Despite their failure to provoke a marriage-equality backlash in Washington, D.C., the National Organization for Marriage can feel good about the money they spent in Iowa helping to unseat three of the judges in Iowa who overturned a ban against same-sex marriage.
The vote Tuesday was the first time Iowa voters have removed a Supreme Court justice since the current system began in 1962.
The three who weren't retained were Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit. They were the only justices up for retention this year.
We have here exhibit A for why electing judges is a terrible idea. There isn't a strong argument for why the government has a compelling interest in preventing same-sex couples from marrying, but with most elected judges, an abstract legal argument is going to pale in the face of the concrete political incentive to avoid getting tossed out of office by a public backlash. This really wasn't about punishing those three judges. It was about sending a message to any elected judge evaluating the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage ban that they will lose their seat if they don't hew to the faltering cultural prejudice against homosexuality. For all the insincere hand-wringing about "judicial activism," the only way this investment pays off nationally is if it persuades judges to issue results-oriented rulings.
Meanwhile, with the historic GOP gains in the House, anti-marriage-equality advocates have another bite at forcing D.C. to subject fundamental rights to a popularity contest. With Utah Republican Jason Chaffets poised to become chair of the House subcommittee that oversees the District, there will likely be an attempt to repeal the law. The argument will be that by forcing a citywide vote on the matter, rather than simply banning same-sex marriages outright, Republicans are merely allowing District residents to have their voice heard.
That said, Amanda Hess points to this piece by the Gay and Lesbian Activists' Alliance's Rick Rosendall that argues that between the president and the Senate, there are more than enough choke points to prevent a repeal effort. Rosendall also argues that D.C. activists are well prepared to win a vote if it comes to that, and given the fact that anti-gay-marriage activists walked face-first into a game of three-dimensional chess LGBT activists in DC had been playing since the 1970s, I'm inclined to take that claim seriously.
