# Unseating Judges who Legalized SSM in Iowa **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 30, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894 "2010-10-30T18:01:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/81 "2010-11-05T15:00:21Z")
I’m going to limit this particular post to just addressing the first paragraph of **Bricker’s** reply. I’ll respond to the rest – which can only have been based on either wildly unjustified assumptions or **Bricker’s** as-yet imperfected mind-reading skills – in a separate post… > [@Bricker](#): > > This is what your argument boils down to. It’s not enough that someone disagrees – not even enough that someone agrees with the ultimate goal but disagrees as to method. No, no – it’s all hate and bigotry, obscene and wrong-headed wilful injustice. Dear **Bricker** , your rhetorical skills in grotesque misrepresentations of my positions remain in top form, I see. In a way, those skills form the heart of my argument: You are most probably quite sincere within the intellectual “outer skin” of your conscious identity, but modern psychological science tells us that our intellects very much tend to be the puppets of our emotions (a reality which, of course, hardly excludes myself). I claim you are – perhaps unwittingly, an _ally_ of bigotry – as opposed to claiming you are a bigot yourself – because the evidence from your posts leads me to hold that you are, probably to a considerable extent unconsciously, employing your legal knowledge and great rhetorical gifts to create an intellectual _rationalization_ that has the **effect** , even if not the intended **goal** , of helping to whitewash a vote for bigotry. There is so much more I must address – particularly your astonishingly malignant attack on what you imagine to be my political philosophy based on nothing I actually wrote (but instead apparently on some kind of feverish waking nightmare) – so I will close this post as follows: The main thrust of my position can be summarized as saying that to argue – as you have – that a even a Supreme Court does not, or should not, have the full right to reach decisions that have the effect of ending discrimination against unpopular groups is to invent or propagate a spurious rationalization that has the effect of whitewashing bigotry. In the same way, to argue that only the legislature has the right to end such discrimination is to propagate another spurious rationalization with the _sub rosa_ goal of making it more difficult – or even impossible – to end the discrimination against unpopular groups precisely _because_ they are unpopular. The issue is not whether or not those rationalizations can be made to appear intellectually sober and reasonable; they obviously can. What I contend is actually at issue involve questions such as: Are the people who propagate those arguments being intellectually honest with us and with themselves? Is there an empirically measurable correlation between those who publicly hold or propagate such arguments and the emotive-cognitive correlates of psychological biases against outgroups? These are the kind of questions I find extremely compelling, particularly now that we’ve become Idiot America. Contrary to your abominable and staggeringly unjustified assumptions regarding my political philosophy, I offer no solutions. Remember, my dear **Bricker** , _ **description** _ is not _ **prescription!** _ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/82 "2010-11-05T15:17:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s not ridiculous to say that changes in the law should come from the legislature if the facts have not changed. > > In the case of gay rights, the facts unquestionably _have_ changed. > > The mainstream medical and psychological view is no longer that homosexuality is a mental illness. The once widespread view that it is, which became enshrined in the law, no longer has any basis, and thus neither do the laws. Yes, that’s why I agree that the court made the correct call. While I still believe that rational basis is not enough to overcome the law, the immutability of the characteristic argues for a heightened scrutiny. As I’ve said in earlier discussions, intermediate scrutiny makes sense, and restrictions like this fail the intermediate scrutiny test. But for the ordinary laymen to fail to understand both that the medical and psychological views have changed AND that this is significant to the legal status of the decision is not unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/83 "2010-11-05T15:28:56Z")
Then why are you arguing that ordinary people applied the correct standard in voting out these judges? Obviously, they don’t know what the correct standard is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/84 "2010-11-05T15:33:19Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > In a way, those skills form the heart of my argument: You are most probably quite sincere within the intellectual “outer skin” of your conscious identity, but modern psychological science tells us that our intellects very much tend to be the puppets of our emotions (a reality which, of course, hardly excludes myself). I claim you are – perhaps unwittingly, an _ally_ of bigotry – as opposed to claiming you are a bigot yourself – because the evidence from your posts leads me to hold that you are, probably to a considerable extent unconsciously, employing your legal knowledge and great rhetorical gifts to create an intellectual _rationalization_ that has the **effect** , even if not