MASON CITY – Controversial Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice David Wiggins is coming to Mason City.
Justice Wiggins will be the main guest of a non-partisan forum on “The Role of the Judiciary” in Iowa hosted by the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Mason City. The forum will be held in the church’s lower level dining room on October 14th and begins at 3 PM. The church is located at 100 1st Street NE.
According to the Iowa Supreme Court website, IowaCourts.gov, for ethical reasons, justices refrain from talking about the court’s decisions and any case pending in the courts.
Pastor Patti Aurand of First Congregational said today that is wasn’t easy to get the judge to attend the forum.
“It’s been hard to get him here, he’s not wanting to campaign,” she said. “He just wants some public awareness.”
Pastor Aurand said that this type of discussion fits well with her church and what it stands for.
“We are the only church in town to do same sex marriages,” she said. “After the (same sex marriage decision) we had a great conversation around that, what does marriage stand for. Gender doesn’t make a difference.”
Pastor Aurand said her church has a long history of firsts.
“We were founded by abolitionists on the eve of the civil war. We are known as Meredith Willson’s home church; we have the Willson Wing. We ordained a woman in the 1850’s as first mainline denomination to do so, and we were the first to ordain an openly gay person, in 1972.”
Pastor Aurand said she hopes the discussion can be “civil and friendly” and that public awareness can be gained for the forum.
Maybe, the ex-judge wishes now upon further reflection, he should have included in that decision, to rule unconstitional, the right of the people of Iowa, to remove justices whenever they liked, for whatever reason they liked. What a missed opportunity. Now the poor idle retired old geezer has nothing more to do but become a spokesman for the Progressive Left. Are there no pro conservative constitutional issues he could champion? Should I hold my breath?
Hey Patti, those early Abolitionists you are so proud to mention would probably send you packing faster than you can say Hedonistic Church in the news losing parishioners!
I will vote to remove the judge. I don’t care what it takes to get the gays and there lifestyle from being thrown in my face.
This defies logic and nature!
This is not about gay marriage. This about the judges making law when they should not be. The judges were wrong to order gays should be allowed to marry. If they want to find the law unconstitutional fine, but then send it back to the legislature for them to deal with. Also to blame is the legislature and the govenor. They should have acted on this ruling instead of not doing their job. The other thing is a “Choice” is not a civil right so quit trying to claim it is.
Patty, you want to know why you cannot bring in and keep your congregation. Look in the mirror maybe what you have to offer in your CHURCH is not what church going people want. Church is a place to hear the word from the bible. We do not want to be reeducated just hear the word of God.
Marriage is a legal issue not a God issue. If according to some only those who can reproduce can be married then many marriages should not happen. What about those couples who use in-vitro, adopt, have a surrogate, whose egg and sperm are started in a dish? Marriage is a legal issue not a God issue, and the Bible is interpreted by every religion and person differently and if you look at history, has been rewritten numerous times. (I am sure ALWAYS by straight MEN!) It is a legal issue not a God issue. If your a Christian and believe in a higher power then vote to retain the judge(s) that follow the law. There is no other way for us to move as a nation. It will happen all across the country at some time, look at history. We need our people ages 18 to 30 to vote, so it remains legal in Iowa for all people to marry. Its not a “gay” issue, its a civil rights issue.
God specifically intended marriage between one WOMAN and one MAN. It could not be any clearer in the Bible. Yes, there are many interpretations of the Bible, but it is only interpretations. God tells us not to add to or take away from his word. The church is to bring the scripture to the people for edification. The body of Christ can not be edifying if the church is twisting his truth to satisfy their own belief or to coddle to certain people in the church. Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. That doesn’t mean that we hate homosexuals. It means that we do not condone their sinful actions. No different than anyone else that we come in contact with daily who sins. God loves each of us, but like our Father, doesn’t agree with all each of us does. He is forgiving if we ask sincerely. It is horrible when anyone twists the gospel for their own sake. To make right what God says is wrong…especially the church! Who thinks they know better than God, the one who created each of us? God help this world the way it is becoming. May he open our eyes to the truth. May he have his way in this election of ALL candidates, including the judges!!
