Newt Gingrinch (yes, I can spell) is at it again. Like Palin, Phelps and other all-too-public figures, that has-been republican voice is still speaking long after he had anything to say. According to a [1] Google News source, “Gingrich: Iowa ruling shows ‘judicial arrogance’”. Now that the Vermont Legislature has also given a green light to same-sex marriage, does this mean that Gingrich will smile approvingly? Or, one could hope, keep quiet?  But in his [2] new Roman Catholic convert status, is he trying to claim the moral high ground to comment on public affairs?

This little nonsense hinges on that sound-byte, “judicial activism.” Like “natural law” there really is no definition, so only fools jump in to say what cannot be said with clarity or reason. What constitutes judicial activism? For one thing, courts do not go out and solicit cases to be brought to them. By definition, the are re-active, not active, because if no one brings a case, there is no day in court. I have yet to catch a single story that any court in this land is putting out a message that it wants test cases brought in.

If judges were activists for any specific set of causes, the Iowa Supreme Court ought to put that to rest. The decision was unanimous. All 7 justices, including the two Republican appointees, concurred with the decision that depriving lesbian and gay couples of the right to one of society’s most fundamental benefits is wrong.  (See Time magazine’s “[3] The Meaning of Iowa’s Gay-Marriage Decision” by Michael Lindenberger.)

[4]

Original caption:  Jen BarbouRoske (R) and Dawn BarbouRoske, with their daughters, Bre and McKinley, react after learning of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in favor of legalizing gay marriage.  Photo: Christopher Gannon / The Des Moines Register / AP

Newt is welcome to search the published case law for Iowa to see if he can find a legal opinion that suggests the Supreme Court was hungry for more gay cases, or more marriage cases. If ever there was an activist entity, it was the County which brought the appeal to the Supreme Court. The thing about activism – typically from the Plaintiff in an appeal – is that it can come from either side of the liberal/conservative spectrum.  Be careful what you sue for, because justice swings on its own hinges.

“It’s the height of judicial arrogance,” Gingrich said. “You have seven lawyers who have decided, on their own, to fundamentally change Iowa” (according to the Google news story).Well, Newt, calling them “seven lawyers” is a bit arrogant right there, if not contempt of court. We call them Justices in a highly honorific, time-tested manner because they are not “practicing law”, they are deciding it on the basis of the state’s or the nation’s highest principles.

Personally, what I found laughable is that “Gingrich … has been mentioned as a possible Republican presidential contender in 2012.”  Hey, go ahead, Newt. Have a primary fight with Sarah Palin, another bright moral light at the end of her own personal tunnel.

Sarah at least cannot be completely blamed for her daughter’s attitude about having a child out of wedlock. But Newt had his own affair outside of his marriage – a distinction he shares with other leaders who remain shameless — for which no one else but he can share the blame. The Washington Monthly’s “[5] High Infidelity” article published in 2006 details some of this stuff for you, if you care.

What moral high ground does Newt Gingrich think he can claim by denouncing Justices in the heartland of America over gay marriage, when his own credentials, scant as they are, include straight infidelity and adultery?  Arrogance indeed!

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles