The Sioux City Council Shows Moral Clarity!

“We don’t believe in the canard of gay ‘marriage’!” So hollered the good and wholesome majority of citizens at city hall on February 2nd, 2009.

In response to their well-spoken arguments, the Sioux City Council passed a resolution that night, re-affirming Federal and State law which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Despite what many consider “desperate efforts” and “very poor arguments” offered by both Mayor Mike Hobart and Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Rixner, the refreshing and necessary resolution passed by a predictable three/two margin.

What is most interesting about the minority arguments publicized by the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem, is that both have claimed they are “against gay marriage.” Yet when pressed to explain their defacto vote in it’s favor, many excuses have arisen, and they have seemed to grow more varied with the passing of time.

For example, when the issue first arose, prior to Christmas, the primary reason for their objection was something along the lines of, “this isn’t appropriate during the holiday season!” Curiously, they didn’t direct their comments to the two gay men from Sioux City who brought the issue before the Sioux City Human Rights Commission, nor did they scold the Iowa Supreme Court justices for hearing the arguments during the Christmas season.

But it didn’t end there. Oh no! After the holiday season passed, and the once-tabled resolution was resurrected by Councilman Ferris, both Hobart and Rixner suggested that simply re-affirming existing state and federal law, (I paraphrase), “might get the city sued.” Ooooookaaaaay?

A curious concern. Yet, one must wonder, how does a “lawmaker” (and former attorney) worry that his council could “get sued” for re-affirming existing Iowa code? As they say up in Minnesota, “Uffftah!”

The truth is, despite my distaste for the Mayor and his poor performance as the first directly-elected mayor of Sioux City in around fifty years, I actually became embarrassed on his behalf at this point.

Oh, and who could forget the Mayor’s other concern about the matter, that passing such a resolution would make he and his council look “like a freak-show.” (I know what you readers are thinking, but I’m really not making this up! He actually did say that!) Do you think it’s possible that he lives in a parallel universe? As they used to say in those popular TV commercials: “Inquiring minds want to know!”

When I first read the Mayor’s suggestion, that actually listening to his citizens and doing what they asked would make him look “like a freak-show,” I realized that I was having a moment of what I call “reverse-serendipity.” (Serendipity being defined as “an unexpected moment of pleasure.”) The moment just became, surreal, because his words somehow materialized into one of those self-fulfilling prophecies that give a fellow goose-pimples.

But without a doubt, all reverse-serendipity aside, the most startling moment of the entire council meeting was when a shaft of light burst through the ceiling above the mayor and he was beamed to the mother ship!

Okay, okay, I know what you’re thinking. Everything I’ve said in this article has been completely fabricated until now, and the part about the mayor being beamed-up is the only true thing I’ve written, but, actually, the opposite is true. I admit, I made the mother-ship part up, but the rest, as hard as it is to believe, the rest is all verifiable public records.

What’s really going-on here? Why did so many people pack city-hall and demand that the council vote in favor of this resolution? Could it be that they understand something that Mr. Hobart and Mr. Rixner don’t? Or is it that Hobart and Rixner DO understand the real situation and simply hope that it occurs. I refer, of course, to judicial activism. Allow me to explain:

Imagine you are preparing to begin the great American game of baseball, when you notice the umpire is wearing the Jersey of your rival team! Would such an act go without question? Absolutely not! No coach, no player, and no fan would stand for this kind of behavior because of its brazen impropriety! The very basis for the umpire’s credibility as an “authority” in the game is his oath to remain impartial to the battle itself and focus, instead, upon the exclusive interpretation and enforcement of the rules of play!

Yet this is exactly what happened on August 30, 2007, when Polk County Judge Robert Hansen turned both the United States Constitution and the Iowa State DOMA act on their ears by inviting all homosexuals to 1) break the law, 2) ignore the will of the people, 3) usurp the authority of the legislature, and 4) get married in his DesMoines courtroom.

Let’s be very clear: the dishonorable Judge Hansen swapped his stripped referee shirt for a Gay Activist Democrat jersey! Judges, ladies and gentlemen, are supposed to be umpires in the game of politics, not players. The playing of the game – lawmaking – belongs to the legislators.

My hypothesis? Well, for that, you’ll need to read my article on judicial activism entitled “Your Honor, I Object! The Plaintiff is Badgering the Republic!” Meanwhile, would the good people of Sioux City please do some due diligence before voting at the next city election?

Hey! Maybe someone could put together a world-view test that measures historical and constitutional intelligence BEFORE one is granted the honored title of “Lawmaker” by the voters?

Oh, wait! It’s been done!