as a national demonstration that conservatives who
have long complained about "legislators in robes" are able to effectively
target and remove judges who issue unpopular decisions.

Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to
judges elsewhere.

"I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides
with the people," said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican
candidate for governor who led the campaign. "It's we the people, not we the
courts."

But critics of the campaign, including those who see the courts as a
protector of minority rights, said the politicization of uncontested
judicial elections represented a danger.

"What is so disturbing about this is that it really might cause judges in
the future to be less willing to protect minorities out of fear that they
might be voted out of office," said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the
University of California, Irvine, School of Law. "Something like this really
does chill other judges."

Replacements for the three ousted justices will be appointed by the governor
from a slate of candidates nominated by a committee of lawyers and will have
to stand for periodic retention votes, a system known as merit selection.

From its first decision in 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court demonstrated a
willingness to push ahead of public opinion on matters of minority rights,
ruling against slavery, school segregation and discrimination decades before
the national mood shifted toward racial equality.

That legacy was cited in liberal corners here last year when the
seven-member court voted unanimously to strike down a law defining marriage
as between a man and a woman, making the state the first in the Midwest to
permit same-sex marriage.

But the risk of leapfrogging -- or ignoring -- public opinion on
controversial issues was brought into sharp relief Tuesday when voters chose
to remove all three justices who were on the ballot seeking new terms.

Conservative groups this year launched similar campaigns in a number of the
16 states that use merit selection, targeting supreme court justices for
rulings on abortion, taxes, tort reform and health care. Unlike the three in
Iowa, however, those judges -- in Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Illinois and
Florida -- were all re-elected.

The number of challenges and the success of the effort in Iowa has caused
some concern that retention elections designed to be as apolitical as
possible are becoming as bitterly contested as other races. This year far
more was spent on campaigns in retention elections than was spent in the
entire previous decade, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New
York University Law School.

The ouster was reminiscent of a retention election in California in 1986
that led to the removal of three Supreme Court justices who were portrayed
as opposing the death penalty.

"Obviously it has an impact on the independence of judges and how they think
of their role -- I think that's demonstrable," said Joseph R. Grodin, a law
professor who was one of the three California judges who lost a re-election
bid. "But more than that," he continued, "I think the damage is not on
judges, but that courts will come to be seen and judges will come to be seen
as simply legislators with robes."

The most sustained effort to oust judges in this election cycle was in Iowa,
where out-of-state organizations opposed to gay marriage, including the
National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association,
poured money into the removal campaign. Judges face no opponents in
retention elections and simply need to win more yes votes than no votes to
go on to another eight-year term. In Iowa, the three ousted justices did not
raise campaign money, and they only made public appearances defending
themselves toward the end of the election.

Each of the three justices -- Marsha K. Ternus, the chief justice; Michael
J. Streit; and David L. Baker -- received about 45 percent of the vote,
making this the first time members of the state's high court had been
rejected by voters. The 71 lower court judges on the ballot all easily won
re-election.

The justices' removal will have no effect on same-sex marriage, which will
remain the law.

The judges declined requests for interviews but released a statement that
decried what they called "an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special
interest groups." The statement defended the system for selecting judges but
offered what a veiled warning about populist impulses to remake the
judiciary: "Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state's fair and
impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of
individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people."

The defeat was a bitter disappointment to much of the legal community here,
which rallied behind the justices, and it was viewed with particular concern
in the gay community, which has found state courts more sympathetic than
state legislatures.

"A lot of time we start in the courts because they're there to protect the
minority against the tyranny of the majority," said Carolyn Jenisen,
executive director of One Iowa, an organization supporting gay rights,
"Because they're there to make tough decisions without regard to popular
opinion."



Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1
 * Origin: Armageddon BBS -- Guam, Mariana Islands (1:345/3777.0)