Activist judges put gay marraige issue in election
Both Giulani and Fred Thompson have gone the federalism route on this and other issues. I see this being a bigger problem for he Democrats who oppose statewide constitutional amendments on the issue which claiming to oppose gay marriage. This is like some of their opposition to abortion while also opposing doing anything to regulate it.
We now know why Karl Rove left the White House. Obviously, it takes time to travel around the country using hypnosis to instill a bizarre political death wish into liberal Democratic judges. Either that, or the gay marriage issue keeps getting politicized, not because of Karl Rove, but because activist judges insist on being...well, active. So now we’ve got a new front-burner issue in Iowa.
On balance, this would certainly seem to help Mitt Romney, who rightly criticized the ruling as "another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act." Romney also rightly went on to pointed out the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Neither Fred Thompson nor Rudy Guiliani favor a federal amendment, yet I think each could benefit from clarifying his stance on this issue. As one of his "twelve commitments" Rudy Guiliani criticizes activist judges and promises to appoint strict constructionist. Well then, Rudy should unequivocally criticize the Iowa ruling and use it as an occasion to emphasize his determination to appoint strict constructionist judges. That would be one important way for Guiliani to reassure conservatives who might disagree with him on some issues, but who nonetheless see him as someone who can win–and follow up a win with good judicial appointments.