By Kathleen Gilbert

NEW YORK, April 15, 2009 ( – Despite the fact that polls consistently show that most Americans remain opposed to same-sex “marriage,” and that amendments protecting true marriage have passed in 30 states in the union, several states, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and California (before the court decision was overturned by popular vote) have legalized the novel institution through activist court rulings.

Now a prominent homosexualist lawyer has admitted that same-sex “marriage” supporters gain court victories against state marriage laws, not as a result of the chance success of isolated complaints by homosexual couples, but through the systematized effort of homosexualist lawyers and lobby groups who research and target sympathetic state supreme courts and groom prosecuting homosexual couples.

Camilla Taylor, a Chicago-based lawyer for the homosexual rights group Lambda Legal, confirmed in a Washington Post article today that the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent decision to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples was the expected result of a seven-year-effort by homosexualists to win over the Midwestern state. 

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously to redefine marriage two weeks ago. 

“We were all deeply disappointed by the vote in California, but we were all hopeful for Iowa,” Taylor told the Washington Post. 

The Post report details Taylor’s steady effort to overturn Iowa law through the courts, including regular travel to Iowa from Chicago for years to conduct research and prepare for the case. 

When engaging the “legislative route,” says the article, homosexualist activists’ tactic includes selecting and grooming same-sex couples to present the “test cases” successfully and to deal well with the media attention. (To see the full Washington Post article:

Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern, similarly told the New York Times Saturday that, “The Iowa decision is the product of a very smart legal team researching every state supreme court and every state legislature.”

“It’s courts that started this,” he continued, speaking of the same-sex “marriage” movement. “The courts are able to make a difference if there is a social movement that could go either way.”

Pro-family leaders have strongly criticized these tactics by homosexualist activists, and say that such rulings abuse judicial power and bypass the prerogative of legislators and citizens to formulate law. 

Following the announcement of the Iowa Supreme Court decision, Iowan true marriage supporters immediately called for citizens to be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment protecting marriage; but the request fell on deaf ears in Iowa’s legislature.

“With the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, many media outlets were surprised that a ‘heartland’ state is starting to ‘support’ this nontraditional form of marriage,” noted the Center for Arizona Policy in a blog post.  “But what the media fails to mention is that these four states have legalized same-sex ‘marriage’ without a vote by the people. 

“The ‘heartland support’ of same-sex ‘marriage’ in Iowa consisted of not Iowa’s heartland citizens but of seven judges.”

The Center pointed out that no state that has legalized same-sex “marriage” did so by the vote of the people, while every state that has put the question to voters – thirty states in total – defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

See related coverage:

Vermont Overturns Veto, Fourth State to Recognize Gay “Marriage”

Iowa Marriage Defenders Push for Marriage Amendment, Decry Foul Play in Activist Same-Sex “Marriage” Ruling

Iowa Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex “Marriage”


Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.