08/31/2007
Mitt Romney Slams Iowa "Activist Judge" on Gay Marriage Decision
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney hastily released a statement yesterday criticizing Judge Robert B. Hanson, who yesterday struck down a state law banning same-sex marriage and told the Polk County Recorder to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Said Romney: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
You may have missed...
Judge Declares Iowa Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional [tr]
Posted 8:58 AM EST by Andy in Gay Marriage, Iowa, Mitt Romney, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Romney also demonstrated his new invention, the "Corn Holer 2007."
Posted by: Homer | Aug 31, 2007 9:06:36 AM
"activst judges" were the ones who started integration with Brown vs board of education etc. Civil rights main thrust has always taken place in the courts first.
But I wouldn't expect somebody whose holy book equates sin with black skin to be too enlightened on anything.
Posted by: anon | Aug 31, 2007 9:09:57 AM
Um, Mitt, it's Iowa, not Massachusetts, who do you think appointed that judge...my guess is going to be a republican. Falling on the side of "equality" is not activism.
So, you support a federal amendment to overrule the desires of the people of your state? Interesting, no wonder no poll shows you even coming close to winning that state if you are the nominee.
Posted by: nycredneck | Aug 31, 2007 9:24:44 AM
Judicial Activism: a right-wing term for when a Supreme Court Justice reaches a conclusion on a constitutional manner that does not mesh with the ideology of the far right.
Strict Constructionist: a right-wing judicial activist.
Posted by: Wes | Aug 31, 2007 9:26:00 AM
Which and/or how many of Mitt's son's are gay?
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Aug 31, 2007 9:28:59 AM
It's the same knee-jerk reaction of bigots that happened during Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education. The prefer their exclusionary provisions to perpetuate their myths that same sex couples are unable to maintain healthy relationships.
Posted by: Gary | Aug 31, 2007 9:49:48 AM
Romney makes me sick to look at him! Out of his 5 sons...2 set off my Gaydar...these jerkoffs never think of the FUTURE, that maybe..just maybe...one of thier kids/grandkids MIGHT be gay! Imagaine having a grandfather like this asshole? Aaargh...Mit SuX!
Posted by: Rex | Aug 31, 2007 9:53:06 AM
I want to pray to Jesus Christ right now. Jesus, if you're listening, please SEND CANCER to Mitt Romney. I'll do anything for you if you make this happen. Amen.
Posted by: JLS | Aug 31, 2007 10:01:01 AM
This is the same old tactics used by Republicans that got President Bush elected and is failing now as millions of people are seeing the GOP as a party of hypocrites. They rail against gay marriage and get caught cruising for dick in a public restroom. And don't fool yourself into thinking the Democrats are any better. Get informed and vote your conscience regardless of party affiliation.
Posted by: JerzeeMike | Aug 31, 2007 10:01:11 AM
This is the same old tactics used by Republicans that got President Bush elected and is failing now as millions of people are seeing the GOP as a party of hypocrites. They rail against gay marriage and get caught cruising for dick in a public restroom. And don't fool yourself into thinking the Democrats are any better. Get informed and vote your conscience regardless of party affiliation.
Posted by: JerzeeMike | Aug 31, 2007 10:03:47 AM
As a Massachusetts resident, I've been thru this with Mitt and it scares me to think that the man may become president. If you follow his logic on the "activist judges" and their tendency to interpret law, it can only follow that Mitt feels legality should be determined by a majority vote.
I can see him in his white robes now: "All in favor of a lynching raise your hands"
Posted by: bostonbear | Aug 31, 2007 10:07:00 AM
Ohh Mitt everyone's an activist judge when they don't go along with you.
By the way I don't believe any of Mitts son's are gay. I've worked with a few before he became governor and so hasn't my partner and they're happily straight and gay friendly.
Posted by: zeke | Aug 31, 2007 10:19:42 AM
He really needs to find a new platform if he hopes to get elected. The next president's position on Gay Marriage is not going to be an issue in next years election.
Posted by: Bryce | Aug 31, 2007 10:30:30 AM
Fuck that smarmy, two-faced, cult-loving, used-car-salesman-like, dog abusing fuckwad.
That is all.
Posted by: Tread | Aug 31, 2007 10:41:29 AM
As someone already stated, these guys don't seem to think about the future and how their own family may be impacted by their narrow and bigoted decisions today. Actually I think they don't care, because they think (possibly correctly) that money insulates you from most everything. Mary Cheney has got to be the poster child for this thinking.
Posted by: hoya86 | Aug 31, 2007 10:48:12 AM
Funny, sad and typical how the Repugnant's always find a judge to be an "activist" when its something they don't like, just more tacky tactics from the android.
I wonder how he feels about that "activist" Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito and thier mission to deny civil rights to just about anyone who does not look or think like they do?????
Posted by: Sebastian | Aug 31, 2007 11:03:28 AM
Oh but Sebastian, those aren't "activists," they are "strict constructionists". Its only activism when they disagree with the outcome.
The Federal Marriage Amendment was one huge act of activism, but you didn't see them complain about that.
The GOP is so clever with semantics. Sort of how "family values" often serves as code for "anti-gay" and whatnot.