But who is to say that your intreptation is the correct one? The bible is like beauty, “in the eye of the beholder”.
There you go, injecting Church beliefs into government matters. You may believe in what you wrote quite powerfully, as it appears. It is your duty and right to believe such.
Yet, in the secular government, we cannot allow one religion, one faith to represent all the people. Nor for that matter, a group of them.
While it is my opinion that sin is sin, and no justification can be made for that, I cannot weigh what I believe in governing my behaviors, upon the whole of society. I will let it govern my heart and soul, but I wish not make it an edict upon everone.
If that were the case, half the Constitutions in the U.S. would have to be thrown out. I find in such cases, the Founders were correct, more than just what they had written. They believed that no one religion should be made the standard of the new country. That all should be left free to exist, so long as it did not interfere with the rights of others. Yet they could not imagine to what extent the varied religions we have today in society. Indeed, they could not have imagined it’s bearing on political life.
So we have a case, in a secular court, which declared a law, governing everyone, to be unconstitutional. It was law, not religion that decided this. And it is law, that must prevail aside from my personal beliefs.
Just wondering how a church can preach and follow the bible and still endorse gay marriage. The bible clearly calls homosexuality an abomination. So how can any church support it.
The bible has been interpreted and translated so many times, even the churches can’t decide what it says. And haven’t you ever wondered why our forefathers didn’t use the bible rather than draft a constitution to guide our country? Perhaps they knew that the bible wasn’t as infallible as many people seem to believe.
And there are so many apocryphal books that were left out of the bible because some men didn’t quite like what they said. The books of the bible were written and assembled by men.
I have always felt that judges should be replaced after one term, just like our legislators should be. I hate that some judges get life appointments – especially the Supremes.
“The First Congregational Church endorses queer marriage……”
The Amish will not recognize any marriage outside of the community. Orthodox Jews do not recognize any marriage outside their group.
But, in the case of Varnum v. Brien, no one was talking at all about any church. It was the state function of issuing a license to be married, a requirement of law. The state does not concern itself with what goes on in any established religion, and for good reason, it is against the law.
However they must not, nor cannot legally exclude one group or party from something the rest of us take for granted. That is what is at issue here, not religion, or church traditions or teachings.
This whole subject should be a moot point. It is shocking to me that so many people have no understanding of the laws that govern us, or the Constitutions which give us our freedoms. How did you pass the mandatory Constitution test to even graduate from High School if one does not understand the basic concepts of same?
It does not surprise me that the First Congregational Church is hosting Wiggins.
The First Congregational Church endorses queer marriage and is my understanding will perform a ceremony in the church that will marry the queers.
This whole homosexual movement is nothing more then leftest thinking to change America’s culture.
Not a good thing for our country or the Church!
“This whole homosexual movement” is nothing more then Americans using the Constitution in the spirit it was meant to be used. Freedom and equality for everyone.
I could care less about the church because they don’t agree with me on everything I do and they don’t care about me for the same reason.
This removal effort is way out of line. The judges interpet the law and that is that. This is what they are supposed to do. I have a real problem with these do gooder outsiders like Jindle and Santorom coming to Iowa to tell us how to vote. They are like all of these so called religious people who think they speak for all of us and they don’t. We can not allow this to happen again after the travesty of the first removal. I don’t personally like gay marriage but then again what people do in their own home is up to them.
this is from the other paper in town. Do you also have a problem with Gill?
Wealthy out-of-state Democrats have chipped in, too, including Colorado software entrepreneur and gay rights activist Tim Gill. Gill has given $25,000 to the Iowa Democratic Party in a year when The Family Leader, a social conservative group, is running a bus tour to oust Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins,who ruled in favor of legalizing same sex marriage in 2009.
