In a place that can reek of stereotypes (the smell of hogs) and assumptions about people being set in their ways, we see a stream of light emerging from the clouds. Iowa (not Idaho), yes, that caucus state where the candidates hang out before the primaries, riding tractors and kissing babies. It seems it is on the map now for more than political aggrandizing, or is it? Can we really count on this ruling or is it one more political trick to draw eyes on Iowa?
We recently had a judge rule that ruled that Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. We got the reactions that we thought we’d get. Romney jumped in and rode the wagon of defending marriage, of course specifying that it is between one man and ONE woman (in a bid to override the taint of recent polygamy/child-bride trials have on his own faith). Clinton (I refuse to call her Hillary for obvious reasons. If they are not obvious, then think about the any of the times another candidate or president has been referred to by their given names. Not a sign of respect) and Obama (again, I will not refer to him by his first name) had similar, expected reactions. The states should mire through this issue and the federal government should keep its nose out of it. Hmmm. But what do they really think?
When one thinks of traditional republican beliefs, isn’t one of them less government interference? This turn around is important to note because it is time to call into question blind following of either party. My aunt votes republican (because her husband does and because they listen to AM talk radio at all hours). Never once have I heard her argue about an issue without first qualifying that it is what someone else believes in (namely a republican). My personal political decisions are (as much as possible) based on issues. I know for a fact that even though I am registered as a democrat, I do not always agree with the party line. In fact, there have been a few times when I have agreed with President Bush (note, I did not refer to him by his given name or his middle initial).
From what I’ve read about the ruling, the judge made a decision based on an interpretation of the Constitution and one that has precedent. I don’t believe he mentioned, as he ruled, his political affiliation or his religious affiliation, and that is right in a country that is based on a constitution that speaks for "freedom" and choice. The reasons for banning gay marriage—family values, namely—are based on faith, and that has no place in a court.Oh, and is Robert Hanson running for president? I might consider giving him my vote.
