As predictable as the backlash: the call to Ed Martin

Yesterday, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an unanimous ruling striking down the state law banning same-sex marriage. All of the judges agreed that discriminating against gay and lesbian couples doesn't "substantially further any important governmental objective.”  I jumped up and down, hugged my wife (we feel pretty confident that our marriage isn't being "undermined" in any way), and then prepared for the ugliness that was sure to come. 

As exciting as it was to see good sense and equality prevail over fear and prejudice, there's no way a similar ruling could come down in Missouri to change the way we discriminate against same-sex couples. Missouri's Defense of Marriage Act and a 2004 Constitutional Amendment prevent that from happening here, and even prevent Missouri from even recognizing the so-to-be-married same-sex couples from Iowa.

Of course, that hasn't stopped some conservatives from getting worked up about the ruling. The new fear, it seems, is that Missouri's constitution will be declared unconstitutional, and super-duper extreme measures are required to shut down the "activist judges."

So who gets called for comment?  Ed Martin, of course.

From the KC Star:

[UMKC Law Professor Douglas O.] Linder said Missouri and Kansas courts were more conservative than those in Iowa: “It would be very difficult for them to reach that decision like the Iowa Supreme Court did.”

Still, Ed Martin, a social conservative who served as former Gov. Matt Blunt’s chief of staff, said: “We’re one lawsuit by a liberal same-sex marriage group away from having judges decide. The judges in Missouri and across America are less accountable and have become more liberal.”

Leaving aside the curious construction and silly fearmongering of Martin's statement, I've got to ask: why was Ed Martin called for comment in the first place?  Are there any other social conservatives in the entire state of Missouri?  Surely a reporter could find one who doesn't have a track record of deliberately misleading the media and the public, who wasn't a central player in the entire Blunt administration email debacle, who isn't presently engaged in frivolous legal action against the state, who doesn't think the Secretary of State is the devil, and who doesn't routinely bash reporters when he's not using them. 

At a minimum, the public deserves a better description of Martin than "a social conservative who served as former Gov. Matt Blunt’s chief of staff." A more apt description of Martin would require a lot of ink, though.  Maybe it would just be better to (gasp) call a conservative who isn't Ed Martin.