And this article totally subverts that concept. Wiggins should have gone with his first instinct and not done this.
Why not let the people vote on the issue? If 51% of the people want it, than they get it! What happened to majority rules?
“Equal protection under the law” is not subject to a majority vote anywhere but on the Court that decides the issue. And, for the record, that vote was unanimous.
Very well said.
What I find sad is that a man, who thought himself familiar enough with the law, familiar enough with the workings of the State, qualified enough to be the Governor, continues to mislead Iowa Citizens.
He said the actions of the Justices were unconstitutional. Not one person has yet to point how exactly how.
He rants about the people having the final voice. Yet as Kunstler’s Ghost quite well points out, the people do not have the final voice when it comes to constitutional issues.
Even if the people passed an Amendment to the Iowa Constitution banning gay marriage, it would eventually be struck down in accordance with the rest of the Constitution which it amends. And if you attempt to blot out the part about Equal Protection in Iowa, it will be laughed out of the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States.
And of all people, Mr. Vander Plaats must know this, if he was at all qualified to be the Governor of the State of Iowa. Perhaps he was not all that qualified? You be the judge.
You have to be kidding. Do you think we would have the Civil Rights Act today if we would have had a majority vote? It is definitely time for a lot of people in the ag belt to start thinking and stop basing every decision on the big holy book of fairy tales!
The justices are supposed to interpret the law, not change it.
Article V; Section 4, says in part: ” The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law….”.
There is no question, given the evidence in the the case of Varnum v. Brien, that there was error of law. The Justices by striking the unconstitutional language from the law (Iowa Code 595.2). An action that cannot be construed as creating law.
I go back to the Justices decision in this case, because it is fundamental; “Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has
been unable to identify constitutionally adequate justification for excluding
plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage.” (emphasis mine).
That alone nullifies any statements that the action by that Iowa Supreme Court was in any way unconstitutional.
Exactly! Governor Gronstal won’t allow it. We’re mad because the people have been taken out of government. The Preamble reads “We the people…” not “We the senators” or even “We the government”. THAT is why many people are mad and will kick Wiggins out. So for anyone who thinks its not fair to take this out on the Supreme Court, tell it to Gronstal.
I am personally against gay marriage but I voted to retain last time and I will do it again! This isn’t about “activist” judges bending the rules for the gays, it’s about a political party upset that they DIDN”T break the rules for them! They knew the law would never stand up to a challenge in an impartial court but they thought “these are OUR judges, they’ll have our back”. All the party would’ve had to do was pass a constitutional ammendment and this wouldn’t be an issue. The republicans don’t really give a rat’s butt about things like gay marriage and abortion except to get the votes of “flocks” of people who can be herded to the poles. If they thought the judges would bend on this one, what other things would they’ve asked them to do?
@Farm Boy If all that is true, why does this article go out of its way to quote the Pastor talking about all her church’s social firsts? If its about the law and the Supreme Courts role in a republic then that should be irrelevant. And we all know the GOP has its problems. But I would like to invoke the “people in glass houses” clause here. Do you really need me to list all the things they are doing simply to get votes?
how can 2 women, or 2 men have children? I guess it would be one way on cutting down on the population. looking at the picture of Mr. Wiggins, I would guess he is Gay, if I am wrong I appolgise
Using that argument, then all couples intending to marry must first undergo testing to make certain that they are able to reproduce, and also should sign a binding contract that they intend to have children. And none of them adopted or surrogate children like gay couples can have. Honest to goodness biological children. Too old or unable to bear children, no marriage. No desire to bring children into the world, no marriage.
Nobody is asking the good people of Iowa to practice or even support homosexuality. All that is being asked is to not discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation.
Looks gay???? And just what does gay look like? What a horrible statement!
You sound gay.
The mirror has your answer . . .
As a society we cannot appoint judges then remove them if they do not conform to our wants and needs. If that is going to be the rigor of the day, the legal system as we know it will collapse
Nonsense!