the intended **goal** , of helping to whitewash a vote for bigotry. Hoofbeats, horses, zebras. By that I mean that modern (and not-so-modern, given William of Ockham’s birth in the thirteenth century!) principles of logic suggest that of two explanations for any events, the one containing the fewest ad hoc assumptions is more likely to be correct. So I could be driven by an unconscious urge by my emotions to post…or I could simply be rationally analyzing the situation. It’s irrelevant. In debate, you see, the object is to refute your opponent’s arguments. When you attack him, or his motives, you commit the fallacy of _ad hominem_. So I’ll thank you in advance for reserving your fascinating theories about my id, ego, and superego (or whatever the 2010 equivalents are) to yourself and instead addressing the substance of the points I have made. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/85 "2010-11-05T15:34:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Then why are you arguing that ordinary people applied the correct standard in voting out these judges? Obviously, they don’t know what the correct standard is. If I said that, I was wrong. Where did I say that? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/86 "2010-11-05T15:36:01Z")
Quoth you: > [@](#): > > They must have ruled the way they did because they felt the state constitution should be interpreted using a particular method. If the voters felt that this method was not the correct one, that’s not a “single issue” – that goes to the heart of what a judge’s role should be. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/87 "2010-11-05T16:00:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Quoth you: Seriously? OK. Original claim: _The voters were swayed by a single issue!_ My rebuttal: \*[The judges] must have ruled the way they did because they felt the state constitution should be interpreted using a particular method. If the voters felt that this method was not the correct one, that’s not a “single issue” – that goes to the heart of what a judge’s role should be. \* Agreed? **If the voters felt that this method was not the correct one** , then they were not motivated by a single issue, but were voting on what the role of a judge should be. This is not the same claim as “The voters were accurate in their analysis of the judges’ methodology.” Nowhere did I say “Ordinary people applied the correct standard in voting out these judges.” Nor do I say it now. Seriously, do you just skim my posts for content, trying to quickly get a sense of what the post might say, or do you actually read them? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/88 "2010-11-05T16:17:15Z")
Okay, let me clarify. You believe it is reasonable for lay people to fail to understand that the facts have changed, meaning the Court was correct in changing the law to suit. You are ascribing a level of critical analysis to the lay person I feel is unfairly low, but there it is. However, you claim that the voters were not simply voting out these judges because they don’t like gay marriage, but because they feel the judges stepped outside their proper roles. So perhaps you don’t think they applied the _correct_ standard, but you feel they were able to apply _some_ standard beyond “he did something I don’t like”. ETA: For the record, I typically like to read every third word in your posts, skipping one extra if a word is capitalized. I find it gives them a rather more satisfying flavor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/89 "2010-11-05T16:41:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Okay, let me clarify. You believe it is reasonable for lay people to fail to understand that the facts have changed, meaning the Court was correct in changing the law to suit. Yes. > [@](#): > > You are ascribing a level of critical analysis to the lay person I feel is unfairly low, but there it is. A quick Google produced [this story](http://www.capitolbeatok.com/CustomContentRetrieve.aspx?ID=3188155), admittedly about Oklahoma and not Iowa, but I have no reason to believe that Iowans are substantially better situated than Sooners in this regard. > [@](#): > > However, you claim that the voters were not simply voting out these judges because they don’t like gay marriage, but because they feel the judges stepped outside their proper roles. No, not quite. I said that a reasonable voter _could_ reach that result for that reason. I have not made a single claim about what actually motivated most voters, because I don’t know. Neither do you. > [@](#): > > ETA: For the record, I typically like to read every third word in your posts, skipping one extra if a word is capitalized. I find it gives them a rather more satisfying flavor. If you wish to accurately understand and summarize my arguments, you should stop doing this. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/90 "2010-11-05T17:17:20Z")
Then you agree that the voters of Iowa decided to vote out these judges because they don’t want gays to get married? I know William of Ockham would. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/91 "2010-11-05T17:21:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Then you agree that the voters of Iowa decided to vote out these judges because they don’t want gays to get married? I know William of Ockham would. If I had to guess? I’d say it’s likely that many, but by no means all, of the voters voting ‘no’ on retention were motivated by dissatisfaction with that specific ruling’s results. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/92 "2010-11-05T18:04:23Z")
