Big winner in today’s Iowa gay-marriage ruling: Huckabee 2012?
posted at 5:53 pm on April 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
These rulings and reaction always follow the same procedure. The court says a marriage law violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause, the GOP fires off the usual boilerplate about activist judges, and the first rumblings about an amendment to overturn the decision are heard. (Iowa’s requirements are especially onerous.) The one obviously big difference this time is that it’s not only a swing state but the first caucus of the primary season — one which Huck, of course, won last year, thanks to evangelicals. And sure enough, here he is on Twitter, out of the gate fast:
Iowa Sup. Court dec.to allow same sex marriage is disappointing. All Iowans should have a say in this matter, not legislative judges.
must fight to preserve family and amend the Constitution of the United States to define marriage as one man and one woman.
A new CNN poll finds that 55 percent of Americans still oppose gay marriage, but if the California ruling and Prop 8 backlash weren’t enough to drive that number up to the sort of supermajority levels you’d need to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, I doubt anything will. Which is to say, this is a transparent pander by Huck, just like the GOP’s push for an amendment to overturn Roe that’ll never pass either, but it’s a pander that could win Iowa for him. The question is, will the rest of the field tack right on this issue too to compete with him for social cons in Iowa or will there be a “civil unions yes, marriage no” contingent? Huck says no to both, as does Romney (now), as does even Michael Steele. I’m not sure about Palin: She supports the FMA but said something at her debate with Biden about not wanting to prevent gays from sharing domestic benefits, which could mean anything from civil unions to domestic partnerships to simple contractual arrangements. The wild card is Jon Huntsman, who caused a stir a few months ago when he came out in favor of civil unions. WaPo says that’ll hurt him. I’m not so sure:
One person who could potentially be hurt by today’s ruling is Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) who has staked out a moderate position on the issue — expressing his support for civil unions earlier this year despite the fact that large numbers of Utah voters oppose the idea. “I’m a firm believer in the traditional construct of marriage, a man and a woman,” the governor told the Deseret News. “But I also think that we can go a greater distance in enhancing equal rights for others in nontraditional relationships.”
It remains to be seen whether Huntsman’s position — against same-sex marriage but in support of civil unions — is too nuanced to pass muster for social conservative voters.
Huntsman doesn’t need Iowa, which he’s almost certainly not going to win anyway. He needs name recognition, and being the moderate in a field of social cons despised by the media is a shrewd way to get it. If he goes to Iowa and makes the case for civil unions while Huckabee’s breathing fire about tradition, he may lose the battle but win the war. Exit question: Who benefits?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Gay marriage ruling or not, I just assume that Huckabee can win Iowa again and again.
Unless, of course, there is a Republican candidate willing to actually drink a pint of ethanol on stage, during the primary debate.
myrenovations on April 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM
It’s pathetic that everything is viewed from a lens of “who wins and who loses” – that kind of thinking is driving us down the road we are on.
lorien1973 on April 3, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Mike Huckabee, who would have thought.
portlandon on April 3, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Newsflash to people who support “civil unions”- what on earth do you think marriage is besides a civil union? The state doesn’t recognize the religious aspect to the union, that’s where the church comes in. To say you support civil unions but not gay marriage makes…well- absolutely no sense at all.
TheBlueSite on April 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Over it will not be, until we have President Huckabee.
/Yoda
SouthernGent on April 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Especially on a political site.
frankj on April 3, 2009 at 6:00 PM
So, CNN polled “Americans”?
I’m guessing it woule be higher if it was LV’s.
They got low 50’s in CA for crying out loud.
artist on April 3, 2009 at 6:01 PM
It’s pathetic that everything is viewed from a lens of “who wins and who loses” – that kind of thinking is driving us down the road we are on.
lorien1973 on April 3, 2009 at 5:58 PM
I just have to know!
Is that road a winning or losing one?
:)
artist on April 3, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Forget Huckabee. Sarah Palin 2012!
ZJPolitical on April 3, 2009 at 6:04 PM
I think the big winner was human dignity.
RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Huckaboom!
fed-nad on April 3, 2009 at 6:05 PM
A Huckabee run would do a lot of good for the Libertarian Party.
Tzetzes on April 3, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Amendment to ban Gay Marriage is Statist. Let the states Decide. Keep DOMA though.
Amednment to over turn Roe. Not statist. The states can choose whether to ban abortions or not. I would rather have the SCOTUS undo the damage it did.
WashJeff on April 3, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Do you feel like anyone is winning?
lorien1973 on April 3, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Anybody here watch Battlestar Galactica?
All of this has happened before, all of it will happen again.
jimmy the notable on April 3, 2009 at 6:10 PM
flat tax muthaf*ckaz!
blatantblue on April 3, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Soooo….
The GOP will make a big deal out of this, and select their next Presidential Candidate, again, on a Social Con question?
While again being divided, or not caring (as the lack of Repub votes FOR the Republican alternative Budget plan showed) about Fiscal Con issues?
Geeezzzz… I really wish there was a Fiscal Convervative party out there somewhere…
Romeo13 on April 3, 2009 at 6:11 PM
lorien1973 on April 3, 2009 at 6:08 PM
I was joking about the irony in your post.
In a lighthearted way.
artist on April 3, 2009 at 6:13 PM
I didn’t like Huckabee and I don’t like Huckabee. I still say his wife looks like Ma Kettle.
suzyk on April 3, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Hmm, what’s the bigger issue here, the political winners and losers, or the assault on our republican democracy by the judicial tyranny?
Fundamentally, does it really matter who wins if liberal judges can undue every political victory by fiat?
Nessuno on April 3, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Your Yoda grammar is weak.
“Until President Huckabee we have, over will it be not.”
Count to 10 on April 3, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Okay I know this is stupid considering I’m a Mormon but are you talking about Jon Hunstman who is governer or Utah or his father who is big businessman? I’m not from Utah I don’t really know who is saying what.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Huckabee? No. If he’s ever the nominee, you’ll know the GOP is screwed.
therightwinger on April 3, 2009 at 6:17 PM
I think Palin will probably drop or minimize her support of FMA due to the fact that she will campaign on her biggest strength: Federalism. I’d tell her to oppose gay marriage personally, but support states rights. It is important to note that many young conservatives don’t really care about gay marriage, and would like to see the issue minimized.
I think Palin’s base is the mainstream Christian community, whereas the hardcore evangelical community will go for Huck.
doug1981 on April 3, 2009 at 6:18 PM
And Palin will STILL beat Huck in Iowa even with a slightly softer position.
doug1981 on April 3, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Agreed probably give the entire mountain west to the Libertarians or Dems actually.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 6:19 PM
It will come down to two questions: does the state have an interest and a right to grant privileges to mated pairs for the purpose of improving the raising of children, and what privileges the state should set aside for those who merely co-habitate.
Count to 10 on April 3, 2009 at 6:20 PM
What’s the over/under on number of comments for this thread?
notropis on April 3, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Well, Huckabee in his current state, anyway. I suppose there is a slim chance he might get some of that old time constitutionalism, but otherwise, yeah, we’d be screwed.
Count to 10 on April 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM
We must first determine the over/under on Poptech and The Wall showing up.
doug1981 on April 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM
Who’s your friend??? I told ya. Huck WILL be our next Pres.
marklmail on April 3, 2009 at 6:23 PM
I want whatever you are on.
doug1981 on April 3, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Does barely 30 comments in the the first half hour tell you anything? Yawn…
Huckabee is both irrelevant and uninteresting, despite Allah’s repeated attempts to equate him with Palin.
Norwegian on April 3, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Huck is crooked … you’re forewarned … he’s not all he appears to be … just sayin’
HondaV65 on April 3, 2009 at 6:29 PM
LOL. They framed it as an equal rights issue .
Good luck with that.
getalife on April 3, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Or, should the State, having no RIGHTS, as a Right is for an individual (states having responsibilities, not Rights), back off from Socialy Engineering a Society, and allow the people to decide for themselves.
And the second question, does a State have the “Right” to treat its citizens differently based on a Moral outlook of their behaviour?
