Presidential hopefuls seeking to win conservative voters were quick to voice criticism of an Iowa county judge’s ruling to allow gay “marriage” in his county despite the state’s ban on same-sex civil “marriage.”
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was the first to denounce the decision by Polk County Judge Robert Hanson, who last Thursday ruled that the state’s decade-old same-sex “marriage” ban violated the couples’ constitutional rights. Romney even voiced support of a federal ban on same-sex “marriage.”
“The ruling in Iowa … is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act,” the Republican contender said in a statement shortly after the ruling was made, according to The Associated Press.
“This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman,” he said.
Romney has been accused of flip-flopping on key issues held by the conservative voting base such as abortion and gay rights. He was previously pro-choice and has been fiercely fighting to win the trust of pro-life voters emphasizing he is now anti-abortion.
Likewise, Romney is viewed with suspicion by many conservative Christian voters for being the former governor of the only state in the nation where same-sex “marriage” is legal.
His quick move to denounce the ruling is said to be a political maneuver to enhance his conservative image among Republican voters.
Also criticizing the Iowa ruly were Republican presidential contenders Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. John McCain and former Sen. Fred Thompson.
“The people of Iowa reject the redefinition of marriage, and I pledge today to defend the bond of marriage, as I have consistently done in the past,” Brownback, who came in third in the recent Iowa straw poll, said according to AP.
Meanwhile, republican frontrunner former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected gay “marriage” but supports limited recognition of same-sex couples.
Top democratic presidential contenders Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) responded that although they are in favor of civil unions, they leave same-sex “marriage” laws up to the state to decide.
Since last Thursday’s ruling, some 20 same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses in Polk Country before Hanson issued a stay on his decision Friday.
Several prominent Christian groups have condemned the Iowa ruling, in which the country judge claimed that Iowa’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act – which allows marriage only between a man and a woman – was unconstitutional and marriage laws must be interpreted as gender neutral so as to recognize same-sex “marriage.”
“This decision demonstrates that judicial activism is still a problem,” said Family Research Council’s president, Tony Perkins, in a statement. “For a judge to have ‘nullified, severed, and stricken’ from the law the definition of marriage inherent in both tradition and statute is an outrageous act of judicial activism.”
Perkins urged Iowans to respond by passing a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
“That’s the only sure way to protect the institution of marriage from radical social engineering by state judges,” said the pro-family conservative leader.
Other Christian groups which have condemned Judge Hanson’s ruling include Concerned Women for America, the Baptist Convention of Iowa, and the Iowa Family Policy Center.
RSS
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but are the boundaries of church and state not seperated in the Constitution??? If so is marriage not a power and sanctity to be presided over by the church and the church alone??? Personally, the government should have no say in who we can or can't marry because that imposes further upon our freedom and being who we are. And before anyone attacks about how i phrased the above, no I'm not saying that anyone who wants to marry can marry, I'm simply saying that between two legal and consenting adults, marriage rights should not be restricted by the government.
Wow, a man that actually did his job and honored the constitution instead of "pro-family" hate groups! Awesome. He must not be as bad as the present day pharisee law makers that this site endorses!
Thanks,....dgnymn.....somewhat of a scary world we are being marched into,...whadayathink?
alot because of indifferent mentalitys......just as long as it doesn`t affect these individuals personally,....the rest of the issue is beside the point.....not very nice to talk about, but thats what it eventually boils down to....
Believers, you need to be vigilant and be wary of these "Presidential hopefuls." Any mention of pushing for a Federal marriage amendment is just that - mere mention. It's been already noted within the last year or so that the Congress is divided over a federal marriage amendment, and if presented to the Congress, there is the belief that it would fail.
Now on to Mitt Romney...you need to be careful of this guy. As a taxpayer of Massachusetts where he was previous Governor, he did NOTHING to oppose this "same sex marriage" agenda. In fact, he ordered the town and city clerks to abide by the "law" passed by the SJC or they'd lose their jobs, and some of them were Christians. He apparently felt it was more expedient not to create a constitutional crisis than challenge the SJC's constitutional authority. As an activitist SJC, they went ahead and interpreted the Massachusetts Constitution and in their ruling, "ordered" the state of Massachusetts to authorize these "marriages" or else. We wondered "or else what?" The fact of the matter is that the SJC couldn't do a thing, and everybody knew it. They lost sight, as did the Attorney General, legislature, and then Governor Romney, of the Basic Civics they were taught in school, which is the Legislature puts the law together, and it goes to the Executive office for signature. The Judicial branch just interprets the law, and everyone can either accept it or reject it. Romney, for all his hype, never rejected it, and at one point after it was "accepted/legalized," he made a public statement that he wouldn't mind be invited to the first same sex marriage. And we want to have this guy be a Presidential hopeful by his lip service condemning what this judge did in Iowa? Let's be honest, here, folks. Romney is an opportunist, and for all his talk, it's just that - TALK. He left the state in the hands of a leftist Governor who, when before he came into office, went before the Massachusetts legislature and strongly urged them to kill the historic citizen initiative petition. Romney could've remained in office and ran against the Democrat, but he failed to follow up with his lip service against homosexual marriage and abandoned the boat.
If you think this guy is not going to cave in when the pressure mounts from the liberal media and aggressive homosexual community, you've got another thing coming. He caved in Massachusetts and did NOTHING!!!