Contact: Matt Barber: jmattbarber@comcast.net

DATE: April 27, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Iowa Governor Should Tell Court ‘Thanks but No Thanks’

Lynchburg, VA – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel* released the following statement today encouraging Iowa Governor Chet Culver to honor his obligation to uphold the Iowa Constitution and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex pairs.

“In Baker v. Nelson, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to imagine there exists a ‘constitutional right’ to ‘same-sex marriage.’ It held that if the Court were to create such a right, it would amount to an unconstitutional act of ‘judicial legislation.’ With its recent opinion charging that such a right exists and ordering that, starting today, marriage licenses be given to homosexual duos, the Iowa Supreme Court has done just that. It has co-opted the role of both the legislative and executive branches of government and has presumed to unconstitutionally create and administer law from the bench.

“This presents the perfect opportunity for Iowa Governor Chet Culver – who publicly opposes ‘gay marriage’ – to give the Iowa Supremes and the American people a much needed lesson in ‘separation of powers.’  The constitutional process cleverly provides intrinsic checks and balances to avoid tyrannical governance from any one branch of government,” said Barber. “The Iowa Supreme Court has attempted to fundamentally redefine the millennia-old definition of natural marriage in direct conflict with the constitutionally codified will of the people and the legislature. It doesn’t get much more tyrannical than that.

“For any new law to be properly implemented, either the people of Iowa – through ballot initiative – or the state legislature would have to affirmatively create that new law. And, of course, if such a law arrived on the Governor’s desk by way of the legislature, he has every right to either sign it or veto it.

“In this instance, the court has arbitrarily and unilaterally attempted to circumvent the constitutionally prescribed process and constructively impose a new law on the people of Iowa. It has issued an ‘opinion’ and an opinion is just that. The Court has no constitutional means or right to enforce its unconstitutionally imposed opinion. If the Judiciary is supreme lawmaker, then it renders the other two branches of government politically impotent. Why even have executive and legislative branches of government if we ultimately live under a judiciocracy?” asked Barber.

“Governor Culver has an opportunity to do what former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney refused to do when given the same chance. That is, to uphold his state Constitution and become a champion to ‘we the people’ in the process. Culver should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, ‘thanks but no thanks’ and immediately order that no further marriage licenses be given to any couple that does not meet the common sense requirements properly in existence since the day the Iowa Constitution was drafted.”

*Titles provided for identification purposes only.

###

Contact: Matt Barber: jmattbarber@comcast.net

DATE: April 27, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Iowa Governor Should Tell Court ‘Thanks but No Thanks’

Lynchburg, VA – Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Counsel* released the following statement today encouraging Iowa Governor Chet Culver to honor his obligation to uphold the Iowa Constitution and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex pairs.

“In Baker v. Nelson, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to imagine there exists a ‘constitutional right’ to ‘same-sex marriage.’ It held that if the Court were to create such a right, it would amount to an unconstitutional act of ‘judicial legislation.’ With its recent opinion charging that such a right exists and ordering that, starting today, marriage licenses be given to homosexual duos, the Iowa Supreme Court has done just that. It has co-opted the role of both the legislative and executive branches of government and has presumed to unconstitutionally create and administer law from the bench.

“This presents the perfect opportunity for Iowa Governor Chet Culver – who publicly opposes ‘gay marriage’ – to give the Iowa Supremes and the American people a much-needed lesson in ‘separation of powers.’  The constitutional process cleverly provides intrinsic checks and balances to avoid tyrannical governance from any one branch of government,” said Barber. “The Iowa Supreme Court has attempted to fundamentally redefine the millennia-old definition of natural marriage in direct conflict with the constitutionally codified will of the people and the legislature. It doesn’t get much more tyrannical than that.

“For any new law to be properly implemented, either the people of Iowa – through ballot initiative – or the state legislature would have to affirmatively create that new law. And, of course, if such a law arrived on the Governor’s desk by way of the legislature, he has every right to either sign it or veto it.

“In this instance, the court has arbitrarily and unilaterally attempted to circumvent the constitutionally prescribed process and constructively impose a new law on the people of Iowa. It has issued an ‘opinion’ and an opinion is just that. The Court has no constitutional means or right to enforce its unconstitutionally imposed opinion. If the Judiciary is supreme lawmaker, then it renders the other two branches of government politically impotent. Why even have executive and legislative branches of government if we ultimately live under a judiciocracy?” asked Barber.

