- Tena Callahan
Among the Democrats in Dallas County who hung on to their seats on Tuesday was State District Family Court Judge Tena Callahan, who in 2009 boldly declared Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Callahan defeated Republican opponent Julie Reedy by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, and her landmark decision didn’t appear to have hurt her at all at the polls.
However, the news was not so good for three Supreme Court judges in Iowa who ruled in favor of marriage equality in 2009. The three were all defeated in retention elections on Tuesday, after being targeted by the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage.
NOM spent $600,000 on TV ads and a 45-county bus tour targeting the Iowa justices. Despite their defeat, though, LGBT groups noted that same-sex marriage remains legal in Iowa.
“By their own admission, NOM’s Iowa strategy was about sending a warning shot to judges nationwide,” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement. “NOM and its secret donors will continue to target judges around the country if they rule in favor of marriage equality and will foster an anti-gay, hostile environment in the process.”
Lambda Legal, which brought the lawsuit that resulted in the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, had this to say about the result:
“Let’s be clear about what happened in Iowa and what didn’t happen: Three skilled jurists lost their jobs, but the Court’s ruling in the case allowing same-sex couples to marry is still the law of the land, enshrined in the Iowa Constitution. Same-sex couples continue to marry in Iowa. Antigay groups have lost on the big issue — equality — and they are attacking our courts for protecting it.
“This spiteful campaign is a wake-up call to future voters who must resist attempts to politicize the courts. It is the responsibility of us all to protect the system of checks and balances that defines our democracy, and it continues to be our responsibility at Lambda Legal to make our case for equality, not just before judges, but in the court of public opinion.
“We are angry, but we also take the long view: The Iowa Supreme Court delivered justice that will outlast this political fight by upholding the Iowa Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all Iowans. Seven jurists were posed a question by people who had been denied basic fairness guaranteed by the state constitution. The judges did their jobs with integrity – as they must.
“But the result in Iowa shines a light on a dangerous agenda to undermine the democratic system of checks and balances that has served us well for over 200 years. If an embattled judiciary were to lose its ability to protect our laws and constitution with impartiality, that would be a tragic loss for our country. We can’t let that happen.”
Some voters are less concerned about same sex marriage and more concerned about the Judicial branch oversteping their bounds. They have userped the right to create law, a right that should lay solely within the legislative branch. Checks and balances were overturned by their decision and this vote is an attempt to right that wrong.
Honey, it’s “usurp,” and the interpretation of an existing constitutional provision to determine that denial of access to the state-created marital institution on the basis of sex or sexual orientation constitutes a denial of equal protection is hardly the creation of law. It’s a black day for Iowa when imported homophobia can lead to changes on the Iowa Supreme Court. What checks and balances?
Ah Brandon…
How can you expect to be taken seriously when your spelling and grammar are so poor?
Whatever, Brandon! NOM targeted this state to try to bully other Judges across the country. In this time when we are worried about teen bullying, NOM is showing itself to be one of the biggest bullies in the country. They are the ones with an agenda, they are the ones who are trying to take away freedom, and they are the ones promoting hate in this country.
Note to John Wright: The margin is the difference between a winner and a loser. “A margin of 52 percent to 48 percent” is wrong. In such an outcome, “a margin of four percentage points” is correct.
This is just so sad. Funny piece at https://thingsididntbuythatilove.blogspot.com/2010/11/things-i-would-buy-with-my-out-of-state.html
Its amazing how bigots can determine who stays in the supreme court and who doesn’t. I’ve never been so embarrassed to be a resident of this state. Whats next? Are people going to try to ban inter-racial marriages?
Apparently some weren’t paying attention in civics class. There are three branches of government, and all are servants of the people.
The people are, under God, sovereign in Iowa, and in these United States.
The attempt to argue that the judiciary is somehow not accountable to its masters the People was a losing argument in Iowa.
It will lose everywhere it is deployed.
The people have rejected pseudo-marriage.
The judiciary will not impose it against our will.
The tide has well and truly turned now.
Maybe if the judge’s hadn’t of made such poor idealogical and political decisions between the 9 of them, and read the news from around the country that 31 states had the PEOPLE vote on marriage as a man and woman (as if that’s not obvious from history), Iowans might not need to use politics (ie retention election – which by the way is constitutional in Iowa) to kick their butts out. Iowa – don’t forget the other 6 in the coming elections. All other judges – rethink your activism – rule based on the Law on the books and in common tradition – not your own bias – whether you like the law or not. That’s what the representatives are for – to pass or delete the law. Judges are only allowed to weigh cases based on the LAW.
Marriage is part of the Christian value system, in the Bible it says when a man sleeps with a man it is an abomination. THIS IS CHRISTIANITY Marriage between a man and a woman is Christian.
That doesn’t mean that gay people don’t believe in God. But the Christians who believe in the Bible don’t believe in man sleeping with man. This is Christianity people that is who we are.
Gay is a sexual prefrance. What you do behind closed doors is your business.
Not religion not politics BUT
Our Christian values are getting tramped on because someone might be called the big PR word. What about ME.
THIS IS SEX NOT RELIGION.
DON’T walk on my values.You have cieval unions what is wrong with that. Christians have no rights any more. These judges have violate there oaths to judge according to the LAW NOT their personal biases. The US Surpreme court judges that rules for sodomy and baby killing should likewise be voted out
Polygamy is illegal in every state. The Supreme Court declined to take a polygamy case a few years ago.
If it is acceptable to marry your same sex it ought to be acceptable to marry a few of the opposite sex.
Could it be Iowa judges should have stayed out of it?
@ Mark Feld – The only RIGHT (I guess you all consider it a right) that is being taken away from the “christians” is that of hate. Allowing me to love and marry the person of my choice does not take anything away from you or your values, you are not the one marrying someone of the same sex. This country was founded on the principles of freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion. My belief and values tell me that God made me exactly how I am and loves me the same as you. This country is not a true Democracy, you cannot just vote away the rights of a minority class. My relationship with my partner of 5 years is not “just SEX” as you put it; it is LOVE. The bible teaches us LOVE and TOLERANCE and ACCEPTANCE….funny how “christians” pick and choose which parts of the bible to live by and quote to others.