Justice-hating freedom fighters?

Bob Vander Plaats is using a little spin to sell the idea behind his organization Iowa For Freedom. He is campaigning against the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who are up for retention because they were part of the unanimous 2009 decision that legalized gay marriage in the state. His outrage  against the justices is fueled by a belief that the courts overstepped their bounds with the ruling. Vander Plaats wants to punish the justices for their role in redefining marriage, which he deems as "judicial activism." Still, he says the campaign is about freedom, not marriage. The opportunity to vote out the justices may essentially be a "check and balance" on the courts, as Vander Plaats suggests. But he seems to ignore the larger system of checks and balances between the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of Iowa's government. An independent judiciary --- free to make interpretations of the state's laws and constitution --- is a vital part of that. He'd like the courts to restrain themselves from all that freedom and just base their rulings on laws the Legislature approves and governor signs. That rubber-stamp approach eliminates their role as a check and balance on the other branches of government. The group really only advocates greater freedom for one person: the governor. They'd like to reform Iowa's system for appointing justices by eliminating the commission that is central to the process. Instead, Iowa For Freedom says the governor alone should make the choice.

Union Supporter (she might start a civil war)

Republican lieutenant governor candidate Kim Reynolds supports the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage. She also wants to give Iowans the opportunity to vote on how marriage is defined after the state's Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. But she would never consider the possibility of legalizing civil unions for homosexual couples, says the Branstad campaign. Except that she would. Last week in Carroll Reynolds said, "We could take a look at civil unions. There are other options maybe that I would be in favor of looking at." (See story at http://bit.ly/demgx0.) Branstad's campaign "clarified" that by contradicting her and then pretending that she was actually talking about extending domestic partnership benefits to employees at private companies. (See story at http://bit.ly/aYb6hK.) All of the pretending is necessary because Branstad is trying to court Christian conservatives who still want to cast a vote for Bob Vander Plaats even though he lost the primary. And why? Because he has proven gay marriage is his top concern: He'd sign an executive order his first day in office overturning the court's decision. (See story at http://bit.ly/d9Ut5Z.) As for Branstad, well, he whines that the governor doesn't have the authority to do that. But he'll push for that constitutional amendment.