« California Rejects Marijuana Initiative | Main | Have Democrats Lost Faith in Faith-Based Outreach? »

November 3, 2010

3 Justices Booted in Iowa after Same-sex Marriage Ruling

In Iowa, voters spoke on gay marriage, but not through a ballot measure. Iowa voters ousted three Supreme Court members who legalized gay marriage in 2009. Chief justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit lost their bids to stay on the state's highest court.

Conservative groups rallied Iowa voters to vote the judges out of their seats this year in response to their decision last year. “Kicking out those three justices would be a warning shot across the judiciary's bow,” said Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford.

Iowa is one of a dozen states that uses the "Missouri Plan" for judicial selection. Justices are nominated by a nonpartisan commission based on merit. The Governor then makes an appointment. However, the justices seek reelection at the end of their terms to retain their place on the bench. They do not face an opponent. It is an up or down vote on the justice.

Justices in states with a Missouri Plan rarely face defeat. But in this election, the retention vote was a referendum on the Court's marriage ruling. Tonight, Iowa voters gave the justices a thumbs down.


The Supreme Court Justice needed to know they were hurting people.

The decision in question not only allowed same-sex couples to marry, but also made sweeping judgments and stereotypes about people with same-sex attractions in general.

I am attracted to the same sex, but DO NOT agree with the values and behaviors of the gay community. People like me are constantly pushed into the gay lifestyle, despite insistence that we do not want to go there. I am used to people telling me that I need gay sex to be "true to myself", but I was appalled when the Iowa Supreme Court joined on the band wagon.

They said gay marriage was the only way for me to "fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation". That is insulting. Despite my attractions to men, I am in a fulfilling marriage to a woman that very much fulfills my need for a committed personal relationship.

They had no studies to back up their accusation. They had no evidence. All they had was their prejudice against mixed-orientation marriages.

Prejudice does not belong in the Supreme Court. They are supposed to defend us, not attack us.

Congrats Iowa for kicking them out!

@ Joshua,

"People like me are constantly pushed into the gay lifestyle"

I'm 59 years old, and in all my years I've never - EVER - not even ONCE heard of someone being "pushed" to be gay. Either one is or one is not attracted to others of the same gender. (There's no such thing as "the gay lifestyle" - that's a big fat lie you seem to have bought into.)

"I was appalled when the Iowa Supreme Court" [made equality and justice for ALL a reality for ALL citizens in Iowa]. Odd, because I was overjoyed at a clearly UN-Constitutional law being struck down.

"They said gay marriage was the only way for me to "fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship".

Who is this "they"? The Supreme Courts Justices never said any such thing, nor has any LGBT equality worker I've ever known said any such thing. You made that up, didn't you? If anyone had ever said it to me, I would have been insulted too - since it isn't true. Marriage is certainly one way to fulfill one's need for a committed personal relationship. (It wors for me and my husband.) So is co-habitation without the benefit of marriage.

"They had no studies to back up their accusation."

What "accusation"? I've seen none.

"Despite my attractions to men, I am in a fulfilling marriage to a woman"

Does your wife know you are same-sex attracted? Or is that yet another lie you're living? Or perhaps you are simply bisexual, in which case you made a choice - a choice you don't want other (actually gay) people to have.

"All they had was their prejudice against mixed-orientation marriages."

Do you mean to tell us that heterosexual ("mixed-orientation" ???) marriages are no longer legal since the judges made their ruling? If so, U 2 funnee.

"Prejudice does not belong in the Supreme Court."

It wasn't there prior to this election. The ruling was ANTI-prejudice.

"They are supposed to defend us, not attack us."

How on earth have you been "attacked"?

Lying makes the Baby Jesus cry. Stop bearing false witness against God's gay and lesbian children. It's a SIN, remember.

Frankly, I'm amazed - no, GOBSMACKED! - that a blog called "Christianity Today" would allow such hateful lies to be posted.

In Iowa there are panels that pick candidates for a number of state positions. All of these panels must have roughly equal representation from both parties. All except for the panel that nominates the Supreme Court justices. There is only one Republican (and one Independent) on this panel. All the rest are Democrats. That it why we get a unanimous vote on the gay marriage issue. They are ALL leftists.

The justices have made quite a bit of hay over the fact that they are bound by the constitution to give equal representation to all people. This is how they came to their decision. Two issues here: First, if they knew the constitution as well as they claim, they would understand that what they did was legislative. That power is not give to them. Second, how is it that this panel of judges was able to recognize a right that no other panel of justices in Iowa's history have seen? They cannot get around the historical argument.

I hope the rest of the get the boot when they come up for retention in subsequent elections.

@ Joshua

I am sorry for the difficult path you are travelling and for the pain you are experiencing. It isn't helped when you get such a judgmental, mean-spirited and ignorant responses such as what "truth" offers.

The world at large has simply bought the lie that if you are attracted to people of the same gender that you are gay and you are condemned to live either as a gay person (in an unbiblical, immoral lifestyle) or as a frustrated sexual being (not ever being able to enjoy sex in the way God intended).

I applaud your effort to squelch the old nature that says "Sin" by striving to live in a God-pleasing way, even if it is as difficult as overcoming any kind of dependency.

I pray that you will experience God's continual forgiveness and power and discipline to live a godly life!! Thank you for sharing.

Dr. Mark Yarhouse has done some excellent research and writing in this area. I highly recommend him to you.

Way to go Iowa!!!

Please keep your personal religion out of my government.

Thank you.

Please keep your government out of my religion.

Thank you.

Please keep your gay agenda out of our country's government and the Christian religion. Thanks for nothin'.

Truth be told:

Sexual attraction and desire are fluid and can change. There really aren't clear differences between "heterosexuals," "homosexuals," "bisexuals," and "questioning." Most if not all people have at some time in their lives been attracted to both sexes. Many "heterosexuals" have varying attractions, some stronger than others, to people of the same sex, especially when they are younger. But they usually grow out of their unwanted same-sex attractions. But none of this really matters, because God tells Christians and Jews in the Bible not to commit homosexual acts. God created men and women to have sexual complementarity with each other.

@Truth be told - Please, no confessions. TMI.