The Iowa State Judicial Branch has a motto:

Administering justice under the law equally to all persons. (emphasis mine)

Now, if I recall correctly, laws in the USA, and in its many states and local governments are ordinarily created by a body of legislature, a council of some sort - town, village and city councils, county legislatures, state assemblies and senates, and finally, the US Congress itself.

And, our system of government has the Executive Branch (vested in Mayors, County Executives, Governors, and Presidents) to enforce and support the law, generally providing for the administration of the laws created by the Legislative Branch.

Lastly, the Judicial Branch offers interpretation of the law, against the properly passed laws, statues, and ordinances of the community, state(s), and the nation, and against precedents set by previous court cases. Determination of a law’s constitutionality, it seems - is relegated to the higher courts (generally, state and federal Supreme Courts).

One would not expect to have a ruling of a decade-old law declared unconstitutional by a low-level county or state district court; any judge on the bench of such a court must no doubt be courting some degree of notoriety and publicity for himself, or a radical judge with an activist agenda.

Or maybe I’m just plain wrong, and minor county judges really can toss out state legislation on its collective ears - and so much for representative democracy, wherein “we the people” selected those legislatures which passed the laws we want enacted (in theory).

And so, the (dubiously) “Honorable” Robert B. Hanson, a judge for Iowa’s Polk County (IA District 5C) decided that Iowa’s marriage law was unconstitutional, and capriciously invalidated the will of the people with a mere tap of his gavel - and there isn’t much that can be done about it other than to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, which could bump it back to the Iowa Court of Appeals, or hear the case, or reject the appeal.

Let’s take a look at the law in question, and see for ourselves if there is any ambiguity in the words of the law, or anything in the language that suggests that marriage in the state of Iowa has a provision of licensing the weddings of non-heterosexual marriages:

Iowa Code 595.2, Subsections 1 - 2

1. Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.

2. Additionally, a marriage between a male and a female is valid only if each is eighteen years of age or older. However, if either or both of the parties have not attained that age, the marriage may be valid under the circumstances prescribed in this section.

(info/link courtesy of 2ndDivisionVet over on the Freeper boards)

And just in case some nice gay couple was of a mind to try and sneak in through Massachusetts or New Jersey (MA, and I believe NJ condones same-sex marriage)… the Iowa Code says those are invalid (in Iowa) as well:

595.20 Foreign marriages–validity.

A marriage which is solemnized in any other state, territory, country, or any foreign jurisdiction which is valid in that state, territory, country, or other foreign jurisdiction, is valid in this state if the parties meet the requirements for validity pursuant to section 595.2, subsection 1, and if the marriage would not otherwise be declared void.

(emphasis mine)

Well! That sounds pretty clear and unequivocal to me. But apparently not to a leftist judge in Polk County, Iowa.

So, who is this Judge Hanson, and what exactly was his ruling? I’d say he is only the latest in a raft of ultra-leftist judges who enjoy forging socially liberal policy from the bench.

A liberal, say I? Most likely, let’s look at his “bench cred” (from the Iowa Judicial Branch official website) :

District Court Judge, Robert B. Hanson: 5C

Judge Hanson, West Des Moines, was appointed to the bench in 2003. He received his undergraduate education from Stanford University in 1978. He went to the University of Iowa and earned his law degree in 1981. He clerked for the Iowa Supreme Court and practiced law privately prior to his appointment. He is a member of the Polk County, Iowa State and American Bar Associations. He is married with two children.

Funny thing, that. He’s a Stanford grad, and given Stanford’s reputation for tenuring ultra-leftist professors… it wouldn’t at all be surprising that he would be a product of their training.

“Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage … by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex,”

It would seem that the ultra-liberal fringe really doesn’t give a flip about what the majority of people have decided should be law - indeed for them, democracy is only fit for the liberal elites to participate in.

Unless of course, a (state) constitutional amendment is passed to explicitly limit marriage to a heterosexual pair - man and woman.

According to House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, this judge’s ruling underscores the necessity of (such) a state constitutional amendment:

“I can’t believe this is happening in Iowa,” he said. “I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January,” when the Legislature convenes.

(from the Detroit Free Press coverage of this item: Freep.com)

Although, with the Republicans a minority in the Iowa Legislature, *and if Chicago exerts anything near considerable drift to the left that New York City has over decisions made in Albany defenders of the family and traditional marriage may have an uphill battle.

* Edit: Es tut mir sehr großer Leit… I made a major geography goof as the first commenter points out… Chicago ain’t anywhere near Iowa. Don’t ask me why I transposed Iowa’s capital with Illinois, I should’ve known better.

… but I’m still keeping the 2600m2 (28,000 sq. ft.) super mansion.”

And probably his staff limousine and personal charter airplane as well.

This item from earlier today in Fox News where The Silky One (Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards) himself was addressing a forum of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers:

“I think Americans are actually willing to sacrifice… …One of the things they should be asked to do is drive more fuel efficient vehicles.”

And when asked if that meant giving up SUVs, he said “Yes”.

