Bob Vander Plaats | Gay Marriage | Iowa | Rick Perry | Rick Santorum | Steve King

BigGayDeal.com

At Family Leadership Summit, Iowan Conservatives Vow To Defeat Judge Wiggins

Davidwiggins

Yesterday, nearly 1,000 of Iowa's religious conservatives gathered in Grace Point Church, in Waukee, for the Family Leadership Summit. They did not seek to eliminate child hunger or illiteracy or poverty in Iowa, or to ensure that Iowa's children receive their vaccinations. They instead listened to addresses from Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Rep. Steve King, and others, and plotted the defeat of Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins, who's up for a retention vote this year. Judge Wiggins is one of the seven Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled against the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act in 2009.

The campaign to unseat Judge Wiggins was announced by failed gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats. From the AP:

“When you raise your hand and you swear an oath to the constitution and then you go outside of the constitution, outside of your separation of powers to legislate from the bench . . . we the people must hold a person like that in check,” said Vander Plaats, chairman of [the anti-Wiggins campaign,] Iowans for Freedom.

Earlier this month, Andy reported that the state GOP is gunning for Judge Wiggins, too.

Three of the justices who threw out the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act have come up for retention vote since the ruling. All three have been ousted.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I live in Iowa. The facts are, most Iowans aren't interested in getting rid of marriage equality. And quality of life here has not exactly degenerated since it went into effect. These strange, squirmy, frightened people think ousting Justice Wiggins 3 years later is going to do- what?

    Posted by: exqueeze | Aug 12, 2012 2:09:04 PM


  2. thank you BKT.

    i was particularly floored by Ryan's soundbite on "laws" and "God"

    if he believed that message he'd be running on a Godly campaign platform of universal healthcare, the distribution of excessive wealth to the needy, and other decidedly Jesus-y things.

    Alas, it's all too clear that their faith ends where their pocketbooks begin.

    Christians that oppose Christ's commandment to keep prayer a PRIVATE thing (sermon on the mount, anyone?) and to give all you have to those who go without, and choose instead "social issues" that don't ACTUALLY have any legit backup, theologically speaking, from the Good Book they claim to live by.

    *facepalm*

    As I said to a family member in michigan, who always votes for "whichever candidate is most Anti-Abortion", "Yeah, and that vote you cast is the reason you had to re-mortgage your house to pay for your husband's leg amputation. congratulations"

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Aug 12, 2012 2:13:47 PM


  3. I thought that if a church publicly states their political views and supports or opposes specific politicians, they were to loose their non-profit status. But, of course, the IRS would never dare go against any church or cult...the agents are probably members.

    Posted by: chuck | Aug 12, 2012 2:15:51 PM


  4. Once all non-straights were robed of their rights or possibly even their lives...

    Poverty, war, murder, rape, etcetera continued.

    Posted by: Blake | Aug 12, 2012 2:20:50 PM


  5. This campaign has one purpose and one purpose ONLY, to get more social/religious conservatives to the polls to vote for the Republican/Tea Party ticket!

    Getting rid of the judge would only be the cherry on top.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Aug 12, 2012 2:28:24 PM


  6. The name of the church is not Grace Point Church. It is Point of Grace Church.

    Posted by: Hephaestion | Aug 12, 2012 2:32:15 PM


  7. They don't like judges who rule on the constitution of Iowa.

    They want activist conservative judges who will ignore the constitution.

    Posted by: KevinVT | Aug 12, 2012 3:48:26 PM


  8. It's been said but bears repeating -- if you want to see what the Christianist right's agenda is, look at EXACTLY what they accuse the left of doing.

    "you go outside of the constitution, outside of your separation of powers"... yep, that's what they want, to limit Constitutional powers and civil equality of taxpaying citizens based on THEIR interpretation of THEIR God.

