Public opinion won't protect your rights

In their unanimous decision striking down a statute restricting marriage to unions between a man and a woman, the Iowa Supreme Court followed the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

Those who advocate a “no” vote on retention of Chief Justice Ternus and Justices Baker and Streit seem to believe that the justices should simply take a poll and rule on cases according to public opinion. Oddly, following that edict would be the very definition of the “judicial activism” that “Vote No” supporters decry.

Whether we support, oppose or don't really care about same-sex marriage, we have to consider that next time around, it may be our civil rights under attack. If you agree that the “public opinion” school of jurisprudence is inadequate protection of our rights under Iowa's Constitution, please join me in voting “yes” on retention.

Karen Erger

Ely