Before responding to **Bricker’s** not-entirely-hinged rant against me and what he recklessly imagines to be my political philosophy (with no factual basis for his opinions, of course), let’s take a moment to view it in full. I can’t recall any other submission from the normally much more reserved author in which he reveals so much of himself and his deep-seated anger, in this case directed at myself. In truth, I admire him a bit for letting his hair down like this, even though he missed his target every time. > [@Bricker](#): > > Bullshit. > > The most basic will of the founders is: “We The People.” This embodies our notion that ultimately the sovereigns of our country are not kings, divinely annointed to rule, but the collective voice of the people. WE THE PEOPLE are our own rulers. Every single piece of text that governs us is traced to an assent by the people, directly or through their elected representatives. > > But you would have it differently. You would surrender our ability to govern ourselves to philosopher kings; you would give them a mission of protecting us from ourselves. “We’re too stupid to rule ourselves,” says **Ambushed** , “so please take the authority from us.” > > THAT is the depraved and repulsive a crime against America and American ideals. While we place obstacles in our legislative path, such as supermajorities, we do so with our own full assent. But in the end, the Constitution and every word in in is subject to the vote of the people. When the Constitution permitted slavery, we did not turn to judges and say, “Please, worthy judges, slavery is repulsive, but we lack the strength to undo it. Save us from ourselves!” > > **Ambushed** , undoubtedly, would still be on his knees in front of his Kings-on-the-bench, awaiting salvation. But people who actually understand what the true American spirit of We the People means approved the Thirteenth Amendment, forbidding slavery. It was ratified by 3/4s of the states after passing two-thirds of Congress. That ended slavery. But some states still sought to leave former slaves unable to vote. > > “Please, worthy judges, this disenfranchisement is repulsive, but we lack the strength to undo it. Save us from ourselves!” cried **Ambushed** ’s ideological brethern. But We The People knew that to be true to American ideals meant passing the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting race as a means to deny the vote. > > “Please, worthy judges,” ried **Ambushed** ’s ideological brethern again in 1918, “this disenfranchisement of women is repulsive, but we lack the strength to undo it. Save us from ourselves!” > > But the judges, the kings, were not the way to solve that problem. No, We the People used our sovereign power to pass the Nineteenth Amendment. > > Your base, craven willingness to surrender our sovereign power to the judges is sickening. We have the power and the responsibility to govern ourselves. > > There’s no question that we should end discrimination and permit same-sex marriage. But we should – we MUST – do it by vote. > > And don’t you dare whine that we can’t. We have. Vermont, New Hampshire and DC have both passed, by legislature, bills legalizing same-sex marriage. It can be done. It WILL be done. But not by pusillanimous appeal to some benevolent philosopher king. > > And if you don’t like the sensible ideological arguments against that, let me give you a practical one: when you try to shove things down the throats of the voters by judicial fiat, it often backfires. _Really_, Bricker? “_ **Your base, craven willingness to surrender our sovereign power to the judges is sickening** _”? **Yikes!** C’mon, ‘fess up now: You wouldn’t happen to be some kind of crypto-Freeper or the like, would you? Because if you’re not, you’re missing a bet. With rhetorical talents and tastes like that, you’d be their belle of the ball mighty damn quick! Here’s another for the next rally: **“Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Is No Vice!”** Kinda catchy, no? You gotta admit it’s easier to march in lockstep to than Pam Gellers’ recent **ACTION ALERT: Obama to Cede US Sovereignty in December!** _Well…_ Okay. Expressing what one believes (justifiably or not) to be righteous anger can be healthy, I’ve long held. And true to form, **Bricker** controlled himself better than most – I have to credit him there. But the condescension was completely out of control and slathered on egregiously thick. And his reckless, unjustified assumptions about my political philosophy and his particularly vicious and mean-spirited mischaracterizations of me as some sort of kneeling, sycophantic weakling who hates America reveal much more about _himself_ than he suspects, yet nothing accurate about myself and my actual views at all. His hate-fueled insults and mockery serve primarily to once again deliberately misrepresent my arguments in order to evade the issues I’ve raised, including the scientifically established psychological mechanisms in which bigotry – even when unconscious – is routinely intellectually whitewashed by crafting and propagating spurious but reasonable-sounding arguments to enable and justify it, precisely as **Bricker** has repeatedly done in this thread. Regarding **Bricker’s** bizarre fantasies regarding my political philosophy, one typical example of which we see here: > [@Bricker](#): > > But you would have it differently. You would surrender our ability to govern ourselves to philosopher kings; you would give them a mission of protecting us from ourselves. “We’re too stupid to rule ourselves,” says **Ambushed** , “so please take the authority from us.” … As I wrote in my previous reply, **Bricker** again and again makes the profoundly objectionable error of confusing **description** with **prescription** , a despicable and willful deception I refuse to countenance or overlook. Is the modern American voter extremely misinformed and often even proud of this sad fact, as the books I’ve linked to elsewhere – such as _The Age of American Unreason_ and _Just How Stupid_ Are _We?