« Hostage Rescue Big Success For U.S. Navy & Obama White House | Main | 2008 Boston Tea Party Vice Presidential Candidate Found Dead »

Iowa Republican Promises Dictatorship if Elected

Republicans are so accustomed to exercising their power without regard to the laws and to the Constitution that they are now using their lawlessness as a campaign promise.

"If I have the opportunity to serve as your next governor," Bob Vander Plaats told a crowd of about 350 people at a rally, "and if no leadership has been taken to that point, on my first day of office I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote, and when we vote we can affirm and amend the Constitution."

Never mind that it's illegal to so what Vanber Plaats promises he'll do.

Several lawmakers and Phil Roeder, a spokesman for Gov. Chet Culver, said the governor doesn't have that power.

"Governors in Iowa do not have the ability to prevent or overturn a decision of the Supreme Court through an executive order," Roeder said. "It's disappointing that some people, especially politicians, would try to mislead the public into thinking that governors do have such power."

Everyday America, an Iowa-based group that promotes socially conservative positions, led a rally against gay marriage today on the west side of the Iowa Capitol.

Members of the crowd prayed and said their faith in God guides their opposition.

Oh Lord, please - please grant Vander Plaats the election so he can break the law and take away rights - in your name Lord, Amen....

Is that American? I don't think so...


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.5/5 (8 votes cast)


Comments (18)

Chad:

That's funny, I thought legislating from the bench was illegal too. The fact of the matter is that Gay Marriage was not voted on, nor is it legal to make new laws in a court room. Making something that was not legal suddenly legal without a vote on the matter is just as illegal as trying to keep the people of the state from voting on the matter. It's exactly what is happening in California. Proposition 8 was defeated, so we'll take it to court to get the will of the people overturned by an activist judge. I feel exactly the same way about ROE V. Wade. Judges and courts were not supposed to have the power to make new laws, only to uphold those that were voted on by the representatives of the people (the legislative branch), and signed by the chief executive. It doesn't matter what the issue is, neither the people, nor the representatives of the people had any say in this. Civil Unions carry exactly the same legal weight as marriage, so why is that not good enough? Next step is that churches that believe homosexuality is a sin will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. That violates freedom of religion, but it won't matter because a judge took it into his own hands to "make" a law, rather than uphold one.

GarandFan:

So Lee, what's your problem with the people voting on this issue. Or is this another of those liberal issues which are 'too complicated' for the average person to understand and that should be left for 'the elite' to decide?

Lee Ward:

An executive order is illegal. It's not "voting"...

"Next step is that churches that believe homosexuality is a sin will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples."

No, the next step is Teh Socialism - run and hide, brave Republicans, run and hide. A couple of towelheads with box cutters scared the crap out of you for 8 long years -- I can only imagine the way you are crapping your pants over a black liberal in the WH.

MIke:

Well at least we know one thing- Lee isn't afraid to use racial stereotypes of Middle Easterners while at the same time accusing everybody else of racism against black people. Good job on tolerance/diversity there bud.

Allen:

Doesn't one of the founding papers say " life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all?" If that is true, and no where in our Constitution does it forbade gay marriage; then why is gay marriage a problem?

I'm not a gay person, but we do not need the gov't or church peeking into our bedrooms. In times past, oral sex between a married couple was also illegal. What happened to that?

As long as the gay's don't bother me, why should I care about what they do? When it does bother me, then I will handle it. And who gave any person the right to tell people how they live their lives?

I realize the religious people think it is wrong, and it very well maybe. But what gives the churches the right to tell people how to obtain happiness? If it doesn't bother you personally, why worry about it?

Doubting Thomas:

I've got no problem with gay marriage - way I see it the divorce lawyers will have a completely new market to go into...

Re the potential 'dictator' - realize he's a politican and thus his words don't mean much, but "I will issue an executive order that puts a stay on same-sex marriages until the people of Iowa vote, and when we vote we can affirm and amend the Constitution." doesn't seem all that dictatorlike, you know?

So he gets into office, then lets the vast unwashed masses actually choose what policies to put in place re teh gaystuff? Oh, horrors! Such suppression!

Frankly, the way the gay community acted after Prop. 8 didn't impress me. "If we don't get what we want, we're going to throw a tantrum and call everyone mean things!" really doesn't convince people to support your cause. I'd have been much more impressed if they'd been more 'Well, we didn't get it this time, but we'll try again - and in the mean time act like adults' than "Wah! Homophopic meanies! We're going to throw tantrums and be nasty to everyone, 'cause you're all haters!". Given two equal groups, one acting quietly like adults and one acting loudly like spoiled brats, which would you support?

Your mileage may vary, but I do believe this should go through amendments to state constitutions rather than through judicial activism. An executive order stating it'll be voted on is different (in my opinion) than a judicial decree establishing it.

As Chad said - let the people decide.

