SIOUX CITY, IA -
Another
of the justices who voted to make same-sex marriage legal in Iowa is up
for a vote this November to decide whether he'll remain on the bench.
The Iowa GOP Chairman announced today that
he's urging Iowans to vote Justice David Wiggins out, but some say the
Chairman stepped out of line.
The Woodbury County GOP Chairman says he
stands by the announcement. At the same time, the Interfaith Alliance
of Iowa executive director says it's outrageous.
"The
definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. And a handful
of judges one day decided different," said Brian Rosener, Woodbury
County GOP Chairman.
The issue came before the Iowa Supreme Court back in 2009.
The justices legalized same-sex marriage in a unanimous opinion.
The next year, three of the seven justices
were up for retention and all three were ousted. Now a fourth justice,
David Wiggins, is up for retention.
Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker says Iowans should vote against retaining Wiggins when they hit the polls in November.
But Connie Ryan Terrell, the executive director of Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, says Spiker crossed the line.
"We
take great strides in our state to ensure politics are not part of the
judicial retention process, and so for a political party to make such a
bold statement is truly outrageous," she said.
But
Rosener says House Democrats in Des Moines won't let the issue of
same-sex marriage re-surface, so Republicans are retaliating.
"If
the Democrats are playing politics with it, and won't allow us to vote,
then certainly the responsible thing to do, from the Republicans is to
put the issue back out there and certainly when you have activist
judges, we have here in Iowa, the ability to remove them from the
courts," he said.
Terrell says in 2010, the efforts to oust the three judges were lead by outside groups, but this time it's different.
"With
this, is that it is one political party that has decided to make a
public statement and that has, in its statement also told voters how
they believe voters should pass the ballot, that simply is wrong, the
political party should stay out of this conversation because retention
of justices are designed to be non-political," she said.
