Same-sex marriage ruling based on law

Michael Mallie's Oct. 1 letter offers a worrisome notion of the basis for the authority and responsibilities of the Iowa Supreme Court. Concerning the unanimous ruling on same-sex marriage, he contends that the justices allowed their moral opinion to overpower the moral opinion of the people of Iowa; consequently, he insists that three justices should not be retained in November.

There are courts and legal systems that are based on moral opinions. Some conservative Muslim countries rely on making legal moral judgments consistent with Sharia Law. Judges have the authority to rule that people deemed to be immoral may be publicly lashed, have their hands cut off or be stoned.

I expect our judges to hold their personal moral opinions, religious affiliations and political loyalties in abeyance when making judgments. The rulings of American judges should be guided by verifiable facts, existing law and constitutional requirements.

Mr. Mallie dismisses “ ... all the eloquence and legalese found in the Supreme Court ruling” in order to narrowly criticize “the Court's moral opinion on the subject” of same-sex marriage. What he dismisses is closely examined, carefully reasoned and meticulously analyzed fact, law and constitutional basis. The full text is available at http://howappealing.law.com/07-1499.pdf The seven justices obviously met the need to deal comprehensively with a dramatically controversial issue. Their 25-pageplus document is a logical and legal argument that also makes the strongest case possible for the retention of the judges.

Raymond A. Stassen

Elkader