Now, I’ve never been a great fan of SUVs — for the most part, the folks I know who routinely drive the vehicular beasts almost have no business being behind the wheel of these vehicles, mainly because they really do not know the physics behind driving vehicles substantially heavier than a compact car, much less forgetting about the bigger blind spots, and the greater braking distances required… to say nothing of thinking that driving a 6,000 lb. four wheel drive vehicle means is the same as driving an M1A2 Abrams tank.

And, yes… I know that as a Christian, I should not revel in Schadenfreude when I see so many SUVs in the ditch during a snowstorm (with only a half-inch of snow on the ground!) whilst I cruise on by in my old beater of a Subaru. It takes a good measure of restraint, and more often, a prayer asking for forgiveness, because for the grace of God, so go I.

Moreover though, a LOT of SUV drivers (especially the luxury SUV drivers with the Benzs or Lexuses [Lexi?]) tend to be not too nice to smaller cars they need to share the road with. SUVs were quite the bane of my existence as a motorcyclist as well. But, for some folks, they are altogether necessary.

In fact, I’ve toyed around with the idea of getting a “mini-SUV” (like a RAV-4) for my wife, as packing her and the young-un (still in a car seat that takes up almost more than half the backseat) for a grocery trip can become a very cramping experience in the ol’ Sube.

Other folks need SUVs and big diesel trucks as a part of their livelihood. And my dear old Dad did teach me one thing (among many things, actually) that remains of value to me today: Ya just don’t mess around with another man’s livelihood.

So, I can get by with other folks’ use of SUVs.

The Silky Pony thinks otherwise. As much as a construction worker or a logger or a group of guys who like to take the ol’ Dodge Ram out on the hunt might be tempted to vote Democrat… I don’t think they would cotton to his eco-gospel straight from the pits of the Goreacle.

BUT…

… there is also the matter of this big house that our Breck Girl (boy?) loves as a simple of his rise from being the son of a poor textile mill worker to being a sharkskin-suited, immaculately coiffed ambulance chaser malpractice and personal injury attorney, and now, potential Democratic candidate for the Presidency.

Not too bad, many others have done no worse, and have earned themselves the means and the ability to live splendidly.

But some of us folks take umbrage to the Silky One when he tells us that we can’t have our cake and eat it, while he’s seated at the table looking for a third helping. And to add fuel to the fire (oops, bad pun - how about corn syrup to the cake? ) …

the Pony drives no less a car than not just one, but two SUV-class motor vehicles. (h/t to Jonathan of the CrushLiberalism Blog, quoting a VRWC memo posted on Hot Air)

To be fair, one is a SUV, the other a pickup truck (which can come in sizes fit to rival any SUVs - and if I am not mistaken, some pickups and SUVs share the same chassis).

Edwards, happy to promote his energy-efficient Escape, also still owns a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica midsize SUV and a 1994 GMC truck, according to state vehicle registration records.

But fret not - because according to this item dug up the same link from via Hot Air, The Silky One has made not only his mega-mansion — wait for it… CARBON NEUTRAL.

Now again, that is carbon neutrality for the house — a mansion that sprawls over 28,000 square feet (folks, that is more than 10 average size American homes at 2500 s.f. each) and which probably over its lifetime has contributed to the emissions of countless tons of carbon, not to mention the clearing of CO₂ absorbing trees.

And not only the house, but if you vote for him in 2008… he’ll also throw in carbon neutrality for the whole campaign!

Now, the way I understand carbon offsetting works is, is this:

You calculate your carbon footprint, and then you buy shares in a venture that reclaims forest or buys Amazonian rain forest so that the Brazilians can’t mow them down to make biodiesel and ethanol bio-fuel… (sounds good, but there is only so much rain forest you can buy before the carbon you’re “protecting” can no longer offset what the Red Chinese are emitting to make your cheap goods for tenths of a penny on the US dollar).

And that’s just one of the more credible of the carbon offset schemes. Some of them get into some other wacky eco-freaky voodoo, where somebody is laughing themselves into a hernia on the way to their Swiss Bank account.

I gotta wonder just many acres of rain forest he needs to keep Brazil Ethanol, Inc. from turning into Post-It notes in order to keep this set of digs under tillage:

O Silky One with the Truly Radiant and Bulletproof Hair:

If you REALLY want to reduce your carbons, and convince the rest of us that you really are not a lousy, stinking, low-down, victimizing greedy ambulance chaser who will usher in an age of corruption so ugly that Bill Clinton himself will give you a standing ovation… then sell the SUVs to a scrap yard so it can be recycled into something useful like razor blades, sell off the Hacienda or simply let it go to back to wilderness, and shack up in a tidy tenement flat in DC.

And maybe then, we will be a little less likely to burst out into peals of mocking laughter at you for telling us to “make sacrifices” and give up our SUVs.

Show of hands - who didn’t see this coming?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/17/wchavez117.xml

So now “El Jefe Maximo” will continue his glorious march to true communism after the mold of Castro.

