And try to create counterfeit marriage.
We've said it before: the only time same-sex "marriage" advocates get anywhere is through the courts. They maintain their perfect record: zero victories whenever the people get to have their say.
Now, Iowa judges think they are masters of reality. Bishop Wenski of Orlando commented on this attitude back on July 1, 2008:
"(Bishop Wenski) characterized the 'culture wars' as a conflict about 'the understanding of man and his relationship to truth and reality.' One side, which, he argued, includes homosexual marriage advocates, 'holds that anyone can essentially create his or her own reality. This side holds for a radical autonomy by which truth is determined not by the nature of things but by one's own individual will.' This position, in the bishop’s view, is a 'recipe for tyranny.'
The only remedy for this tyranny is an organized population. Citizens need to take power back from the courts, and even, if necessary, from their elected representatives. In Iowa, the constitutional amendment process takes a couple of years--and it has to begin in the legislature. If this report is accurate, there does not seem to be any great desire on the part of the legislature to take up the battle.
Thank God for California's referendum process!
Jack Smith over at "The Catholic Key" reported this assertion, made in the Des Moines Register:
"Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America."
"A court victory hardly demonstrates 'acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America'. A court victory didn't even demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in California."
Ed Whelan over at "The Corner" weighs in:
The Iowa Supreme Court’s Attack on Marriage
"The lawless judicial attack on traditional marriage and on representative government continues...
Amidst the opinion’s 69 pages of blather, there are two key assertions (and they’re nothing more than that):
(1) '[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.' (p. 16)
If you were not attuned to the deceptive rhetoric of living-constitutionalist judges, you would sensibly imagine that that proposition would mean that the court would defer to the standard of the current generation reflected in the statute that Iowa adopted in 1998. But no:
(2) 'The point in time when the standard of equal protection finally takes a new form is a product of the conviction of one, or many, individuals that a particular grouping results in inequality and the ability of the judicial system to perform its constitutional role free from the influences that tend to make society’s understanding of equal protection resistant to change.' (pp. 16-17)
Also writing at "The Corner," Maggie Gallagher quotes Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage" on the court's decision:
"The most heartbreaking sentence however is Footnote 26. In Footnote 26 these justices conclude: 'The traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.'
Justices? Injustices. I hate being right about something so sad: but gay marriage really is about rejecting the natural family, the importance of bringing together the two creators of the child, the mom and the dad, to raise their baby in love together. The Iowa court ruling once again makes that connection crystal clear."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney