USA Today reports on the fate of three Iowa judges who redefined traditional marriage by legislating from the bench. (H/T Dr. J at Ruth Blog)
Excerpt:
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Vote totals from 96% of Iowa’s 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench. Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.
Dr. J writes:
Other courts, state and federal, have failed to discover a right to same sex marriage. It is disingenous for these justices’ to try to brazen it out by claiming that they based “their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else.” They are assuming the very thing that needs to be proven, and which Iowa voters believe cannot be proven, namely that there is an open and shut case for same sex marriage to be found in the Iowa Constitution.
If the right to redefine marriage was Constitutional, the people could surely be convinced to have their legislators enact it in the normal way. Judicial activism would not be needed. Good riddance.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Good for Iowa, the days of rouge justices is coming to an end in America, it’s “we the people” not we the judges
LikeLike
The local newspaper, the Cedar Rapids Gazette (a paper that favors same-sex marriage), has been whining about how the judges were just applying the law and it was only because “out of state” organizations and money helped the propaganda to vote them out. Of course they forgot that they also reported about all the “out of state money” and activists that led to the decision in the first place; I guess it’s all right for out of state help to get what you want but not what you don’t want. Bunch of hypocrites.
They claim that now the court is being “politicized” but it was being “politicized” when they decided to redefine what marriage meant!
If you read the decision of the court, the same reasoning they used to say “gays” were being denied a right of marriage, can also be used to say that a father is being denied the right to marry his daughter, or a brother a sister, or a mother a son, or a polygamist three wives! Yet when I have used that argument in communications with the Gayzette editors, I have been told that harm has been shown with incestuous relationships which is why they have to be illegal. When I stated there was much harm medically and to society in general with homosexual behavior I was told how wrong I am.
Some real upside-down thinking among the left!
LikeLike