_ – contend? I find that the evidence for this is overwhelming, but you must read and determine that for yourselves. But as **Bricker** keeps despicably asserting, have I actually offered any suggestions, proposals, or changes to the American system to remedy, bypass, or work around this regrettable fact? **I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING!** Nowhere have I given even the tiniest hint upon which **Bricker** can justify claiming so contemptibly that I want to “surrender our sovereign power to the judges” or replace our system with Plato’s horrific Republic or any other of the wretched, obscene lies he’s put in my mouth! This puts me in mind of an argument I once had with my authoritarian-conservative older brother in which I pointed out that some proposed political “solution” to some practical problem could not possibly achieve its goal, and explained why. He asked me how _I_ would solve the problem, and when I told him I couldn’t think of an effective solution myself, he kept angrily insisting that **unless I could craft an effective solution to the problem myself, I had absolutely no right to challenge or criticize any other proposed solution, even if it couldn’t possibly work!** In my next post, I will once more **describe** the critical problems I’ve been discussing in greater detail, but again, I will offer no **prescriptions**. Stop putting words in my mouth, **Bricker!** For when you try to shove things down the throats of Dopers by rhetorical fiat, it often backfires. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/93 "2010-11-05T18:29:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I had to guess? > > I’d say it’s likely that many, but by no means all, of the voters voting ‘no’ on retention were motivated by dissatisfaction with that specific ruling’s results. Fair enough. You implied on the first page that this was not the case. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/94 "2010-11-05T18:50:24Z")
Alas, other responsibilities call and thus I cannot continue here today as I’d planned. I will return and respond further… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/95 "2010-11-05T19:39:05Z")
> [@ambushed](#): > > … As I wrote in my previous reply, **Bricker** again and again makes the profoundly objectionable error of confusing **description** with **prescription** , a despicable and willful deception I refuse to countenance or overlook. I don’t think I did. Here is why: \*It is unequivocally evil and flagrantly repudiative of the founders’ manifest will to allow people to vote on granting or removing the civil rights of any group of American citizens! It is as depraved and repulsive a crime against America and American ideals as any I can imagine, yet Bricker and JXJohns openly endorse precisely that! \* Now, you may claim that this is simply descriptive, not prescriptive. But when an action is held to be “unequivocally evil” and “flagrantly repudiative” of a given philosophy, it is no stretch to infer that you advocate its ending, _even though you may not offer any alternative solution_ to replace it. And by advocating the end of the ultimate expression of popular sovereignty as voting, you earn the rebukes offered above. I will concede, however, that my specific accusations that you favor judge-made law in the alternative were unjustifed inference. But the gravamen of my complaint is that you reject the concept of sovereignty held, completely and utterly, by the people. Each and every constitutional provision, each and every element of the supreme law of rthe land, exists because people voted on it: yes, even “the civil rights of any group of Americans.” We voted on the 13th amendment ending slavery. We voted on the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments concerning the rights to vote of all races, both sexes, and those 18 and older. We voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, empowering Congress to act on violations of these rights. WE VOTED to make them all happen. That is the way we govern ourselves. And you may not call it “unequivocally evil” without revealing your lack of understanding of the term ‘evil’; you may not call it “flagrantly repudiative of the founders’ manifest will” without exposing your complete lack of understanding of the founders. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/96 "2010-11-05T19:43:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Fair enough. You implied on the first page that this was not the case. I did? You didn’t read post 26 on page 1, where I said: > [@](#): > > Now, I’d grant that for every voter who said, in his mind, “I’m voting ‘no’ because they let gays marry,” THAT is an unreasonable voter. > > But I also contend that every voter who said, “I’m voting ‘no’ because decisions of this magnitude should come from the legislature,” is NOT unreasonable. > > And I certainly contend that every voter that said, “Iowa’s equal protection clause should be read as coextensive with the federal constitution’s, and Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning controls,” was not unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Uncle\_Jocko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncle_jocko/32/2932_2.png) [@Uncle\_Jocko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncle_Jocko)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/97 "2010-11-05T20:02:25Z")
