Here is one:
Adopted
Resolution 158-E
Support for Our Independent JudiciaryBE IT RESOLVED, that the 158th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Iowa express support for the state of Iowa’s system of judicial merit selection and retention of judges and for the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court in the wake of their unanimous decision upholding Iowa court case Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009). This decision has subjected them to campaigns by politicians, clergy, and lobby groups who are opposed to the decision and who are seeking to stir the electorate to vote against retaining the three justices who are up for retention election in November of 2010; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that while people have different opinions about the Court’s decision in this or any case, this resolution is to give thanks to God who inspired the founders of the United States of America to wisely entrust us with a government that includes an independent judiciary to serve as a check on the power of the state over an individual or minority group; a government where the liberties of individuals and minorities are protected by the Constitution of the United States and, here, of the State of Iowa. Where, by the founder’s design, and as was done in Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009), jurists are to be guided by law and statute. The Episcopal Diocese of Iowa supports our independent judiciary as the best way for all Americans to receive fair and impartial justice, not subject to the political pressures of politicians or lobby groups or popular majorities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Episcopal Church in Iowa is grateful for the God-given, far-seeing, wisdom of the founders; who, over 200 years ago, saw the necessity of the separation of church and state to best protect our religious freedom; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution of support be sent to each of the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court, and to the Supreme Court Administrator.
Translation: we got what we wanted in this decision, so leave our judges alone!
TEC – “All Gay All The Time” whether or not explicitly stated.
AS for the resolution to establish a relationship with the church in Sudan….. I doubt the people in Sudan really care that some people in Iowa are going to establish a committee to look into this further. Why delay? Go ahead and start thinking of ways to establish a relationship.
This would seem to come perilously close to political lobbying and could draw an investigation into 501c3 status. At least, I would certainly be tempted to look into it, if I were the IRS.
As I have mentioned before at T19, it’s the lying and general dishonesty that bothers me most from the Reappraising Leadership in TEC. I can respect an honest reappraiser if he’s being straightforward and principled.
In this case, we have a clear case of Iowa’s diocese taking aggressive political positions, but then dishonestly hiding them as a general defense of an independent judiciary. Suppose the decision came back as 2-1 opposed to gay marriage — does anyone believe they’d have passed the same measure, praising the great forethought of an independent judiciary?
Finally, there’s a strange irony in Iowa/TEC actively lobbying for changes to state law, while in the same breath praising “the necessity of the separation of church and state.”
We are for activist judges if their judicial activism aligns with are post-Christian world view.
In my personal opinion, I think they may have crossed the line. They tried to imply they were in some general support for the “independent judiciaryâ€, but, with one particular wording, and taking the resolution as a whole, this could be construed as the prohibited “expressly advocatingâ€. Notice the resolution says that the resolution is in “support for an independent judiciaryâ€, however, the body of the resolution expressly says “support†“and for the justices†, and then specifically calls out “This decision subjected them to campaigns … and who are seeking to stir the electorate to vote against retaining the three justices who are up for retention electionâ€:
[blockquote]BE IT RESOLVED, that the 158th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Iowa [b]express support for[/b] the state of Iowa’s system of judicial merit selection and retention of judges [b] and for the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court in the wake of their unanimous decision upholding Iowa court case[/b] Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009). This decision has [b]subjected them to campaigns[/b] by politicians, clergy, and lobby groups who are opposed to the decision and who are [b]seeking to stir the electorate to vote against retaining the three justices who are up for retention election [/b] in November of 2010; and[/blockquote]
It doesn’t expressly say “vote for the justicesâ€, but, taken as a whole, that’s what it appears to be. If one is close to an election, and uses “supportâ€, and then cites the election, even in a general way, it could still cross the line. Take a look at the discussion in the following IRS publication that discusses charitable organizations and do’s and don’ts in great detail:
[url=http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici02.pdf]IRS FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues[/url]
[blockquote] Page 13 of the pdf
I. ELECTION YEAR ISSUES
By Judith E. Kindell and John Francis Reilly
The pertinent FEC regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 100.22, provides as follows:
Expressly advocating means any communication that—
(b) When taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as the proximity to the election, could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) because-
(1) The electoral portion of the communication is unmistakable, unambiguous, and suggestive of only one meaning; and
(2) Reasonable minds could not differ as to whether it encourages actions to elect or defeat one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or encourages some other kind of action.11
[/blockquote]
#6 In Texas,
That sounds like a good case.
Is this not from the same people that bemoan the racist judicial system that executes people?
I’m a strong believer in the value of an appointed, tenured judiciary, subject to a political confirmation process. But, for the life of me, I don’t understand why any church group feels compelled to weigh in on this kind of issue. This point of view will be amply ventilated in the campaign process. Why is the Diocese sticking its nose in this?
The diocese may well want to focus on this issue in order not to focus on other matters. In 2009, tthe diocese cintinued it decline with losses in Members, ASA, and Plate & Pledge. It reported 18 churches with ASA of 20 or less. Also, itt reported that 80 percent (49 of 61) of its churches had Plate & Pledge of less than $150K which means that each “rich” church had 4 “poor” churches to help. I can well understand why one would like to change the subject. Statmann
The court case referenced in the resolution was the one in which the Iowa state supreme court overturned the Iowa state law that defined marriage as a between a man and a women. Several same sex couples sued a county official for failure to issue marriage licenses to them, and the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state law, effectively legalizing same sex marriage in the state. Iowa is like several other states in which Supreme Court judges can be removed from office during a regular election, in which their names appear on the ballot, with the statement that “should Judge Jane Doe be retained?â€. If there are sufficient No votes(usually 2/3) , then the judge is removed from that office. Anger over the judges legislating from the bench and overturning the marriage law has led to a campaign for people to vote “No†on November 2 for the three judges whose names are on the ballot.
That’s why the Diocese of Iowa issued this resolution, which, in my opinion, reads as an explicit endorsement and “support†for the three judges whose names are on the ballot. It’s just as wrong for conservative churches to issue some proclamation from the church to vote “Noâ€, as it is for the Diocese to issue this resolution effectively providing support to the three judges.
Eh. Was anyone expecting something different from a liberal social group masquerading as a church? I wasn’t. Nothing to see here… moving along.
While I agree with most of the opinions expressed here about Iowa’s improper political activities, I am consistently amazed that no one ever seems to be upset about the fact that TEC maintains a lobbying office in Washington. My first baptism of fire in TEC came in 1997 when I went to a PB&F meeting and suggested we get rid of the lobbyists. I was literally hooted out of the room.
For what its worth, the 3 Iowa Supreme Court justices up on the ballot to be retained (and who voted for the case allowing Same Sex marriage in Iowa) were voted out of office:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/03/iowa.judges/index.html
#14 Archer,
That just goes to show us the power of Episcopal convention political resolutions.