Minute Rant: Steve [the] King of the Anti-Gays

Iowa Republican, of course, Steve King has introduced a bill — Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015 — that would strip federals courts of the power to rule on marriage because, well, Gay: 

“For too long, federal courts have overstepped their constitutionally limited duty to interpret the Constitution. Rather, federal courts have perverted the Constitution to make law and create constitutional rights to things such as privacy, birth control, and abortion. These Unenumerated, so-called constitutionally-protected rights were not envisioned by our Founding Fathers.”

King’s bill would strip away Article III of the Constitution, which gives federal courts the jurisdiction to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage. The bill also prohibits federal funds from being used for any litigation in, or enforcement of any order or judgment by, any federal court.

King doesn’t seem to be aware that times have changed since the Founding Father drafted the Constitution, but then Steve King is the same wacknut gay-hater who said that in 2000 years, no gay person has ever gone to heaven.

Then, the next day he said that leftists had "fabricated" the remark and then added that he stands by having said it.

He said, then said people made it up, and then said he said it? I’d like a Constitutional amendment banning Steve King from opening his yap; who’s with me?

Here Come's The [Republican-Appointed] Judges

Y'all remember when that US District Court judge in Boston struck down an important piece of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], ruling that the controversial federal law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution by denying gay and lesbian couples the federal benefits afforded to straight couples?

'Memba?

Well, almost as interesting as the decision itself, is the knowledge that the judge--79-year-old Joseph Tauro--is the longest-serving appointee of Richard Nixon.

What's so interesting about that, you ask?

Well, while the recent Elena Kagan confirmation hearings have dwelt on whether “activist’’ liberal judges appointed by Democrats would trample legal precedent, the judges who have begun the constitutional protection of same-sex marriage have mostly been Republican appointees.

Say what?

And this isn't a first.

Last year, when the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a gay-marriage ban on the grounds that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the state constitution, the court's unanimous decision was written by Justice Mark Cady, a conservative placed on the court by the former Republican governor Terry Branstad.

Go figure.

And, in 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a comparable marriage ban in an opinion written by Justice Richard Palmer, an appointee of Governor Lowell Weicker, a three-term Republican senator who became an independent. In addition, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling was written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, named to the court by Republican Governor William Weld, and then named chief justice by another Republican Goveronor, Paul Cellucci.

Judges placed on the bench by Republicans.

Huh? What? Huh?

And get this: another major ruling on gay marriage will come from federal district court in California, and most people think Chief Judge Vaughn Walker will overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage. This is notable because of Walker’s nomination to the court by Ronald Reagan; a nomination thwarted by Democrats--including current House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi--who believed he was prejudiced against homosexuals. They were mistaken. Walker was reappointed by George H.W. Bush, and was confirmed, and has demonstrated no prejudice of the LGBT community.

This makes the Republican pedigrees of judges moving gay marriage toward legality all the more striking, especially in how it contrasts with conservative outcries about judicial activism, but it is also a measure of how far from the mainstream modern conservative jurists have drifted.

So, fight against the Republicans running for office, but think twice about arguing against their judicial appointees.

Just sayin'.