“Governor Culver has an opportunity to do what former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney refused to do when given the same chance. That is, to uphold his state Constitution and become a champion to ‘we the people’ in the process. Culver should tell the Iowa Supreme Court, ‘thanks but no thanks’ and immediately order that no further marriage licenses be given to any couple that does not meet the common sense requirements properly in existence since the day the Iowa Constitution was drafted.”

*Titles provided for identification purposes only.

###

Homosexual “marriage” corrupts children: a lesbian couple celebrates Iowa’s pro-homosexual-”marriage” ruling, with “their daughter, Bre, 6,” as the Des MoinesRegister reports comments. (Two women cannot produce a child — disproving the nonsensical claim that homosexual “marriage” is “equal” to the real thing.) Liberal media like the Register have become shills for the “same-sex marriage” revolution. They ignore the potential harm it will bring to innocent children: how can one assert that young Bre will not be deeply affected emotionally, psychologically and spiritually by growing up in an intentionally fatherless home where deviance like this is modeled as the norm? Go HERE to see the Register’s photo gallery and click on graphic above to enlarge.  

This article excerpted below by my good friend (and former boss) Bob Knight was published today on Townhall.com. Today (April 7, 2009) is another tragic marker of America’s decline into a “post-Christian” nation. A northeastern state, Vermont, has voted in homosexual “marriage” — through an override of the governor’s veto, no less.  This profane legislative act cannot be blamed on reckless judges or “unelected courts.” No, this instead is reckless, godless liberalism in action — as wrongheaded as justifying the convenience killing of innocent, unborn life in the name of personal “choice.”

Most Americans have gotten too comfortable with same-sex perversion (we at AFTAH reject the activist concept of innocuous, innate “sexual orientation”) and extramarital sex. But liberals especially have lost their fear of God — and children, like the one above who (through no choice of her own) is part of an Iowa lesbian couple’s celebration, will pay the price. It’s asking too much of God to “bless America” when America is blessing the counter-Biblical idea of state-sanctioned, homosexually-redefined “marriage.”  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

_______________________________

Robert Knight writes:

Iowa Court, Vermont Legislators Ban Common Sense

By Robert Knight
Tuesday, April 07, 2009

To a disturbing number of judges, most of the media, and now the Vermont legislature, marriage was created only to shut out homosexuals. That’s it. There’s no other reason for its presence in the law.

How else to interpret the vote today (April 7) in the Senate and House to override Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto and to legalize same-sex “marriage?”  Or the rulings in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Iowa that find nothing unique about men and women bonding for life? Or headlines like this from the April 4 Wall Street Journal:

“Iowa Supreme Court Overturns Gay-Marriage Ban”

The Iowa law, as with most states, does not mention same-sex relationships. It establishes requirements, beginning with a male-female couple. Characterizing this ruling as overturning a “ban” defines the institution negatively – by what it is not.

In its unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court says that real marriage is merely a form of “prejudice” (using that word 21 times) and hints that homosexuals might be better parents than the mother-father variety. The seven justices cite junk science from gay-dominated guilds (the American Psychological Assn., etc.) to float the idea that kids are no better off in a normal home:

“Almost every professional group that has studied the issue indicates children are not harmed when raised by same-sex couples, but to the contrary, benefit from them. …we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies.”

Say what? They have it exactly backwards. It’s the “gay parenting” studies that are deeply flawed, as Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai demonstrate thoroughly in their devastating book No Basis: What the studies Don’t tell us about same-sex parenting. Meanwhile, oceans of data from every conceivable authority show the advantages of the mother-and-father, intact family.

The Iowa court, like the others before it, and the hippy dippy Vermont lawbreakers ask us to believe, absurdly, that men and women have no meaningful differences. Even homosexuals think the sexes are quite different, preferring one over the other.

The creation of counterfeit “marriage” is a finger in the eye of God, who created marriage as the first human institution. Jesus reminded the Pharisees:

“Have you not read that He which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh?” (Mark 19:4,5, Gen. 2:24)

But in America’s kookier courts and trendy New England, the Bible – the founding document of Western legal thought – is ruled irrelevant, and marriage is a speed bump on the road to sexual liberation.

The Iowa judges say that keeping marriage male and female “does not substantially further any important governmental objective.”

