The Iowa Supreme Court says that gay people have the right to marry. Cue absolutely ridiculous wingnut reaction in 5…4…3…

Update:

Predictably, the usual suspects are wasting no time showing that they truly do not understand the role of the judicial branch:

Douglas Napier, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, explains to OneNewsNow that the court overturned the state’s Defense of Marriage Act. “The Iowa marriage law was simple, settled, and overwhelming supported by Iowans for 170 years in the history of Iowa,” he notes. “There was simply no legitimate reason for this court to redefine marriage.”

Napier asserts that the justices stepped out of their proper role of interpreting the law and have instead created new law. A recent poll, which compares to others, indicates 62 percent of Iowans are against homosexual marriage.

“And it’s astounding the Supreme Court would usurp the role of the legislature, put a choke hold on the democratic process, and take that from the people of Iowa and claim to know better,” the attorney exclaims. “They don’t know better — and the people of Iowa need to vote on a marriage amendment and put it in place and let the Supreme Court know that they can’t speak for them.”

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s Law School, had this reaction. ”These activist judges are no more than proselytizing engines of social change,” he offers. “That’s not the role of a judge. They are to be umpires merely calling the balls or strikes. They don’t rewrite the definition of marriage.” And they do not go against the will of the people, he adds.

Alright, D-bags.  Let’s pretend for a minute.  Imagine that the population of Iowa was, say, 90% fundamentalist Muslim.  Now imagine that a law was passed in our fantasy Iowa, with overwhelming public support, that criminalized Christianity.  Would you support a court decision striking down that law as unconstitutional?  If yes, then you are either raging hypocrites or too profoundly stupid to understand the shit that comes out of your mouths.  If no, then congratulations.  You really don’t understand that the function of the judicial branch in this country is not to merely interpret and enforce laws, but also to overturn laws that are contrary to the constitution.  You know, that whole “checks and balances” thing.

Damn, these people are thick.

A couple of weeks ago, Don Wildmon, the founder of the American Family Association and, without a doubt, the most irrationally homophobic man on the planet, commented that Christians will have lost the culture war if California voters defeat an amendment to ban gay marriages in the state:

Dr. Donald Wildmon is founder of the American Family Association and an organizer of the Arlington Group. He says passage of the California marriage amendment is critical.
 
“If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I’m afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost,” says Wildmon, a 30-year veteran of the culture war. “I’ve never said that publicly until now — but that’s just the reality of the fact.
 
“If the homosexuals are able to defeat the marriage amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then the culture war is over and we’ve lost — and gradually, secularism will replace Christianity as the foundation of our society,” he adds.

Well then, here’s some good news:  it looks like the California marriage amendment is cruisin’ for a bruisin’ at the polls in November.  A new survey by The Field Poll (pdf) reveals that a majority of California voters would vote against the proposed amendment:

In June groups opposed to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage qualified a constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, for the November ballot, which if approved would again provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. 

In a statewide survey completed this week among 672 likely voters, The Field Poll finds that if the election were being held now, more voters say they would vote No (51%) on Prop. 8 than would vote Yes (42%). 

Of course, Wildmon is talking out of his fundamentalist ass.  No reasonable person could honestly believe that a defeat at the polls in November would put an end to the raging dumbshittery of fundamentalist Christian activists in this country.  In fact, such a defeat would just goad them to push harder for a federal gay marriage amendment.  But a man can dream, can’t he?  Just think how great it would be if, following a rejection in California, all the Don Wildmons of the country finally surrendered to The Enlightenment and agreed to peacefully join the 18th century.  Imagine if they all walked into school boards across the country and promised to keep their religion out of science curricula.    Wouldn’t that be fantasitic?  It ain’t gonna happen, though.  Nope, you can’t just turn off that kind of stupid.  

The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled in the Miller-Jenkins case that I discussed previously.  The Court upheld a lower court decision restoring parental rights to Janet Jenkins:

The Virginia Supreme Court said Friday that a Vermont court’s ruling should stand in a child visitation dispute between two former lesbian partners.

Friday’s decision is a victory for Janet Jenkins, who entered a civil union with Lisa Miller in Vermont in 2000. Two years later, Miller gave birth to a daughter conceived through artificial insemination. The women later split up, and their civil union was dissolved.

Since then Janet Jenkins has been battling her former partner in both Vermont and Virginia for visitation rights to the child.

“We are thrilled for Janet–at the end of the day this case is about being a mother to her daughter,” said attorney Greg Nevins of Lambda Legal which represented Jenkins.

“The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision upheld the law and we are extremely pleased.”

This case was a legal slam dunk from the start, as the Vermont court clearly had jurisdiction in the matter under federal law.  The decision is a victory for Janet Jenkins and for gay rights.  It’ll be interesting to see how the anti-gay crowd spins this decision.

Update:

I haven’t read the ruling itself, but from other news reports, it seems like the decision was based on legal technicality rather than on the merits of the case.  From the NY Times:

Friday’s decision concerned an appeal by Ms. Miller of a related ruling from the appeals court, this one reinstating registration of a custody and visitation order from Vermont. Justice Barbara Milano Keenan, writing for a unanimous Virginia Supreme Court, said the attempt was improper.

“Each of the issues Lisa raises in this appeal was addressed and resolved in the first Virginia appeal,” Justice Keenan wrote.

Justice Keenan emphasized, however, that Friday’s ruling was binding “only with respect to the parties and the issues in the case before us.”

In concurring, Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell Sr. went further, saying he believed that the appeals court’s first decision in the case was incorrect but that Ms. Miller had fumbled her effort to appeal it.

I’m a bit baffled by the remarks of the Chief Justice.  As I said above, the law is clear in this case, and the appeals court nailed it in it’s decision.  Under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, the Vermont court has jurisdiction.  I simply don’t see any way around that, except to deny the existence of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Oh boy.  I just came across a supremely dumb opinion piece by Randy Thomasson of Campaign for Children and Families.  Of course, he’s freaking out about the California gay marriage issue, and in his column he demonstrates that he is a world-class ignoramus.  What we have here, folks, is a man who would badly fail a high school civics class:

Read the rest of this entry »

There is an interesting column posted at Townhall.com on Thurday’s California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.  It is interesting because the author, Steve Chapman, makes it clear that he supports the right of homosexuals to marry.  To make such a declaration at a wingnut rat’s nest like Townhall takes some chutzpah, so I have to give Mr. Chapman some props for that.  But on the other hand, his column repeats standard conservative arguments against the ruling.  Read the rest of this entry »