    Posted by: Strepsi | Aug 12, 2012 3:58:47 PM


  9. It's obnoxious they refer to the US Constitution when explaining why they're trying to deny gay people civil rights.

    Posted by: Michael | Aug 12, 2012 4:05:12 PM


  10. The unanimous decision that brought marriage equality to IA upheld the constitution. And the rightwing Republicans can't stand that they're on the wrong side of justice, so they keep trying to rewrite history to suit their bigotry. Even if they are capable of unfairly ejecting this judge in an attempt to replace him with an activist homophobe, they've already failed. Marriage equality isn't going anywhere in IA.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 12, 2012 4:09:05 PM


  11. The constitution is Van Der Plaats and his cronies worst enemy. They want an Iran.

    Posted by: Molc | Aug 12, 2012 4:49:40 PM


  12. Shame on Iowa for voting out three highly qualified judges, and shame on Iowa for what's going to happen with this justice.

    Posted by: Mike B. | Aug 12, 2012 7:08:43 PM


  13. Those "Family Value Leaders" have made it quite clear what they think of us.

    You'd better believe if they had any power to do so, we would be herded into trains and shipped behind an electric fence. They're rabid hatemongers.

    Posted by: Geoff M | Aug 12, 2012 9:02:24 PM


  14. First they came for the Muslims, then the Judges and then the gays. Who is next?

    Posted by: Mike | Aug 12, 2012 9:58:27 PM


  15. Is there a counter effort to support this judge? How can I donate?

    Posted by: Mutie | Aug 12, 2012 9:58:41 PM


  16. I agree that marriage equality is safe in Iowa. But this judge could very well be voted out. And situations like this are why the Chic-Fil-A episdode was a bad development for the gay community at this time. Those who are frustrated over the "bullying" of Chick-Fil-A (even if liberal on other issues) could vote against this judge to (as George Wallace used to say) "send them a message." When you operate in a situation where the public can retalitate you have to consider that this will happen. A simple boycott of Chic-Fil-A would have sufficed. Instead it mushroomed into a situation where several liberal mayors went so far in violating the constitution (or implying that they would) that they had to be chastised by fellow liberals.

    Posted by: Mary | Aug 13, 2012 8:16:53 AM


  17. I agree that marriage equality is safe in Iowa. But this judge could very well be voted out. And situations like this are why the Chic-Fil-A episdode was a bad development for the gay community at this time. Those who are frustrated over the "bullying" of Chick-Fil-A (even if liberal on other issues) could vote against this judge to (as George Wallace used to say) "send them a message." When you operate in a situation where the public can retalitate you have to consider that this will happen. A simple boycott of Chic-Fil-A would have sufficed. Instead it mushroomed into a situation where several liberal mayors went so far in violating the constitution (or implying that they would) that they had to be chastised by fellow liberals.

    Posted by: Mary | Aug 13, 2012 8:16:54 AM


  18. Sorry for the accidental duplicate.

    Posted by: Mary | Aug 13, 2012 8:21:13 AM


  19. "But, of course, the IRS would never dare go against any church..."

    Oh yes it did! Back in 2004 the IRS investigated the very liberal All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, CA) for a sermon preached opposing the war in Iraq, claiming it was a prohibited political endorsement. The church claimed, among other things, selective enforcement by not pursuing actions against conservative churches. The IRS eventualy closed their investigation in 2007 without any relevant explanations other than affirming the claim that it was political intervention but without revoking their tax-exempt status. You can read more details on Wikipedia.

    Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Aug 13, 2012 8:48:56 AM


  20. Let’s see if this judge will defend himself and give an account of his term on the bench to the people of Iowa. In 2010 his three ousted ex-colleagues refused to campaign for themselves and refused to engage the people of Iowa in an essential debate on constitutional law. They decided that they were above that sort of thing and that they owed the people of Iowa nothing and that they were certainly not going to give an account of their thinking to anybody. Then they got booted. I’ve read since how bitter they are. Yet their ouster wasn’t inevitable. Why couldn’t they explain themselves to the people? What’s wrong with a judge justifying himself in an election that is being held explicitly for that purpose? If this guy wants to retain his seat and defeat the fundie loons, then he’s got to engage in democracy. He’s got no other choice.

    Posted by: Jim | Aug 13, 2012 6:18:31 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «International Gayhaters Vs. Prague Pride And Friends« «