Really? Society would survive without a single homosexual relationship, but it would collapse without marriage. The law recognizes that marriage is unique and irreplaceable.  Lots of homosexuals are wonderful, caring people, and some have close relationships, but that does not make them “married” any more than a brother and sister can be “married.”

Rep. Barney Frank often asks the straw man question, “How does my gay relationship hurt your marriage?”

On an individual basis, it doesn’t. But creating a falsehood in the law transforms morality into a form of bigotry. The implications are enormous, according to gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile, who said in 1994 that gays should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

Does that sound like merely adding another harmless category?

Go here to read the rest of Robert Knight’s article on Townhall.com

“Activist judges in Iowa proved once again today how right the American Family Association of Michigan was to call for a preemptive Marriage Protection Amendment constitutionally securing the definition of one-man, one-woman marriage in our state, and how right the people of Michigan were to overwhelmingly approve it. … Homosexual activists will of course now parade counterfeit ‘marriages’ through the streets of Des Moines for a while, as they did in California, but eventually the people of Iowa will have a chance to vote on the issue, and the result will be the same there as in Michigan and 29 other states.”

Note in the Michigan Messenger article that Illinois is viewed as a likely state for a court challenge like Iowa that produced the “gay marriage” decision:

—————————

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
April 3, 2009

Michigan gay rights advocates praise Iowa’s same-sex marriage court ruling

by Todd A. Heywood

The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday morning struck down a state law restricting marriage to one man and one woman, and many Michigan residents are hailing the ruling that makes the Hawkeye State the first in the Midwest to OK same-sex marriage. However, the case will have little direct impact on Michigan.

“This is a great opinion,” said Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan’s Gay Lesbian Project. “This was a unanimous decision from Iowa’s Supreme Court and the first time we have a favorable opinion in the Midwest.”

“While the ruling itself is significant, the reasoning behind the unanimous decision is insightful, fair, and thorough,” said Julie Nemecek, co-director of Michigan Equality, a Lansing-based LBGT rights organization.

“It’s a different scenario there,” Kaplan said. “Iowa doesn’t have a constitutional amendment like we do. Its civil rights laws cover LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] people, and the make-up of its Supreme Court is different than what we have here. We’d have to repeal our constitutional amendment, replace several justices on the Michigan Supreme Court before we’d be able to see a decision like this here.”

Michigan voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 that banned gay marriage and other same-sex unions.

Still, Kaplan said, other states can look to Iowa’s ruling. “I think it sets a good template for states that are similarly situated to Iowa (in terms of laws, courts, etc.), and we may see more developments in marriage equality in the Midwest (possibly a successful challenge in Illinois in the future) — so that the successes are not just limited to the coasts.”

As gay rights groups across the country hail the ruling, opponents are not as happy.

Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan, opposed the ruling.
“Activist judges in Iowa proved once again today how right the American Family Association of Michigan was to call for a preemptive Marriage Protection Amendment constitutionally securing the definition of one-man, one-woman marriage in our state, and how right the people of Michigan were to overwhelmingly approve it,” he said. “Homosexual activists will of course now parade counterfeit ‘marriages’ through the streets of Des Moines for a while, as they did in California, but eventually the people of Iowa will have a chance to vote on the issue, and the result will be the same there as in Michigan and 29 other states.”

According to Lynda Waddington over at Michigan Messenger’s sibling site, The Iowa Independent, state law there does not have any residency requirements for marriage. This means same-sex couples could begin going to the Hawkeye State to get married, as was seen last year when California legalized same-sex marriage.

The Iowa Supreme Court judges are appointed by the governor, approved by the state Senate, then serve one year. At the end of the year they face a judicial retention election.

___________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  April 3, 2009

CONTACT:  Suzanne Bibby, (202) 544-0353

Eagle Forum:  Iowa’s Supremacist Judges Overturn State Law and Okay Gay Marriage

Washington, D.C.-Eagle Forum, a leading conservative grassroots organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly, condemns the activist decision of the Iowa Supreme Court which ruled unanimously today that the state law prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.  The case, Varnum v. Brien (2005), was brought by six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien after his office denied them marriage licenses on the basis that Iowa’s decade-old state law recognizes marriage only between one man and one woman.

