I was out of town over the weekend and just got back in the office late this morning. So I’m catching up on stuff.
Some very nice person left a a homemade Easter chick on my desk filled with candy. (Pictured ) Very festive and appreciated.
Then I looked through my email. Lots of reaction to my Sunday column on the gay marriage ruling. Not everyone was feeling festive.
This one from “tsquires”
Wishful thinking Toddy! Once again you show your absolute ignorance and lack of curiosity of the Constitution. The push for gay marriage is not coming from the people, it is coming from a small minority attempting to impose its view on society through the least democratic branch of
government: the judiciary. Why are you so afraid of and distrustful of the people of Iowa? You, along with gay advocacy groups don’t even attempt to hide the fact that you seek to advance whatever agenda you have that can’t get passed through the legislative process by judicial fiat! The Black Robed, all knowing, Mafia! The Democratic party will pay a high price for the action of “their” Supreme Court, and they know it.
But that’s not important is it Toddy? The only thing that matters to you is that you feel good. You are more progressive than those bible thumping conservatives right Toddy? If you think Iowans will have forgotten what took place this week two years from now, you really are a fool. My guess is you won’t be at he rapidly fading Gazette in two years. Which do you think is the better bet Toddy? The Iowa Supreme Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as a neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed! Iowans WILL NOT forget that, I can assure you. During the next two years Toddy, why not study the Constitution and learn about the roles of the three branches of government. You might be “enlightened”, although you may not “feel” as intellectually superior as you do today Toddy.
When I hear “Toddy,” it makes me think my mom is calling me home for supper when I was 8. It makes me feel warm and nostalgic and in the mood for goulash. So thanks, tsquires.
But I don’t think I said Iowans should be stopped from voting on an amendment. I said I’m not sure it will clear the Legislature. And, after two years of legal same-sex unions, I’m not sure Iowans will be all that fired up about the issue.
I’m also confused by all this persistent talk about how our judiciary isn’t democratic. It’s a co-equal branch of government set out in the Constitution. In Iowa, Supreme Court justices are appointed by an elected governor from a list of finalists selected by a bipartisan judicial nominating commission. Members of that commission are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Iowa Senate.
Last time I checked, state court judges also face retention votes. So voters and their elected representatives have their fingerprints all over this system. I guess what really makes it undemocratic is that it dared to issue a ruling you don’t agree with.
At 9:34 a.m. Sunday, Shawn Holub wrote:
If this decision by the Iowa State Supreme court makes you proud, then maybe you can write a cute little article on how I can explain to my six year old why two grown men are kissing and hugging on the six o’clock news. I guess trying to raise your kids in traditional way gives in to “tolerance”. Sad sad day for Iowa. I’ve never been more embarassed. Oh, and won’t the Milestones section be neat to thumb through with the kids on sunday mornings? Looking forward to your response!
Then, at 10:58 a.m., Shawn wrote again:
Hey Todd, I think it’s neat how you reference a poll taken from that centrist city where the U of I is located. Why not reference a poll in rural NE Iowa? Your such a douche bag! The more times I read your article, the sillier it gets. Hopefully your employer keeps you on the opinion page.
I don’t think he was really looking forward to my response. And anyway, who takes advice from a silly d-bag?
Not everybody disagreed with Toddy. Alan Light saw it my way.
I just wanted to say thanks for your column in yesterday’s Gazette. It was amazing, so on target I don’t see how anyone could logically argue with anything you said. (But I realize logic isn’t always high on some people’s list over this issue.)
The paper’s officeial editorial was incredible, your column was incredible and today Steve Buttry’s column is also incredible. You guys are great.
Our household is a Gazette subscriber for life.
Not all my mail dealt with the ruling.
An alert reader emailed a link to news in The Register that lawmakers have screwed around with legislation intended to toughen open meetings/records laws that the current version actually weakens the law. Turns out lobbyists representing local governments have had their way with the bill:
One result of that lobbying power: The amendment to HF 777 last week that, among other things, replaced an enforcement panel with a 17-member advisory board dominated by government officials and state legislators.
(Rep. Vicki) Lensing said the bill’s new language would place an even number of government officials and members of the media and the public on a 12-member advisory board.
We need a panel that can enforce the law, not offer useless advice to public officials with a craving for closure. It’s getting to the point where we’d be better off if they passed nothing.
None of this is surprising, considering how much state lawmakers love to play secret agent on your dime.
Now, back to my jelly beans.