In April of 2009, Iowa became the first and only state in the Midwest to legalize same-sex marriage.Since the Iowa State Supreme Court passed down its ruling, same sex marriage in Iowa has been under attack by groups around the country that claim America’s voting population would never vote to uphold these marriage rights.
For example, in 1996, Michigan voted on Public Act 324, which both prohibited same-sex marriages from being performed, and defined such marriages performed in other states as unrecognized by the state. Michigan’s supreme court has upheld these laws, and further defined them to deny same sex partners employee benefits from the state.
Conservative groups throughout the country claim that decisions on marriage rights should be left up to a state’s voting population, and not the courts. But the right of judicial review (the ability of the court to overturn laws) is necessary in our country to protect the sometimes unpopular rights of the minority.
One of the groups attacking this right of the court is led by Iowa pastor Jeff Mullen. Mullen has started a website called iowajudges.com to mobilize Iowa voters to vote out several state supreme court justices in a judicial retention election. The judges need to be removed for taking the law into their own hands without concern for the will of the state’s population, Mullen said.
The real issue, he says, is not same-sex marriage itself, but the courts power to change established law. Mullen uses the recent overturn of Proposition 8 by the California Supreme Court as an example of “rogue judges” in the country changing the laws as they see fit. The proposition represented the will of the people, and the courts had no place in interpreting a law that had been voted on, Mullen said. He is encouraging Iowa citizens to vote to remove three Supreme Court justices from office purely because of this.
One need only look into the history of civil rights in America to realize the importance of the courts’ right to overturn discriminatory laws via judicial review. Court cases such as Brown v. Kansas Board of Education, which outlawed racial discrimination in public schools, stand out. Despite being massively unpopular in southern states, this case was a major landmark for the civil rights movement, and would never have come to pass through a vote by the public. It proved the courts usefulness in interpreting the constitution and protecting the rights of the minority.
Mullen and others have a right to be outraged that the courts would ignore the will of the public, to some extent. In a democracy, the will of the public should almost always be considered sacred. Supreme Court Justices are not voted on; they are appointed. But it is because they are apart from the political system that they are able to make decisions on law without having to worry about becoming unpopular with voters. When the will of the public discriminates against a group of people, such as gays, it is necessary for the courts to step in and defend our constitutional rights.
Mullen did have one thing right, however. The central issue here is not same sex marriage. The issue here is the belief that the will of the majority is the only will that matters. Mullen claims that the freedom of American citizens is being attacked by activist judges. These Iowa judges are, in fact, courageously defending our American right to be treated equally under law. They made the right decision in a political environment that worked against them in every way possible.
. Support for same sex marriage is growing in our state; the percentage of Michigan voters who approve has grown from 24% in 2004 to 46% in 2009. The laws however, have yet to come under review by the courts. How long will it be until Michigan judges step up to the plate?
Connie fan • Oct 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Thank you for a grounded thought, Connie. I hope I don’t take away from it as I piggyback.
31 states have put same sex marriage to a vote. All 31 have voted in favor of traditional marriage. There is clear public opinion on the issue. But, that is a strawman arguement. It is not the crux of the article. Expansion of governmental powers is.
The last 10 years has made it pretty clear that both Republican and Democratic politicians have a hunger for expanded job security. The past two years has shown a majority of the voters recognize the need for a government of the people by the people and for the people to have limited powers. Your advocacy for increased judicial power is misguided. All three branches need trimming, and the judicial branch needs to do it.
Ordinarily, I’d say the press needs to inform the people so that we can trim or government through votes, but the executive, legislative, and press branch have a cozy little trifecta that minimizes the power of the people. That’s another article.
Increased power of any branch of government never solved anything. It only leads to communism or facism. Each branch needs just enough power to keep the other two in check, and maintain a balance of peace and liberty in our nation.
Connie Goudreau • Oct 14, 2010 at 12:54 pm
While I agree with the issue at heart here of gay marriage, I do not agree with the expansion of the courts powers. First, the right of judicial review, is not the cornerstone of legitimacy it is explained as. Yes, it has been important, but lets remember that chief Justice John marshal gave himself that power, mostly because he was covering his own tracks and because he hated his second cousin Thomas Jefferson the incoming president during the case. This case allowed to courts to determine if laws were constitutional, it had nothing to do with protecting minorities, and did not give judges the power to make new laws. Furthermore, the idea of judicial review has evolved as a key component of the balance of powers within our government- not the expanding of powers for the judicial branch. Additionally, sexual orientation, unlike race, has not been determined a suspect classification, making political range of discretion very wide, so the parallel between Brown and same sex marriage is tough to make right now. Furthermore, we have to remember the courts are conservative in nature (not the political spectrum term but as in slow to change) because it is crucial that they do not have interpretation the constitution change with every whim. In fact the supreme upheld segregation in cases such as Plessy v Ferguson, was it right? No, but we have to remember the courts must uphold the integrity of the constitution as they interpret it, and to make changes when a new understanding of equal protection occurs. It has clearly not been decided by the Supreme Court that equal protection rights of the constitution are now seen to extend to a right to marriage. It hasn’t even been discussed in a case. This is only a state by state issue now, and the job of the state supreme courts like that of the US is to uphold the integrity of their constituion, not make new laws, that is what the legislators do. Finally, in Iowa as in many states, their Supreme Court Judges are elected not appointed.