Posted by: Wes | Aug 31, 2007 11:10:03 AM
from Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com
Judge Robert Hanson of Polk County, Iowa struck down the state’s decade-old anti-gay marriage statute this morning, finding that it violated the state constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.
Gay couples across the state of Iowa are now free to apply for marriage licenses.
While I was excited to learn of this ruling for gay equality, I fear it will be short lived. The Polk County attorney plans on appealing the ruling to the State Supreme Court, and he has already filed a stay to prevent gay couples from marrying until the appeal is resolved.
What’s worse, Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants is already preparing an anti-gay marriage amendment to Iowa’s constitution.
We saw how the 2003 Massachusetts ruling in favor of marriage equality ushered in backlash across the country, culminating in 27 state amendments denying the right of marriage to gays. I fear this Iowa ruling will have a similar effect, especially with election season upon us. This is why I’m generally against sweeping court decisions like this. I think an incremental steps toward equality such as the ones in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Washington, Virginia, and Michigan.
I may be overly pessimistic–a lot has changed even in the five years since the Massachusetts ruling. In spite of all of the state wide amendments banning gay marriage, we have seen several states move in the opposite direction to provide the status of civil unions to gay couples (though still unequal).
In addition, Rove (mastermind of the gay-baiting tactics to get out the conservative base) is gone. The ‘family values’ wing of the Republican party is awash with the sex scandals of Senators Craig and Vitter. And recent polling has indicated that social wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion may not have the pull they had in past, what with two failing wars in the Middle East and all.
Either way, should be a very interesting case to follow, and certainly more to come on the Blitz.
Posted by: Elizabeth Schmitz | Aug 31, 2007 11:29:44 AM
from Schmitz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com
Judge Robert Hanson of Polk County, Iowa struck down the state’s decade-old anti-gay marriage statute this morning, finding that it violated the state constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.
Gay couples across the state of Iowa are now free to apply for marriage licenses.
While I was excited to learn of this ruling for gay equality, I fear it will be short lived. The Polk County attorney plans on appealing the ruling to the State Supreme Court, and he has already filed a stay to prevent gay couples from marrying until the appeal is resolved.
What’s worse, Republican House Minority Leader Christopher Rants is already preparing an anti-gay marriage amendment to Iowa’s constitution.
We saw how the 2003 Massachusetts ruling in favor of marriage equality ushered in backlash across the country, culminating in 27 state amendments denying the right of marriage to gays. I fear this Iowa ruling will have a similar effect, especially with election season upon us. This is why I’m generally against sweeping court decisions like this. I think an incremental steps toward equality such as the ones in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Washington, Virginia, and Michigan.
I may be overly pessimistic–a lot has changed even in the five years since the Massachusetts ruling. In spite of all of the state wide amendments banning gay marriage, we have seen several states move in the opposite direction to provide the status of civil unions to gay couples (though still unequal).
In addition, Rove (mastermind of the gay-baiting tactics to get out the conservative base) is gone. The ‘family values’ wing of the Republican party is awash with the sex scandals of Senators Craig and Vitter. And recent polling has indicated that social wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion may not have the pull they had in past, what with two failing wars in the Middle East and all.
Either way, should be a very interesting case to follow, and certainly more to come on the Blitz.
Posted by: Elizabeth Schmitz | Aug 31, 2007 11:29:51 AM
Fuck that swine! SCREW YOU MITT ROMNEY! Avast, me hearty's! fight the good fight. We must win against these republican/x-tian douchebags. FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO BE QUEER!
Posted by: the queen | Aug 31, 2007 11:31:44 AM
Mitt Romney is a pandering moron. For Repukes, the term "Activist Judges" is defined as "any judge who issues a decision they disagree with or when they lose a ruling in court."
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Aug 31, 2007 11:58:04 AM
I thought the only thing Iowans cared about was ethanol subsidies.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 31, 2007 12:00:23 PM
god, what an unctuous entity. he should be doing infomercials or televangelizing.
Posted by: nic | Aug 31, 2007 12:37:35 PM
Posted by: peterparker | Aug 31, 2007 12:37:44 PM
Rove behind the scenes? This is obviously an attempt to bring the "Gay Marriage" issue to the forefront of the 08 elections. Romney knows of this tactic as an effective way to mobilize the ignorant christian base. Democrats must actively remind these idiots that there are far more prevalent issues that will really affect their lives and that of their sons in Iraq for example.
Posted by: Rafael | Aug 31, 2007 1:37:28 PM
The worst part of this is how hilariously inconsistent and contradictory he is, as a federal marriage amendment would completely silence any attempt by a state's populace to define marriage as they want it defined. I guess "the will of the people" only matters if the people agree with him.
Posted by: DCN | Aug 31, 2007 2:25:23 PM
PETERPARKER,
i have no idea how we ended up piggy-backed like that. the above was my comment, not yours. but, really, is that so WRONG?
Posted by: nic | Aug 31, 2007 6:13:27 PM
ONCE AGIN..."MITTENS" IS SUCH A TOOL...
Posted by: alan brickman | Aug 31, 2007 7:15:25 PM