What The Right Wing Is Saying About Iowa’s Gay Marriage Decision
Huckabee, Steele, Limbaugh, Romney, Others Share Their Thoughts
Â
There was a mix of palpable joy and sorrow throughout the country Friday. The news came at 9:30 that morning, that the Iowa Supreme Court had determined that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, then, sadly, one hour later, a gunman, had entered a public building in a small New York town and, we would ultimately learn, shot dead thirteen people.
About 4:00 PM, via Twitter, I saw a comment from Mike Huckabee amidst CNN and MSNBC’s non-stop coverage of the massacre in Binghamton. Here it is:
Yes, that’s right: “must fight to preserve family and amend the Constitution of the United States to define marriage as one man and one woman. #tcot, #iowa” At 4:00 PM, EDT, just as the nation was learning the full magnitude of the terrible shooting in that sleepy little town in upstate New York, (that I have visited many times,) Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor and presidential candidate and practicing minister, now a radio and TV personality, was more concerned about the Supreme Court of Iowa’s decision about gay marriage than about the families and neighbors of those poor thirteen people, some of whom were murdered while studying to take their citizenship test. Way to go, Mike! Glad you’re practicing your faith.
So, I thought I’d take a look around to see what other Conservatives were saying about the Iowa gay marriage decision. Ready or not, here we go:
Michael Steele, the “leader” of the Republican Party:
“The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision today to reverse an 11 year old state law outlawing same-sex marriage is sadly another example of judicial activism currently threatening family values in America. While I respect an individual’s right to live his or her life as they see fit, decisions like this are better left in the hands of legislators and governors.
I firmly believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. A state’s autonomous nature allows it to change its laws as the citizenry sees fit, but it should be done by the people, not through judicial decree.”
Rush Limbaugh: the other “leader” of the Republican party.
“For how many years were they talking about gay marriage? How many years were they talking about demonizing the SUV? That started in 1995. Here it is 14 years later, and they’re on the verge of doing it. Liberals don’t stop. It’s like the Soviets. They didn’t have four-year plans based on the service of term of their leader. They had forever plans, and if you had to take a year off, maybe a step back before you took two steps forward, then fine. But they had the objective, it was there, and whenever it got done was fine, as long as you’re always working for it. Same thing with Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is taking over the banks now. Hugo Chavez is nationalizing the oil industry. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, we’re getting, you know, an early sign of what Chavez did by watching things happen here. But they don’t stop.
This is why an electoral majority needs to happen in order to defeat these people, and even after they’re defeated, they try to go around it in other ways, getting judges, like unanimous decision in Iowa today, with the Supreme Court, unanimous, that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Now, I guarantee you, if we could go dig up James Madison and say, “Mr. Madison, did you intend for the Constitution to say people of the same sex could get married?” And I guarantee you he would have the reaction, “What are you talking about? Are you sure you’re asking me about the Constitution?” But then the four judges, whatever the number, they’re unanimous in the Iowa Supreme Court, have just said what they think the Constitution says.”
Mitt Romney, the man who wants to be the leader of the Republican party:
“The ruling in Iowa today 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. 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.” (Of course, Mitt’s a bit older now, so he hasn’t gotten around to prosteletyzing about this version of Iowa gay marriage. The quote is from 2007.)
Ed Whelan, National Review Online:
‘The lawless judicial attack on traditional marriage and on representative government continues…The judicial knaves who proudly regard themselves as trailblazers in carrying out this latest assault on the powers of citizens are Iowa chief justice…”
Western Iowa Representative Steve King, warned Iowa could turn into “the gay marriage Mecca”, stated:
“This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench.
Now it is the Iowa legislature’s responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.”
Rod Dreher, BeliefNet:
“This morning, I had breakfast with some guys, including a lawyer. We weren’t aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue. The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then “it will be very hard to be a public Christian.” By which he meant to voice support, no matter how muted, for traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality and marriage. To do so would be to set yourself up for hostile work environment challenges, including dismissal from your job, and generally all the legal sanctions that now apply to people who openly express racist views.”
But I saved the best for last. Andrew Sullivan, conservative author, editor, blogger…
“Once you have accepted sexual orientation as a fixed and profound part of someone’s identity, and once civil marriage is not restricted to those with children, it is simply very, very hard to find a secular argument for denying critical civil rights under constitutions that guarantee formal equality. You can reach for Biblical injunctions, or try the logic of unintended consequences, or in the end invoke pure prejudice in a Burkean fashion. But even Burke understood that societies change and grow, social beliefs shift, our understanding of humanity deepens, and an intelligent conservatism adjusts.
That’s why, I think, so many conservative jurists have been forced by logic to adopt this position – from the early decisions in Hawaii and Alaska, through the numerous Republican-appointed judges who find it hard to reflect pure prejudice in rational legal judgment. Yes, fear can overwhelm logic and justice. But remove fear – and the case is overwhelming.”