Holy cow. I leave town for a couple of days to see Carol Burnett at the Civic Center, and this left-for-dead thread has turned into the Dio/Bricker Debates XXIII, Electric Boogaloo. Despite all the legalese and unknown motives of Iowa voters, discussion of this event with others has led me to boil down the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum to the following statement (my paraphrase): “_The Iowa Constitution requires that homosexuals in Iowa shall be allowed to do anything heterosexuals in Iowa are allowed to do._” Simple. Easy to understand. I can’t really see why someone would have a problem with that statement, but we all (Bricker included) keep throwing the word “reasonable” around, forgetting that in truth, most people are not “reasonable” about emotional issues. People have been ragging at me about the definition of marriage, and how next people will be marrying their sister, or their goat, or five women. Heterosexuals can’t do any of those things … why would you think this ruling opens the door for that? Turns out … heterosexuals have always had the right to marry someone of the same gender, they just never wanted to. Just like homosexuals have always had the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but they never wanted to, either. Now, the one area where I might see an angle to make changes in this view of the constitution would be, yep, the definition of marriage. If Iowans only had the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, then I might see that wording passing constitutional muster. The only problem is, while most Iowans would say that’s basic common sense, it’s not spelled out in the constitution. There’s a pesky thing in there about equal treatment for all … probably written in there by some wild-eyed 1800’s socialist in league with ACORN or something. And as for giving Iowans the credit for thinking through their decision in this vote … by and large, Bricker, are you kidding me? Yes, I would say there is a non-zero number of Iowans who could defend their “No” votes on historical legal grounds, and some may even know some of these cases you refer to. But I’ve lived in Iowa for 44 of my 47 years. I know Iowa. The vast majority of the No voters have never even heard of any of these cases or arguments. They bought into the media blitz about “activist judges” “making law from the bench” “disregarding the will of the people.” As we’ve already discussed, judicial decisions should not be subject to the whim of the majority. Should the popular will wish to overturn such a ruling, there are avenues for that, such as constitutional amendments. Which makes it even funnier to notice that the wild-eyed, tantrum-throwing movement led by Vander Plaats forgot to notice the ballot item regarding a state constitutional convention, which goes before the voters every 10 years. If they’d spent their time and energy on getting a “Yes” vote on that, they could whip the state constitution to fit their ends probably pretty easily. I suppose it’s less of a hassle to whip people into a frenzy _ **against** _ something instead of _ **for** _ something. (By the way, Vander Plaats’ next move is apparently to ask the new/old Gov. Branstad to issue an executive order overruling the Varnum decision. Which every person I’ve heard of with any kind of legal experience whatever goggles at in disbelief and hysterical laughter, mocking its absolutely ridiculous unconstitutionality and complete disregard for separation of powers … but I’d give 'em about a 15 percent chance of Branstad actually doing it.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/98 "2010-11-05T20:50:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I did? > > You didn’t read post 26 on page 1, where I said: Um… no actually. Kind of missed that one. :o ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/99 "2010-11-05T21:36:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So Iowa’s constitution was adopted in 1846. At that time, according to you, same-sex marriage was mandated in Iowa. By this (implied) logic\*, any decision the result of which was to overturn any long-standing interpetation of consitutional law, like say _Brown v. Board_, is wrong. Are you going to join with Rand Paul in condemning that judicial atrocity? \*_i.e._ that because in 1864 the drafters of the Iowa constitution didn’t specifcially have gay marriage on their minds when they inserted an equal protection clause ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894/100 "2010-11-05T22:08:43Z")
> [@Uncle\_Jocko](#): > > Just like homosexuals have always had the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, but they never wanted to, either Oh no. Plenty of people end up doing that! Usually it’s followed by the foundation of a ministry decrying the evilness of homosexuals and the perpetuation of the homosexual agenda. And that’s usually followed by ten day trips through Europe with luggage carriers met on Rentboy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unseating-judges-who-legalized-ssm-in-iowa/558894.md?page=6)