With one stroke of the pen, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell defied the will of the overwhelming majority of people in his state, and concluded that their collective voice should not be recognized in the matter of marriage in the state of Georgia. He did so even though 76 percent of the voters in that state had spoken in one of the largest turnouts in state history.
But Judge Russell is not the first – nor will he be the last – in a series of what could be up to nine state challenges to state constitutional amendments or state statutes that give the voters of those states the right to permanently define marriage for the welfare of their society. There could possibly be up to nine such acts of tyrannical judicial arrogance.
The fact that Judge Russell was able to do so with such seeming little consequence for his actions is stunning. And it could leave the people of the good state of Georgia feeling somewhat helpless. Though it wouldn't be the most impacting state case – that honor would belong to Washington. And if an arrogant tyrant in a black robe does something similar there, it will start to put a heavy burden on state courts in every state of the union. Washington has no residency requirement for its marriage laws, thus allowing anyone to come in from any locale, conceivably marry and return to their home state and immediately file litigation to press for that union's acceptance.
The Senate had the chance to act in 2004 on the Marriage Protection Amendment – liberal Democrats have no desire to see it return to the body for debate. That is why they are fighting like dogs behind the scenes to thwart the measure in the Senate Judiciary Committee. They will also seek to immediately filibuster it when it comes to the Senate floor around June 5.
In the last go around, Democrats argued over and over (and who could ever forget bumbling Ted's slurred speech) that "marriage was not in trouble in America." The argument they reiterated about three dozen times was that federal legislation to protect marriage was unnecessary given the power the states have to independently regulate such an institution state to state. "Who were they," they argued, "as the federal government to be sticking their noses into the matter." The voters responded in 11 states in 2004 by going to the polls and resoundingly voting in state constitutional amendments to define marriage strictly as that of a union between a man and woman.
But now the liberal judges strike down those amendments and leave the states with no options. It is important to point out that in every state where such a poll has taken place that those voting in favor of strict marriage definition have ranged in margins of 60-80 percent. The poor voters in Massachusetts have been polled repeatedly and they register consistently in the 70 percent range in terms of strict marriage definition, yet they never had the chance to vote at the ballot box on the issue. Instead, four rogue judges put on their robes of arrogant tyranny and thwarted the voice of the people.
Now it's happening in states like Georgia – where the voters have weighed in on it.
So what options are left?
The Marriage Protection Amendment
Because the Democrats will in party unison vote to filibuster the bill, it is vital that the bill pass the cloture vote once it is called for. This will require 60 votes. Right now we are close to 54 in favor. But there is room for movement on this.
In New Jersey, Robert Menendez is in a tanking campaign for retention of his Senate seat, putting pressure on him to do the right thing and support marriage must be applied now, and he must be warned that should he choose to reject the will of the voters of New Jersey, that he will lose badly in November.
The same message needs to go to New York Sen. Clinton. There are over 8,000 churches in New York City, and all but two care very strongly to see marriage protected in law. A simple message to her office from African-American and Hispanic churchgoers in Harlem, Brooklyn and Queens should be offered: "Protect marriage, or we will organize every black and Hispanic church against you."
In Connecticut, the moderate Joe Lieberman also voted against protecting marriage the last go around, but can not be allowed to escape the same message.
In addition, faithful GOP voters need to press liberal members of their party, like the goofy pair from Maine that this is the time to stand in solidarity.
All of them can be reached at (202) 224-3121. On Thursday, listeners to my show lit up the switchboard and nearly caused it to break down. We will do so again everyday between now and June 5.
I invite you to join us as "we the people" – who already, overwhelmingly find solidarity on this matter – stand up, and make our voice heard for the well being of our children, family and society: "Protect marriage now, or go home in November!"
And let them hear it, every single day: (202) 224-3121.