Other Columns by Doug Patton
Doug Patton Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." - Jesus speaking to the Pharisees - Matthew 23:24

This scripture came to mind last week as the Chicken Littles of the left rung their hands over a recent vote in Congress that might jeopardize their precious right to burn the American flag, yet had no problem with a pair of truly dangerous decisions from state and federal courts. I refer to a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court and another by a sharply divided (5-4) U.S. Supreme Court.

The Iowa court declined to hear a challenge to a lesbian "divorce" granted in November 2003 by District Judge Jeffrey Neary of Sioux City. The suit was brought by Iowa Congressman Steve King, Rev. Matthew Wentz, pastor of Church of Christ of Le Mars, and several members of the Iowa Legislature (all of them Republicans).

King, who fought for Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act when he was in the Iowa State Senate, issued a statement after the ruling.

"As a legislator I was involved with the Iowa law that says same-sex marriages from other states are not valid in Iowa," he said. "If I and the other legislators who joined me to rein in the runaway judiciary did not have standing to defend the law in court, then who would?"

Who, indeed? In refusing to hear this case, Iowa's high court has ruled that state and federal legislators elected to represent the American people, along with a Christian minister of the Gospel charged with representing the moral authority of God, have no right to challenge the authority of judges on an issue as critical to the foundation of a free society as the sanctity of marriage. What arrogance! If ever we were presented with evidence that our judiciary has become an unaccountable oligarchy, this is it.

But wait; it gets worse. The same week the Iowa court was defending the right of one of its own to grant a divorce to people who are not legally married, the United States Supreme Court ruled that local governments can use their right of eminent domain to "condemn" private property and hand it over to private developers "for the public good." (Read: "more property taxes.")

The case in question was Kelo vs. New London, wherein a group of Connecticut homeowners sued their local city government for trying to condemn their homes and seize their private property to make way for the development of upscale homes and an office park. Not a highway. Not a bridge. Not a water treatment plant. Not a courthouse. Upscale homes and an office park.

Sounds like a clear case of abuse of eminent domain, doesn't it? Not according to the liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, the developers have to pay the land owners (who have no say in the matter) "fair market value," but that figure is set by those seizing the property.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2