If it’s true, “As Iowa goes, so goes the nation”, let’s hope we can also say, “As Andrew Sullivan goes, so go conservatives.” We can always hope.
(photo:Â kyeung808)
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
A federal judge aimed sharp criticism at the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its de facto leader, Elon Musk, as he ruled on Tuesday afternoon that its shutdown of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), “likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways.”
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang’s ruling, however, Politico reported, “appears to permit the Trump administration to ratify and maintain the draconian cuts — as long as they are ordered by USAID’s official leadership, rather than by Musk or his allies at DOGE.”
Judge Chuang blocked DOGE “from further cuts to the agency,” the Associated Press reported. He also ordered that “email and computer access” be restored “to all employees of USAID, including those who were placed on administrative leave.”
In his damning 68-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang wrote that “the ‘Department of
Government Efficiency,’ or ‘DOGE,’ has sent teams of personnel to numerous federal departments and agencies, taken control of their computer systems, and in many instances, taken the lead in terminating numerous contracts and employees.”
READ MORE: Chief Justice Smacks Down Trump
He charged that “DOGE and its leader, Elon Musk,” have “played a leading role in actions taken to shut down and dismantle” USAID, “which have included permanently closing its headquarters, taking down its website, and engaging in mass terminations of contracts, grants, and personnel.”
Noting that President Trump himself “has identified” Elon Musk as “the leader of DOGE,” Judge Chuang wrote that DOGE “has taken numerous actions without any apparent advanced approval by agency leadership.”
Judge Chuang ruled that Elon Musk’s and DOGE’s “actions taken to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAID Officer, likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways, and that these actions harmed not only Plaintiffs, but also the public interest, because they deprived the public’s elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress.”
U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) blasted Judge Chuang.
“This is more of your Trump derangement syndrome. This is more of these activist judges,” Senator Blackburn declared. “So here you have a judge who is standing up for wasting taxpayer money. It is not the judge’s money, it is not the court’s money. This is money that hardworking taxpayers have earned and sent to Washington, DC.”
“And if they’re going to decide, they don’t want to pay for Sesame Street in Iraq, or DEI education in another country, or trans surgeries in another country,” she claimed.
READ MORE: Trump Border Czar ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Judges — One Might Make Administration Think Twice
On Saturday, The New York Times in an extensive, interactive report revealed, “An estimated 1,650,000 people could die within a year without American foreign aid for H.I.V. prevention and treatment.”
“An estimated 500,000 people could die within a year without American funding for vaccines,” the report added. ” An estimated 550,000 people could die within a year without American funding for food aid.”
Also, nearly 300,00 could die from Malaria, 310,000 from tuberculosis, the Times reported.
The World Health Organization (WHO has estimated that the USAID shutdown, as THEM reported, “could cause as many as 10 million additional HIV cases and three million HIV-related deaths.”
Watch the video below or at this link.
Marsha Blackburn attacks a judge who just ruled that Trump’s dismantling of USAID is likely unconstitutional: “This is more of your Trump derangement syndrome … here you have a judge who is standing up for wasting taxpayer money.” pic.twitter.com/iaY6aaxlWy
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 18, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Welcome to Autocracy’: Trump Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ Debunked and Denounced
Image via Reuters
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has issued a rare, and terse, 31-word statement, seemingly in response to President Donald Trump’s rant calling call for the impeachment of Senior U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who on Saturday ordered two deportation flights to be turned around under a contested law.
The Trump administration, declaring the planes were over international waters, decided the judge’s order was not lawful, and did not order the planes to return home.
Trump lashed out Tuesday, at 9:05 AM, in an unhinged rant, calling Judge Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic,” “a troublemaker and agitator,” who “was not elected President” — before calling for his impeachment.
Chief Justice Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush almost 20 years ago, issued a stern rebuke.
READ MORE: Trump Border Czar ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Judges — One Might Make Administration Think Twice
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in his statement, as first reported by Politico’s Kyle Cheney.
Politico is calling it “the most intense public conflict between Trump and Roberts since 2018, when the chief justice came to the defense of federal judges who’d ruled against Trump policies.”
Earlier on Tuesday, Cheney had reported that the “invective from Trump against Boasberg also is set against the message from Chief Justice Roberts, who warned against efforts by public officials to intimidate judges — including by the threat of impeachment — which could provoke ‘dangerous reactions.'”
Those remarks came from Roberts’ year-end report, during which he lamented, “Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others,” as USA Today reported at the time.
“Unfortunately,” the Chief Justice had also said, “not all actors engage in `informed criticism’ or anything remotely resembling it.”
READ MORE: ‘Welcome to Autocracy’: Trump Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ Debunked and Denounced
At Trump’s State of the Union earlier this month, political observers were stunned by Trump’s remarks, caught on a hot mic, when he thanked Roberts.
Watch below or at this link:
Trump to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts last night after his presidential address to Congress: “Thank you again. Thank you again. Won’t forget it.” pic.twitter.com/EOblPpe6MQ
— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) March 5, 2025
Image via Reuters
In a further escalation of his administration’s targeting of the federal judiciary, President Donald Trump posted an unhinged rant Tuesday morning, calling for the impeachment of a U.S. District Court judge—likely James Boasberg—whose orders his legal team had allegedly defied.
Trump did not name him, but Senior U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg had ordered the President’s legal team on Saturday to turn around two planes carrying hundreds of immigrants in the process of being deported under an obscure 1798 wartime-only law.
Politico‘s Kyle Cheney reports that “Trump’s call to impeach Chief Judge Boasberg for a ruling he disagrees with is an escalation of his administration’s increasingly ominous battle with the judiciary.”
The administration’s decision not to follow Judge Boasberg’s order — which Trump officials claim was not valid and therefore, they say, did not constitute defiance — may be leading the country toward a constitutional crisis, according to legal experts.
At 9:05 AM Tuesday, President Trump unleashed his unhinged rant, further stoking the flames of a constitutional crisis.
READ MORE: Trump Border Czar ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Judges — One Might Make Administration Think Twice
“This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he did WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!” Trump wrote on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns, appearing to include a typo.
“I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY,” the President insisted.
Trump continues to claim a “mandate,” but his popular vote win margin ranks about 50th out of 60 presidential elections, and, according to The New York Times, “Trump’s Electoral College Victory Ranks 46th in 58 Elections.”
Trump went on to claim, “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do.”
“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”
The New York Times reported on Sunday that legal experts had been trying to determine “how close the Trump administration is to open defiance of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances.”
“Trump administration moved one large step closer to a constitutional showdown with the judicial branch of government when airplane-loads of Venezuelan detainees deplaned in El Salvador even though a federal judge had ordered that the planes reverse course and return the detainees to the United States,” the Times reported.
Two days later, cable news networks like MSNBC are currently describing this as a “legal showdown.”
READ MORE: ‘Welcome to Autocracy’: Trump Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ Debunked and Denounced
On Monday night, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) told CNN’s Anderson Cooper (video below) that he believes America is on the brink of a constitutional crisis.
“You know, we’ve been, as you pointed out, throwing that term around pretty sloppily in the last two months or so,” Congressman Himes said, “but the definition of a constitutional crisis, of course, is when you have no way to resolve two branches of government warring with each other. And you know what you see exactly what’s happening here. It’s a very interesting moment because, this is what Donald Trump does in life, right?”
“And you see him exploring the threshold of ignoring a court order, knowing because he said so before and because his people know this, that that is very serious business, that that is a constitutional crisis.”
“So they’re throwing every mad legal theory up against the wall, they’re dissembling, they’re taking their time and everything and I’ll tell you, we’ve seen this movie a hundred times before.”
After the President posted his Truth Social rant, The New York Times’ Peter Baker wrote: “Trump declares that it constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor worthy of impeachment for a federal judge to rule against him.”
Watch the video below or at this link:
“The definition of a constitutional crisis … is when you have no way to resolve two branches of government warring with each other”: Rep. Jim Himes (D-Connecticut) talks about the ongoing showdown between the Trump administration and federal judges. pic.twitter.com/EGMyS6OhbA
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) March 18, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Sounds Like Putin’: Trump Blasted for Declaring Top News Organizations ‘Illegal’
Image via Reuters
Chief Justice Smacks Down Trump
Trump Pushes to Impeach ‘Radical Left Lunatic’ Judge in Unhinged Morning Rant
‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’: GOP Senator Furious Over Judge’s USAID Ruling
‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’: GOP Senator Furious Over Judge’s USAID Ruling
Chief Justice Smacks Down Trump
Trump Pushes to Impeach ‘Radical Left Lunatic’ Judge in Unhinged Morning Rant
Trump Border Czar ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Judges — One Might Make Administration Think Twice
‘Welcome to Autocracy’: Trump Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ Debunked and Denounced
News1 day ago‘Welcome to Autocracy’: Trump Declaring Biden’s Pardons ‘Void’ Debunked and Denounced
News1 day agoTrump Border Czar ‘Doesn’t Care’ About Judges — One Might Make Administration Think Twice
News10 hours agoChief Justice Smacks Down Trump
News12 hours agoTrump Pushes to Impeach ‘Radical Left Lunatic’ Judge in Unhinged Morning Rant
News6 hours ago‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’: GOP Senator Furious Over Judge’s USAID Ruling