Because the justices ruled that gay marriage should be legal in Iowa, this means that out-of-state same-sex couples could flock to Iowa to get married, as Iowa has no residency requirements for a marriage license.  In May 2008, when the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, homosexual marriage opponents quickly struck back by working to get a November ballot initiative (Proposition which passed and effectively amended the state Constitution to uphold a one man-one woman law.  However, in Iowa, such a constitutional change would face additional hurdles, such as approval by the state legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions, with a subsequent ballot initiative which receives a popular vote.

“This decision should be a wake-up call to Americans that traditional marriage is under assault not only in liberal havens, like Massachusetts and California, but also in traditionally conservative states,” said Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly. “The American people will not continue to stand by silently in the face of more and more of these activist court rulings that openly defy the will of the people.”

“Over the past few decades, many of the most far-reaching social, economic, and political decisions have been made by judges rather than elected representatives,” Schlafly said.  “Only elected representatives have the power to make laws, not judges.”

“We can never allow the definition of marriage to simply mean two consenting persons who agree to share quarters and start applying to the government for benefits,” concluded Schlafly.  “Eagle Forum calls on the Iowa state legislature to work to adopt a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman only, and by subsequently passing a state law that withdraws jurisdiction from the state courts over this issue.”

Eagle Forum advocates a multi-faceted strategy to protect marriage  While a constitutional amendment is ultimately necessary to protect marriage from activist judges, it remains a long process requiring a super-majority in Congress and then ratification by 38 states. Although removing jurisdiction from federal courts over the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would provide immediate protection for marriage, as it only requires a majority of Congress, Eagle Forum continues to work for a significant constitutional amendment.

——————————————————————————–
Further Reading:
Read the summary: Iowa Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage. (PDF – 6 pages)
Read the full opinion: Iowa Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage. (PDF – 69 pages)

April 3, 2009                    Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

CHICAGO– Today’s Iowa Supreme Court decision imposing “same-sex marriage” as a constitutional “right” is an assault on not just the Judeo-Christian moral foundations of that state, but also on the God we ask to “Bless America” — and the common-sense, pro-family values of the Midwest, said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.

LaBarbera, who is also on the board of Protect Marriage Illinois, issued the following statement regarding the court’s reckless decision:

“Today Iowa becomes the first state not on either of the nation’s two liberal coasts to impose counterfeit, homosexual ‘marriage’ or its mischievous twin, ‘civil unions,’ on its citizens through judicial tyranny. To call this decision bankrupt is to understate its perniciousness. The evil genius of the pro-sodomy movement is that it targets noble institutions like marriage and adoption in the name of ‘rights,’ and then perverts and uses them to normalize aberrant and destructive behaviors.

“Homosexual ‘marriage’ is wrong because homosexual behavior itself is wrong and destructive – as proved by its role in the needless, early deaths of countless ‘gay’ men. We must shake loose of the secularists’ and libertarians’ amoral nonchalance regarding ‘same-sex marriage’ by asking questions like this: how exactly would two men consummate their ‘gay marriage”’ Answer: by engaging in what one Founding Father, Noah Webster, writing in saner times, rightly defined as a ‘crime against nature.’

“’Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,’ said abolitionist Wendell Phillips, and the evidence keeps pouring in that the entire homosexualist agenda is at war – not just with our nation’s Biblical heritage – but with the freedoms that made the United States of America great and blessed among nations. When the courts order society to effectively pretend that changeable sexual misbehavior is a ‘civil right,’ the law itself becomes perverted by punishing people of faith for their proper opposition toward deviant sex. The battle between ‘gay rights’ and religious freedom is a ‘zero-sum’ game – as even lesbian Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum admits.

“I’m afraid that the pro-family movement – eager to provide secular, public-policy arguments against ‘gay marriage’ – has failed to convey the monstrous evil of expanding, state-sanctioned homosexualism in our midst.  Our Creator is pure, perfect and holy, and homosexual behavior is diametrically opposed to His will for people’s lives and His purpose for sex within the healthy boundaries of marriage, for the procreation of children. This same God graciously provides a way out of this sinful lifestyle through His son Jesus Christ, a path many former homosexuals have taken – including those now living in real (man-woman) marriages.

“It is high time for pastors, in Iowa and across the land, to shake off their stifling, politically correct timidity and again become the prophetic voices for Truth they were called to be: by boldly warning Americans – Christian and non-Christian alike — about the perils of our growing accommodation with the sins of proud homosexuality, and sex outside marriage in general.”