The 7 Iowa Justices ruled as they were required to do and in the end the 3 were wrongly removed; unless of course you believe in the Witchcraft Act of 1542. If you believe the Iowa Constitution requires otherwise then perhaps you also believe the Justices are under the spell of a witch.

Witchcraft Act of 1542 - Religious tensions in England during the 16th century resulted in the introduction of serious penalties for witchcraft. Henry VIII's Act of 1542 (33 Hen. VIII c. 8) was the first to define witchcraft as a felony, a crime punishable by death and the forfeiture of the convicted felon's goods and chattels.[1] It was forbidden to: ... use devise practise or exercise, or cause to be devysed practised or exercised, any Invovacons or cojuracons of Sprites witchecraftes enchauntementes or sorceries to thentent to fynde money or treasure or to waste consume or destroy any persone in his bodie membres, or to pvoke [provoke] any persone to unlawfull love, or for any other unlawfull intente or purpose ... or for dispite of Cryste, or for lucre of money, dygge up or pull downe any Crosse or Crosses or by such Invovacons or cojuracons of Sprites witchecraftes enchauntementes or sorceries or any of them take upon them to tell or declare where goodes stollen or lost shall become ...[2]

The Act also removed a right known as benefit of clergy from those convicted of witchcraft, a legal loophole that spared anyone from hanging who was able to read a passage from the Bible.[2] This statute was repealed by Henry's son, Edward VI, in 1547.[3]

Yes, I'm back again talking about the Iowa voter's unprecedented no confidence removal vote of three Iowa jurists from our Surpreme Court. It's still bugs me because of how deceitful were those who funded the smear campaign. The argument is made by Vander Plaats and company that the seven Iowa Supreme Court Justices, including Chief Justice Ternus, read something into the Iowa Constitution; something that is not there and hasn’t been there for 150 years. The argument is advanced that the Iowa Constitution does not require the result in Varnum. (Perhaps too all seven Justices were under a spell conjured up by a witch?) The only thing wrong with that argument is it ignores the entire body of equal protection law.

Let's assume that argument is true. If what they said is true then why do those who advocated for not retaining the three Justices say we need to change the Iowa Constitution? Why in their collective minds do we need to call a Constitutional Convention to change a Constitution that says same-sex marriage is prohibited? Let's face it, if it's not there there is nothing to change.  Or could it be that his argument is specious and their intentions are different than as they profess? Is their idea to call a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of amending the Iowa Constitution in other ways? You do realize if Iowa holds a Constitutional convention there are no holds barred?   Why is Bob Vander Plaats silent on this subject? Why is he saying publically he and his group are done and they have no intention of going after the other four? I don't believe it. (After all aren’t the other four under the same witch’s spell as the three who were just removed?)

Is it Bob Vander Plaats and company who are the real judicial activists?

Iowans, you’ve been hoodwinked into believing the Emperor is wearing clothes. The argument that advanced removal was specious at best and subterfuge at its worst.

Witchcraft Act of 1604 - In 1604, the year following James' accession to the English throne, the Elizabethan Act was broadened to bring the penalty of death without benefit of clergy to anyone who invoked evil spirits or communed with familiar spirits. The Act's full title was An Act against Conjuration, Witchcraft and dealing with evil and wicked spirits, (2 Ja. I c. 12).[7] It was this statute that was enforced by Matthew Hopkins, the self-styled Witch-Finder General.

(Keep that witches spell in mind.) Those who advocated not retaining the three Justices fear some unknown or simply hate gays and want them to have no rights that allow them anything. Those advocating removal did it by advancing a specious argument; that the Justices read something into the Constitution that wasn’t there. It was and they know it is there. They know there was nothing being read into the Constitution by any judge or justice. They lied to advance their argument against the gay community. It’s really that simple.

The Acts of Elizabeth and James changed the law of witchcraft by making it a felony, thus removing the accused from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to the courts of common law. This provided, at least, that the accused witches theoretically enjoyed the benefits of ordinary criminal procedure. Burning at the stake was eliminated except in cases of witchcraft that were also petty treason; most convicted were hanged instead. Any witch who had committed a minor witchcraft offence (punishable by one year in prison) and was accused and found guilty a second time was sentenced to death.

After all, could the entire Supreme Court have been fooled by the legion of attorneys that entered an appearance in this case? It's impossible to believe that the entire Court could read something into Iowa's body of Constitutional law that didn't exist. That’s about as likely as cornbread being made with soybeans. A first year con-law student could have written this opinion. Not that it’s a poorly written decision, it isn’t, but the law of equal protection is that clear. After all seven Justices believed the Constitution required the result to allow same-sex marriage. And they aren’t alone. Just read the decision.

The gays today are to Iowa what witches were to Salem, Massachusetts.

The anti gay movement knows the Justices are not activist judges. They lied about them being judicial activists simply because they don’t want gay people to have any rights or privileges afforded to the general population and they know the law is against their form of discrimination. Why they hate, I have no idea; nor do I care why they hate. What I do care about today is Iowa’s independent judiciary and it remaining independent.  I care about truth, and the truth is the three removed were doing their job, just as the other four Justices were doing theirs. Varnum was a foregone conclusion that took 150 years for gays and lesbians to feel confident enough to be able to raise the issue in court without members of society wanting to burn them at the stake as if they were witches.

And it took them 150 years to raise the issue because like African Americans they are a minority and discriminated against in almost every area of life. From housing to employment, to marriage and everything in between they are treated like second class citizens. The gays today are to Iowa what witches were to Salem, Massachusetts. The counseling that the President of Liberty University proposes to get the gay out of the gay is no different than a dunking bucket to get witches to tell the truth. This counseling is as offensive as are re-education camps in communist society.

The Witchcraft Act of 1735 (9 Geo. 2 c. 5) marked a complete reversal in attitudes. Penalties for the practice of witchcraft as traditionally constited, (sic) which by that time was considered by many influential figures to be an impossible crime, were replaced by penalties for the pretence of witchcraft. A person who claimed to have the power to call up spirits, or foretell the future, or cast spells, or discover the whereabouts of stolen goods, was to be punished as a vagrant and a con artist, subject to fines and imprisonment. The Act applied to the whole of Great Britain, repealing both the 1563 Scottish Act and the 1604 English one.[5]

In 1944, Helen Duncan was jailed under the Witchcraft Act on the grounds that she had claimed to summon spirits. It is often contended, by her followers, that her imprisonment was in fact at the behest of superstitious military intelligence officers who feared she would reveal the secret plans for D-Day. She came to the attention of the authorities after supposedly contacting the spirit of a sailor of the HMS Barham, whose sinking was hidden from the general public at the time. After being caught in the act of faking a spiritual manifestation, she was arrested during a seance and indicted with seven punishable counts: two of conspiracy to contravene the Witchcraft Act, two of obtaining money by false pretences, and three of public mischief (a common law offence). She spent nine months in prison.

Although Duncan has been frequently described as the last person to be convicted under the Act, in fact, Jane Rebecca Yorke was convicted under the Act later that same year.[8] The last threatened use of the Act against a medium was in 1950. In 1951 the Witchcraft Act was repealed with the enactment of the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, largely at the instigation of Spiritualists through the agency of Thomas Brooks MP.[9]

It is widely suggested that astrology may have been covered by the Witchcraft Act. From the 1930s onwards many tabloid newspapers and magazines carried astrology columns, but none were ever prosecuted.

The Witchcraft Act remained legally in force in Northern Ireland, although it was never actually applied.

Turning back the hands of time…

It wasn’t all that long ago that African Americans, Latinos, Jews, Chinese, Italians, Irish, Polish and many other classes of Americans were treated with similar disrespect. We were wops, dagos, coons, chinks, slopeheads, crackers, gringos, spicks, micks, greaseballs, guineas, dagos, wops, hymies, kikes and heebs.  Using ethnic slurs was an easy mechanism to advance prejudice. Like the term “activist judges” it is pejorative. It’s meant to conjure up emotion and hatred, without conveying any rational thought. Pejorative phrases and statements are the weapon of the uneducated that want power and the right to tell us what to do without having won the right honestly. They will try to shout down those who use reason and rational thought. Reason and debate is not on their side and they know it. That is why they spoke pejoratively about the Iowa Supreme Court. They did not want Iowa voters to think, but to react. Hate is a powerful emotion that clouds the mind and interrupts independent thinking. It’s why you’ll always see that one guy yelling exuberantly at the mob before a lynching.

Advocates argue the people have spoken, that this is their court and their Constitution. What they forget is, it is a court that enforces the law and the Iowa Constitution protects all its people not the few who shout the loudest. The Iowa Constitution is a great document that after 150 years continues to protect all of its citizens.  

As a state we should be ashamed of ourselves for having taken the bait of these uneducated fools. These political advocates spouting pejorative phrases like “activist judges” do so because they are false prophets and by their deeds that we followed, they cloak us in shame. They make us look petty; just as petty as we looked making African Americans sit in the back of the bus and just as stupid as we did dunking “witches” until they drowned.  It is we that wear no clothes. It is they that are judicial activists, and their reasons are as unreligious as was separate but equal.