(as you can probably guess, I’m somthing of a Libertarian… I don’t want the least Government intervention in Society possible…)
Romeo13 on April 3, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Palin got social conservatives, she is fiscally conservative, she takes no crap from Obama (unlike Romney who kisses Obama’s butt), and she is great on the constitution.
jencab on April 3, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Thank you, getalife.
Thank you for providing that quote. I had a hardy chuckle over the thought that Iowa will become the Gay Mecca.
Idiot? Yes. Useful? Sometimes.
myrenovations on April 3, 2009 at 6:33 PM
If you want a cross between mccain and aurnold (kalifornia) then you get john huntsman jr! Mccain wants him, because he supported mccain, hook line and sinker and so mccain mentioned his name first when questioned about possible candidates. Vote for huntsman, you get mccain! Huntsman’s intelligent father supported Romney. Must have been great dinner conversations around their table.
Draft his father and you have a REAL MAN!!!!!
Bambi on April 3, 2009 at 6:35 PM
But don’t let that stop anyone from trying to force it upon us by any means necessary until enough opponents are too scared to speak up. Then, there can finally be a poll that says its popular.
Loxodonta on April 3, 2009 at 6:36 PM
I actually have not given it a lot of thought… but they already live in these relationships now. So it isn’t going to change any behavior to have “marriage” or “civil unions”.
“Civil Unions” would preserve the rights of Churches to determine what is taught in church. And that is the interest of Mormons in this issue. We want to keep government out of our Church.
The distinction is small but hopefully it will be enough to protect our rights. And prevent the inevitable government re-education that will have to take place when “marriage” no longer has any meaning.
Schools will teach that church doctrine is immoral. They all ready do. But it does soften it when the government at least makes a language distinction.
Civil Unions aren’t offical Church doctrine. And I am just thinking out loud in print.
Gays blame that California Amendment on us. And we feel complimented that they think we have so much power. However, we are a very small percent of California, like 2%? But in Iowa the percent is so small… I doubt we would make a dent at all.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 6:37 PM
This is an effort to marginalize Sarah Palin from the base of the GOP in order to divide the conservatives so the son of McCain (Mitt Romney) can come up the middle, giving the Messiah a re-election victory in 2012.
Plain as the nose on your face.
technopeasant on April 3, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Huckabee – yeah! The only Republican who could be outspending Obama at this point! Yeah! Hopenrighteouschange! Yeah!
beatcanvas on April 3, 2009 at 6:37 PM
I personally am agaisnt Gay Marriage, but if the people support it then I can accept it a lot easier than judges legislating from the bench. Defining marriage is the job of legislators who are accountable to the people, not idealistic judges desperately trying to leave their mark on society. I can’t stand this abuse of the court system, it weakens our Constitution and turns into a polarizing document. I have not looked over the Iowa constitution but I know for a fact that the U.S., California and CT (my state) constitution say nothing about defining marriage or granting it as a protected right. They say nothing about the need to recognize specific sexual behaviors.
As for Huckabee, something doesn’t feel right abouyt him. I do feel he used subtle references to Romney’s Mormon faith to stir up anti Mormon bigotry in his favor. I also find it odd that he still seems to hold some kind of grudge against Romney and takes cheap shots to this day. I am a social conservative, but he doesn’t feel right to me. I like his show though, he can stay there.
I don’t feel this issue will necessarily benefit Huck though. For one, I feel it will be a part of a broader issue on judicial activism as Obama nominates ultra liberal trans-nationalist judges (possibly one or two to the Supreme Court) which will benefit all Republicans. Second, I may be a social conservative but I feel that the next election cycle in 2010 should focus heavily on Economics. Judicial Activism as a broad secondary issue but Economics as the primary. Obama’s absurd budget and the growing deficit and unemployment will make it all about the economy and if liberals and the media bring up social issues, we can respond with the Clintonian “it’s the economy, stupid.” Last but not least, Iowa is irrelevant, even as the first caucus. Huck could win by 90 points and still lose the nomination.
