|
Survey shows starkly different opinions on Iowa Supreme Court, gay marriage question
Op-Ed · November 09, 2010
Three Iowa Supreme Court Judges — Marsha Ternus, Michael Streit and David Baker — were not retained for office after an Iowa for Freedom campaign protested their support of finding the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional.
Statewide, 54 percent voted to remove the judges. In Cedar County, about 58 percent voted to remove the judges. However, in Gower and Springdale precincts, which vote in West Branch, 57 percent voted to retain the judges. How did you vote?
61%
(57 of 94 responses)
"I voted to retain the judges."
39%
(37 of 94 responses)
"I voted to remove the judges."
Of the 94 people who took this survey, 61 percent said they voted to retain the judges, while 39 percent said they voted to remove the judges.
We asked them to explain why they voted the way they did, and to try to explain why they felt people voted against them.
There were too many comments to run them all, so we have selected the comments that best captured each side’s opinions.
Why I voted to retain ...
• Because it shouldn’t even be an issue. I have a friend who lost his partner due to cancer. They had been together for over 10 years. ... When my friend’s partner was literally on his death bed in the hospital, the patient’s family refused to let my friend see him. He had no legal right to be in the room. If they had been married, he would have been able to hold his partner’s hand when he slipped away. All of us have lost someone we loved. Can you imagine it if you weren’t able to see a loved one go because of an archaic law?
• This unanimous decision was an interpretation of our state constitution regarding the civil rights of a minority group. This was not activism; it was correctly interpreting our state constitution.
• Primarily, I voted to retain the judges because it is so dangerous to start a precedence of kicking them out for disagreeing with one decision.
• The law in Iowa now states that the judges are appointed ... that way there should be no way they become politicized. To throw them out because of ONE vote is shameful. Perhaps at this point Iowa should change the rules and have them voted into office (as some other states do). The consequences in the next few months may be dire.
• Too many men and women have fought and died for this country so that ALL Americans have equal rights regardless of race, creed or color.
• I believe that this law has not affected the lives of anyone except for the people that have been married.
• The Sanctity of Marriage is a farce. Marriage is what you make of it in your own heart. There is no reason we should deny that right to any person.
• I did not like the way outside money was used to influence peoples decisions, I think people were duped and if they really knew where the money came from I think they would have voted differently.
Why I voted to remove ...
• Because legal marriage is not a right, it is a privilege society grants in order to promote the formation of families. Same-sex couples cannot form families.
• God says marriage is between a man and a woman.
• The people of Iowa should vote on such matters.
• To send a message to the lawmakers and the court.
• The constitution doesn’t say it’s all right for same-sex people to marry.
• If gays can marry, where do we stop? Do we allow a man to have many wives if it makes him happy? Why not? After all, we don’t want to hurt any feelings or be called polygamist-phobe. We pass laws all the time for moral purposes, why can’t the law in defense of marriage hold up, too?
• I believe judges should realize the people are watching. They should rule based on the Constitution, not based on their personal bias of what is socially acceptable today. When the judiciary feels totally unaccountable, it is easier for them to wander from the Constitution and develop an attitude that their duty is to shape society.
• Gay marriage is wrong. Marriage should be between a man and a woman only. Studies show that this is the best environment for children. There are bad parents, but this is a minority.
Why I think others voted to remove ...
• People are intimidated by what they are not familiar with. History has shown us that this is a common behavior and it is unlikely to end with the gay marriage debate.
• Because they saw it as their way to “make a point” about same sex marriage and this really did nothing to change any decisions that might come up about that subject. It only puts three very qualified individuals out of their positions that they worked for over years of schooling.
• Insecurity. People forgetting about separation between church and state. Also, the belief that you can go back to the way things were. You can’t, no matter how much you dream that you can.
• Some people were pushing back because of their personal values. Others had been misinformed about what these justices may do to rural courts.
• Because they are not tolerant of other people and they were influenced by the ad campaigns paid for by money from outside of the state.
• They don’t understand how it feels to have rights given to you which you have waited for all your life to have.
Why I think others voted to retain ...
• It may have been issue-driven, but the lesson for the judiciary should be broader. They should understand they need to stay within the restraints of the Constitution or they will be removed.
• If two people of the same sex wish to cohabitate, then that is their business. However, I don’t think we as a state or country which claims “In God We Trust” should be condoning or legalizing such a union.
• In past elections a lot of people never even look at the judge part of the ballot. I think they voted yes this time so as to not rock the boat.
• Because they believe being gay is not a choice and therefore should be tolerated.
• Because they have no trouble believing that it will hurt anything, but mostly they don’t want to be labeled homophobic.
• To justify a particular lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