Keep the Polish leadership in prayer, that they continue to stand strong for Israel:

Polish MEPs boycott UN conference

‘We can call this conference anti-Israeli,’ Polish MEP says

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3438591,00.html

As God promised, He will bless them that bless Israel.

I pray that our leaders will continue to do the same, and not knuckle under to Saudi oil pressure or to special interest groups like CAIR, or other corporate interests that seem to have charmed our present NeoCon bunch into making potentially disastrous choices of the James Baker Israel-hating kind.

Now the odd thing here is that when I had this dream the night before last, I had not yet seen the (nicely done, if not horrendously overhyped) movie “300″, based on Frank Miller’s graphic novel of the same name (and almost identical artistic style).

You see, I had ordered that and a few other testosterone-laden movies (Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima) from Netflix and perhaps I was cherishing the thoughts of watching some heavily CGI’ed funky looking Persian bad guys get pummeled by the (noble?) Spartans. Of course, I have to wonder if the real Spartans were all as gym-toned as these actors were - not a one of them (aside from the females and the old fogeys who were the city elders) lacked an eight-pack stomach or arms like boa constrictors.

I mean, they were so busy kicking everyone else’s butts and training for war, you’d think the gym would be a bit of an after thought…? But then again, I guess hefting spears and shields about all day and slaughtering foes in combat could be good exercise in itself. I just wouldn’t think it would get a person “weightlifter big”, much less “fitness model big” (and toned).

It must be good genetics, then, because the tribal Germans depicted in the opening sequences of Gladiator (the Russell Crow vehicle from around 2000) did a lot of the same sort of butt-kicking that the Spartans did, with not entirely dissimilar weaponry — and they were generally depicted as kind of gristle-having tubby (but still presumably with enough muscle under the fat to lay a decent smackdown on some Romans and one another) guys with gnarly hair.

Although the graphics and general cinephotography rocked, I think that the movie itself was a tad sub par. Granted, the movie and the graphic novel it is based upon appeal to a 12-year old boy’s sense of “underdog smashes big bully with lots of blood and cool one-liners”, e.g. “Tonight, we dine in HELL!1!11!!” mixed up with thinly veiled homoeroticism (big greasy men wearing only leather jockstraps and red capes in close quarters) and a lot of physics-defying stop-motion action shots. I mean, you’ve got two audiences - three if you count the womenfolk who also fantasize about the greasy men, sold at the first trailer!

Lots of interesting contrasts as well: the big greasy men fought largely against heavily clothed (not counting “Big Ol’ Queen” Xerxes) Persians, the most of which you saw was the smallest bit of facial detail (commander types) and in many cases, nothing at all (the Immortals / ninja type guys). Also, there is the relatively similarities of the Spartans’ appearance vs. the variety of Persians (given their numbers, not altogether unexpected) — but the Persians had an edge in sheer freakiness - such as the giant that fights Leonidas toward the end, the freaky fat guys with axes either mounted to their arms, or formed out of some carbon-based living tissue (hard to tell there) or the use of War Elephants and Battle Rhinos.

Artwork aside, I find that the plot line involving the intrigue behind the lines back at Sparta could have been developed a little further (I mean, as long as you are going deeper than the canon of the graphic novel, ye might as well go whole hog) - particularly the background of the “senator” Theron. I mean, this guy was appeared to be about the same age as Leonidas (mid 40s) if not somewhat younger, which also mapped out to the rough ages of the other captains in the Army.

Given that the ages of service for the typical Spartan was from 7 to 65… how is it that this dude gets out of the Army? I guess even the Spartans had to put up with their share of privileged jerks who could use their family influence to avoid or shorten military service.

And then there is Xerxes… how many gold piercings can a guy get away with, and not look completely stupid? I mean, the portable throne platform was quite cool, as well as the flunkies - but the threaded gold jockstrap and harness was borderline gay camp. But hey, if you are an emperor of a world superpower who thinks he’s a god… I guess you can wear whatever you feel like wearing, and be able to not have people laugh you off your throne.

At least not, in public.

From Fox News via Cox & Forkum:

President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country.

Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela — and deport any outspoken critics.

“How long are we going to allow a person — from any country in the world — to come to our own house to say there’s a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?” Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

The Venezuelan leader’s statements came after Manuel Espino, the president of Mexico’s conservative ruling party, criticized Chavez during a recent pro-democracy forum in Caracas.

Yeah, Mr. Chavez. And that right when you feel free to insult our nation and it leaders on a whim whilst visiting here?

I recall you referring to Mr. Bush as “the Devil”. Actually, I think he is inspired by a cabal of lesser demons, called the “State Department” as lead by Condi “Ms. Appeasement” Rice (Neville chamberlain must be doing backflips in his grave for joy!) and the James Baker™ Institute for Idiotarian Policies for Israel.

All the same, you, sir… are a world-class hypocrite for coming to our shores and insulting our leadership, and then from the other side of your overfed mouth, demanding that nobody speak critically of you or your “socialist workers’ Paradise” you have currently destroying your nation.