U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon this month stripped the right of self-determination from the people of Nebraska. With a bang of his gavel, he decreed that Nebraska's voters are not qualified to define marriage for their own state. Ominously, the ramifications of his decision reach far beyond Nebraska – the sound of Judge Bataillon's gavel will soon be reverberating throughout the halls of Washington, D.C.

During the last legislative session, both houses of Congress failed to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment – which would insulate marriage from redefinition by judges and local officials and allow the American voters to have their voices heard on the matter. The most popular excuse given by federal lawmakers for not supporting the measure was that "marriage is an issue that should be determined by the states." Judge Bataillon has now clearly demonstrated the absurdity of this position. The convenient claim that "marriage is a states' rights issue" – incidentally, a position held thus far by Nebraska's two senators – is now shown to be hollow rhetoric.

State marriage amendments do an excellent job at the state level, but they are vulnerable on two critical points: First, they set the stage for America to have a patchwork of marriage definitions, providing no consistency from state to state; second, definition of marriage remains vulnerable to any federal-court ruling. By tossing out Nebraska's amendment, Judge Bataillon has proven the latter of these limitations – he has shown that leaving the states to defend marriage on their own, in actuality, tosses it into the jaws of the unaccountable federal judiciary.

Nebraska's marriage amendment was approved by 70 percent of that state's voters – similar amendments in other states have passed every time they have been brought forward, all by an average of 70 percent. The will of the people on this issue could not be clearer. But this country is under siege by a judiciary determined to impose its own agenda upon America, regardless of the people's will. Devoid of popular support for its policies, the left has turned the judicial system into its own private playground. In this era of "judicial tyranny," any state marriage amendment can be overturned simply by finding a sympathetic federal judge, such as Judge Bataillon, who is willing to attack it – allowing marginal special interests to dictate state policy.

Those in Washington who have claimed the "states' rights issue" defense fall into two camps. First are those who in reality oppose protecting marriage, but are unwilling to openly take that posture – they must now either change positions or have the spine to honestly admit their beliefs. The second group, those who have sincerely held the view that marriage was an issue for states alone to decide, must now see that there can be no more flirting with such ideas. The saga of Nebraska will inevitably be repeated in every state where voters decide to protect marriage, but a federal judge can be found to disagree with them. State amendments alone do not have the strength to stand up to the pressure of a bloated federal judiciary.

The duty of elected officials is to honestly represent the values and positions of their constituencies. The way for them to fulfill this responsibility is now abundantly clear: Unaccountable courts must be reined in and not allowed to run roughshod over public conviction. Congress must pass and send to the states for ratification an amendment defining marriage for all Americans as between one man and one woman. The voters have the right to be heard on what may be the most critical cultural battle of our generation.

Tom Minnery is vice president of government and public policy at Focus on the Family Action in Colorado Springs, Colo.