Chad:

Allen, my problem with it has nothing to do with limiting what two adults do in their own bedroom. I don't care how two people get bent, I'm only accountable to God for my own actions in that regard. What does create a problem for me is the use of the word "marriage". I know people both gay and straight, and talked to both sides about their take on this issue. One of my female friends that happens to bat for the other team told me that she thinks the only reason for push for gay "marriage" is so that the gay community can push for forcing churches to accept their lifestyle. If a church is forced by the state to go against their beliefs, then the state has now become an oligarchy, and is deciding theology for the church. She also believes that the above reasoning explains the demand that "marriage" be the word used, as marriage denotes a religious ceremony (which was later recognized as a legally binding contract and overseen by the state). She is in a civil union with her partner of 5 years, and says that she has all the same legal rights of any married couple (organ donation, disposition of remains, property issues, custody issues should they adopt, health benefits at work, etc.) so she believes the push for "marriage" is strictly to force churches to accept something against their beliefs. Now that Iowa has "legalized" "same-sex marriage" she has told me to watch for the first court case against a church that refuses to perform a ceremony. She was trying to fish for a bet on it being a catholic church, but I wouldn't take even odds on it. A public referendum on an amendment to change the constitution is what you'd do if it was a smoking ban, abortion ban, changing speed limits, requiring a fee on..... so why not to change the constitution to make same-sex marriage legal? Oh, and Mike, that's how Lee argues a point that he has no factual or rational point on, cry racism, or call conservative's something dirty, or talking about running and hiding. Possibly a nice ad-hominem attack, or warning you that you've changed the subject when he's the one actually doing it. Check the comments, that's always how it goes. Allen is rational, and a pretty decent guy, and actually makes rational points. Notice how this post had absolutely nothing to do with The President, yet I'm racist because I don't think we need to apply the term "marriage" to something that is already given equal rights in a civil union. Ad-hominem attack in 3, 2, .......

Lee Ward:

Mike's defending the towelheads with boxcutters?
Amazing. Republicans will side with terrorists if it means that can spit on a Democrat. The party of hate hates liberals more than America's enemies.

Doubting Thomas:

I don't see him wanting to shove you into a wood chipper, Lee, like you said you'd want to do to Rodney over in the Palin roundup.

Seems to me if you want to find hate, you ought to look in your own mirror first.

Lee Ward:

You Republicans are such idiots. You'll believe anything.

Bush counted on that. He promised to hold back on issues like stem cell research as long as you went along with his lies and deceit.

And you did. You endorsed and cheered his phony war for oil. Hundreds of thousands injured, thousands killed, and a Trillion US tax dollars spent.

THAT is hate at work.

Allen:

Chad, that was a very good post. I never gave it a thought about forcing church's to marry same sex people. And also, the majority of people in each state should decide this by having a legal vote.

In fact, since none of our elected critters listen to the people, when it comes to tax issues, the people should be allowed to make that decision, not Congress.

Lee, this article is about gay issues, ie: marriage or not. Use another post to bash President Bush, and I would support that post. Stick with one subject please.

Chad:

Lee, Mike wasn't defending anybody, he was just pointing out how ridiculous it is for you to call other people racist in the same sentence you use the word towel-head. I'm not crapping my pants over who's in the white house. I just don't like some of his policies, especially his environmental, economic, immigration, and educational ones.

Herman:

"Proposition 8 was defeated" -- Chad

Wrong. Proposition 8 barely passed. More outdated conservatives have to die off and take their antiquated prejudices with them for something like Proposition 8 to be defeated.

Give it another 15 years or so.

dmarks:

Actually. Prop 8 passed with overwhelming support of California's large Black population. Last I heard, Blacks are not known for being conservative.

So, by your logic, Herman, a lot of blacks will have to die off too in order for Prop 8 to pass. Maybe you can call David Duke to get him to help you.

And Lee, there was no "war for oil". Any more than fighting against Germany in WW2 was a "war for beer and chocolate".

Steve:

Chad: Your lesbian friend is uninformed and she's certainly not speaking on behalf of the entire gay population. Her opinion on things she doesn't understand do not prove anything or support your positions.

Christina Viering:

People follow the ones who speak loudest.

Chad:

Really Steve, a lesbian is less informed about homosexuality than you are? I didn't say a word about why I think same-sex marriages are a bad idea, I was repeating her opinion. I also never stated that her opinion is the opinion of the entire homosexual population. I'm just letting you know her position on it. Just kind of makes sense when you go about creating laws by judicial fiat instead of a vote or representative vote of the people. You know, the way the constitution says laws are to be created. Sorry Herman, you are correct, Prop 8 passed, it's just the noise level coming from the other side of that argument being so loud. I got a little confused. Shall we send someone to kill the hispanics, catholics, and Mormons too? Sounds like you are promoting Genocide.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

bluetips@wizbangblog.com

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.