Daemonocracy on April 3, 2009 at 6:41 PM
So is it RedPill or St Olaf? I’d say St Olaf simply due to the lack of verbosity from Red Pills “visions”.
darury on April 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM
It’s referring to Jon Huntsman, the governor.
gwelf on April 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM
So which one supports civil unions? I’m just curious. I think it is so far out from choosing a canidate that it is just silly to even think about.
I think Hunstman, Sr. was on the draft Romney for VP committee and he spent a lot of time at McCain’s ranch during that time. So it seems his influence is limited. I think McCain mentioned Huntsman, the other day, to cozy up to Mormons in AZ for his next election. I’m not in a highly Mormon part of the state so I have no idea if that helped or not. Lack of Mormon support almost cost him the AZ Primary. That’s what I took it as. I haven’t heard Huntsman, father or son running for Prez.
But which is Allah talking about above? A sitting Utah governer or his father?
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Thank you.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 6:55 PM
But this ignores the question of whether the state has the right to dictate whether a church doctrine is discrimination.
And the materials being used to teach children in California were moral edict from the government.
I maintain that the state by choosing sides in what is basically a religous and moral arguement is over stepping its bounds. Remember in California the laws were already established to give full rights to same sex partners. That issue was only over the word “marriage” in the courts and the schools.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM
It’s only judicial activism if you disagree with the ruling. If you asked the judges, I’m sure they’d tell you they based their ruling on sound legal reasoning. The fact that judges don’t always rule in accordance with our legislative bodies is a healthy sign that the judicial branch is functioning as it was intended: independent of the legislative branch.
RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 7:02 PM
The earliest anything can change with the gay marriage issue in Iowa is 2013. Can’t see how that benefits Huckster.
SnarkVader on April 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM
The Huckabees of the world would go away if the GOP gave a rat’s @$$ about the social issues and put some skin in the game on them, apart from the judges issue (which is of paramount importance to all the legs of Mitt’s “3-legged stool”).
As one who cares about the social conservative issues first and foremost, I ask you all to please stop tearing apart this coalition. Many of the comments on this site about Huck (and sometimes about Jindal or Palin) reveal you to be every bit as judgmental as the Democrats whose policies we oppose.
I don’t know who attacked you all with a crucifix when you were younger, but please stop blaming the woes of the GOP on its social conservatives rather than on the fact that Republicans have not governed as fiscal conservatives. It’s possible to be both! I am.
If Huck were to secure the nomination, he would be the most conservative nominee of the GOP since Reagan. (Not that that’s saying much…)
The skepticism shown to his candidacy this cycle will mean he will track right next time. Good job! Now stop all this stupid hyperbole about him being worse than Obama. I know we all need someone to hate but couldn’t it be one of the many contemptible Democrats running this great nation into the ground?
bcm4134 on April 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Ahh, I hate to say I was right. So, I’ll just say, “you were WRONG”. Huck/Palin 2012!!!
marklmail on April 3, 2009 at 7:07 PM
No, it is judicial activism when the judges write the laws from the bench, such as Griswold VS CT and Roe VS Wade. I do not have to ask the judges when I can read their ruling. All of the rulings heavily reached because they felt what they were doing was “right”. In California, Gay Marriage was blocked by a direct democratic vote by the people, and the judges tried to overturn this so the people had to take a more extreme measure and pass a Constitutional amendment. I am not a big fan of amendments like this, but the people felt it had to be done to control the Judiciary. Direct democratic votes are written into the California Constitution but the Judges ignored this, and this is not activist how?
Judges should take a strict constuctionalist approach to Constitutions or else eventually they will be just as politicized as their legislative counterparts.
Daemonocracy on April 3, 2009 at 7:12 PM
In order to say this you must ignore Huckabee’s record of fiscal liberalism. And it was Huckabee who hit me over the head with a crucifix thank you very much. I’d like to avoid anymore of Huckabees brand of religion. Thank you very very much.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 7:13 PM
No way would Huckabee be more conservative than Jindal or Palin. About even socialy but he has shown liberal tendencies fiscally. I’m not a big fan of his “fair tax” proposal because I do not think it is fair at all. Such an increase in the National sales Tax would adversely effect the poor and middle class and slow down the economic growth. A flat tax is the best form of tax reform I have heard.
But 2012 is so far off I’m even thinking much about who I would support. Hell my dog in the hunt in 2008 was Duncan Hunter. Poor Duncan.
Daemonocracy on April 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM
I’m a Jeffersonian… the less government the better…
And I don’t believe that States HAVE Rights, they have obligations, and limitations…
A State has the OBLIGATION to defend its people. It does not have the RIGHT to defend ITSELF, as there is no SELF there to defend. Its a Contract between the People, and a thing called Government… it is not an entity unto itself.
But then again, I probably would have fought on the side of the South in the Civil War… as the South saw a breaking of the Contract it had with the US Fed Gov, while Lincoln fought to “preserve the Union”… speaking of it as an entity unto itself.
Romeo13 on April 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM
As I wrote, those are the questions, and these are your answers.
Count to 10 on April 3, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Off Topic
Portlandon … is that Portland,OR? If so, Gresham resident here. Not many Oregonians here at HA.
ORrighty on April 3, 2009 at 7:29 PM
No, I would have to look at the losers the party has nominated.
And I doubt Mike hit you on the head with a crucifix. He’s a Baptist.
I do think Jindal has about the right governing record. I hope he runs. But then there are the same people in the party who hate Palin and Huckabee who would see no reason to support a “Creationist” like Jindal.
bcm4134 on April 3, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Today’s losers are tomorrow’s winners in this issue:
Dem. Governor Chet Culver & several of the Dems in the Senate & House–LOSERS
Huckabee, Palin & anti-gay marriage Republican gubernatorial candidates–WINNERS
Culver’s up for reelection in 2010. He has yet to issue a statement on today’s ruling. Anything short of finding a way to overturn it means a loss in 2010.
Western Iowa is as conservative as it gets & they’ll come out in droves to drive the Dems out of office.
Too bad the Iowa Caucuses aren’t this year. Obama would have trouble winning the state again with this issue lingering.
bigred on April 3, 2009 at 7:33 PM
I didn’t like Huckabee and do not like him.
I can not believe 2012 and Huckabee is in the same headline. I can not take 3+ years of Huckabee in the spotlight. Please, I beg you! stop.
ORconservative on April 3, 2009 at 7:34 PM
I’m here.
ORconservative on April 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Are you talking about prop. 8? I don’t think they’ve ruled on that, yet, have they? I hope they overturn it. It’s possible that voters could amend the constitution in a way that violates contradicts the protections of the unamended text. What happens then? Hypothetically, if Californians had passed an amendment to legalize slavery, I would hope the judiciary would have the authority nullify the amendment.
In practice, the only way to completely eliminate the possibility of judicial activism is to eliminate the judicial branch. Otherwise, they have the constitutional authority to make unpopular decisions.
RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM
ORconservative on April 3, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Glad to see you … we’ve got out work cutout for us in this State.
ORrighty on April 3, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Just so I’m clear, I don’t think Roe v. Wade or Griswold v. CT are examples of judicial activism because I think the judges ruled correctly. You’re free to disagree, and we’re both free to vote for politicians who will appoint judges that reflect our opinions. I hope you don’t take it as gloating, I’m just pointing out a fact: my politicians appear to be winning. If that ever changes, I’m not going cry “judicial activism,” I’m just going to work harder to elect better politicians.
RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Iowa will decide whether Huck or Palin is the bigger Jesus Lover! Can’t wait!
Speedwagon82 on April 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM
RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM
So those who voted for Prop 8 did so even though it violates the state’s Constitution? How do you figure? Mightn’t they know something about this?
Where discrepancies in interpretation exist, it should NEVER be the judges who decide whose interpretation is right, especially when the people have made their opinion known at the ballot box.
You would not be defending the methodology if you were on the other side of the coin.
bcm4134 on April 3, 2009 at 7:43 PM
You’re right. Haven’t been here long but have met a few like minded. Fortunately, and specifically my immediate neighbors. Nice to live among friends.
ORconservative on April 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM
No Huckabee.
No Romney.
No Gingrich.
No Christ.
No Steele.
No Cantor.
No McCain. (Never, never, never.)
No …etc.
ncjetsfan on April 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Oh, I don’t know… how about the 16th Amendment which made the IRS “legal”? Which clearly contradicts the earlier constitution without bothering to change it?
Amend, means change… later portions can overrule earlier portions.
Romeo13 on April 3, 2009 at 7:49 PM
ncjetsfan on April 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Agreed.
ORconservative on April 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM
And to think when I was young we hung gays.
That is the way the founders of this once great nation set it up. Sodomy got the death penalty and this “court” somehow justifies marriage among those the founders would have hung. In what dimension are we living. Will we wake up from this nightmare some day.
God must weep when he sees this country the way it is now. What about a constitutional amendment making sodomy a felony once again punishable by at least years in prison.
You had better pray there is no God. I would imagine he will judge harshly those that condone sodomy almost as strongly as those that engage in it. God has always hated the sinner just as we should. God just stands ready to completely forgive them if they seek it as we should as well. But when they get “married” they are spitting in Gods face as are we if we don’t condemn their behavior and them for engaging in it openly and proudly. Gay Pride = Pure Evil. Jesus said love your enemies and went on to tell us to convert them while condemning their sins. This was not the “love” of accepting them the way they were but of changing them. Christ made it abundantly clear they would be judged for their sins.
I quit my church when they condoned civil unions after gays protested against them. That is not God’s way.
Steveangell on April 3, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Shudder. Just move the Iowa Caucuses to be the last event in the nominating season. Then Huckabee can win them with 100% of the vote and it won’t matter.
funky chicken on April 3, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Steveangell on April 3, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Moby or freak?
funky chicken on April 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM
jencab on April 3, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Did you actually read the speech in question, or just the liberal headline? He wasn’t kissing Obama’s butt by any means.
thecountofincognito on April 3, 2009 at 8:03 PM
My guess? Moby.
Romeo13 on April 3, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Gay activists are fascists who require judicial fiat as a foot in the door to all other manner of control. Gay is not just “OK” it must be accepted and promoted by all. Or you’re a homophobe!
So in short, they won, we lost, for now.
BKennedy on April 3, 2009 at 8:07 PM
It’s fine for us to agree to disagree, I am not a sensitive person and you have been civil. So you’re cool in my book.
And I don’t see you as gloating, though I am unsure what you mean by “your politicans are winning”. Specifically we were talking about gay marriage and last I checked, most politicians who were elected this past election, including Obama himself, came out against gay marriage. The problem I have is that these same politicians, such as Obama, will use the courts as a backdoor to institute gay marriage by appointing judges who support their real agenda. This is where the judicial activism comes into play.
If the legislature or the people vote in favor of gay marriage, then it is the rule of law and I will have to accept it as such. I won’t personally support gay marriage and will vote agaisnt politicians who do (though it’s not like I’m a one issue voter) but if the people decide on it, then it is fair game. The Constitution does not prevent gay marriage any more than it advocates for it. It leaves the matter in the hands of the people, not the courts.
Daemonocracy on April 3, 2009 at 8:14 PM
More activist homo judges eh? Must have moved there from California…
RealDemocrat on April 3, 2009 at 8:18 PM
No Huckabee in 2012! He is a Rino, and he isn’t honest as some huck tards think he is. I am not going to waste my typing to explain it again. He has a greedy side as well. He acts like a Liberal at times. Yes, his show on Fox is ok but he says some pretty stupid things that are not needed. He should just keep his show on Fox News.
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Does this mean that Ca. has a chance? Ahhhh dang guess I was dreaming for a second!
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOdoabbLBcE
RealDemocrat on April 3, 2009 at 8:24 PM
I live here in SOCAL. I still have my YES ON 8 sign. Excuse me, I gotta go out and put the sign in the front yard just for GP….
RealDemocrat on April 3, 2009 at 8:27 PM
What other methodology is there? When there’s a dispute about constitutionality, the judicial branch has the authority to resolve it.
RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Nice punt, AP. Make it about Huck:
I was blogging earlier on the Iowa decision and filled an entire post critiquing just the background section–the opinion should be remembered as one of the premier examples of progressive, elitist literature, right up there with the 100+ page Pennsylvania ID case. (Talk about a judge full of himself!)
AP, you really are high on weed if you think a civil union approach would pass muster under the gaze of the Iowa Court’s “Equal Protection Death Star.”
Please, please, AP, I beg you: Take a moment, step away from your Huck-bashing platform, and explain to me what exactly is right about the Court’s decision today. Yeah, sure, you may think civil unions are the best thing EVAH, but is that not a decision for Iowans to make by statute or constitutional provision? This is simply another power grab by the judiciary, nothing more or less.
(And don’t hide behind your thinly-veiled sarcasm on this one–it’s fairly obvious you think opposition to gay marriage is the “extremist” position here, notwithstanding what the law actually says.)
cackcon on April 3, 2009 at 8:56 PM
I meant that even though many politicians superficially oppose abortion, they don’t oppose it forcefully enough to push judges through who will agree with them. You’re right, though, I shouldn’t have included gay marriage in the win column, despite some progress in a few states.
RightOFLeft on April 3, 2009 at 8:56 PM
The Courts decision shows how the Judges have not held up to the Oath they take before they go to the bench. This could be a very dangerous decision. And soon Ca. will follow but we will fight them.
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 9:15 PM
FairTax is one thing Huck has right. Objections like your clearly show you have not given it a thorough review. I encourage you to check out the FairTax.org site and read Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder’s excellent books on the subject.
But I digress…
Daft Punk on April 3, 2009 at 9:18 PM
You have a point. I do like the Fair Tax. But a friend of mine who has his masters and tested the Fair Tax said that they need to lower the percentag rate. Then it would be Fair. So although I do like the Fair Tax, it is important that it is fair for all.
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 9:21 PM
percentag= percentage
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 9:21 PM
You hate most Republicans AND Jesus?! Tough crowd.
Daft Punk on April 3, 2009 at 9:23 PM
The Force is not great with me. Sorry. I’m a “Star Trek” fan anyways! :p
SouthernGent on April 3, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Well, the under took it. Looks like Huck’s only votes are going to come from Allah, “proving a point.”
Mike, you’re done. Palin can quadruple your response rate, just by telling her daughter’s baby pa to stfu.
No Huck, no Mitt, no Rudy, no Newt.
Not yet, anyway.
notropis on April 3, 2009 at 11:31 PM
I don’t know the correct words for all the “Christian” graven images but I do know that Huckabee is the reason I dislike Huckabee and it has everything to do with his heavy and hate filled use of his “Christian Leadership” Huck’s brand insists that all other believers are second class Christians or Christians not at all.
I for instance am in his eyes and more particularly in his deeds a cultist of the basest sort to be scorned and ridiculed and in former times burned for heresy I assume or perhaps a ruler such as he would choose witchcraft.
That attitude should be kept in the middle ages where he lives his life.
Jindahl is fine even though I find creationism rather suspect for a scientific theory, I’m sure it must have some value as it is a search for truth, but it doesn’t matter because religion is learned at home. And because I have a hard time believing that my school district would choose to teach it. And my grandkids live in California and Washington certainly not likely to give in to something such as that without a fight.
Palin is fine. She has not proven herself completely in my eyes but she has possibilities.
All of this is silly considering that it is 3.5 years before I must settle on a canidate for President. I most often don’t choose until at least half way through the Primary.
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 11:57 PM
You need to read history. Slavery was abolished by consitutional amendment. Over turning judical activism by the courts. That is what will happen again.
petunia on April 4, 2009 at 12:10 AM
An amendment to Article X of the Iowa Constitution requires the following question to appear on the ballot every ten years:
“Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution, and propose amendment or amendments to same?”
The next time this comes up is next year’s general election. So the people of Iowa have a chance to get around the Democrats who control both houses of the Iowa Legislature and pass an amendment much faster than the usual procedure.
nkviking75 on April 4, 2009 at 12:43 AM
Arrogant homos…
RealDemocrat on April 4, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »