The National Organization for Marriage hopes that the Supreme Court gets it right in the aftermath of the latest ruling legalizing homosexual "marriage."
U.S. District Judge John Jones III struck down Pennsylvania's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act on Tuesday, ruling it deprives homosexuals and lesbians equal rights. "We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history," the judge wrote.
Chris Plante of the National Organization for Marriage describes the ruling as "an end-run around the democratic process."
"It is a travesty of justice and [it] disenfranchises the people of Pennsylvania twice," he argues. "Once, because they have been denied multiple times the right to vote on marriage; they have looked and asked for it for years. And now we have one man imposing his desires, his own opinion on an entire state and redefining marriage."
Tweet to @NOMupdate
Over the past several months, judges in several states have ruled voter-approved marriage amendments unconstitutional on similar grounds. Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania tells OneNewsNow she's looking to Congress to take action against judges like John Jones.
"Congress has the ability in the U.S. Constitution to begin impeachment proceedings," she explains. "When you look at these judges – not only Judge Jones here in Pennsylvania, but other federal judges who are handing down these decisions – their actions are unconstitutional."
Gramley also contends those activist judges don't reflect the will of the people. "We're seeing homosexual wins across the country not because the views of Americans are changing but because of judicial activism," she says. "And that's the same thing that's happened in Pennsylvania.
"The views in Pennsylvania are still that marriage is only between one man and one woman," she concludes.
Tweet to @AFAofPA
Plante points out that people have a right to petition the government to take action, although the next step is for one of the cases to reach the Supreme Court. Should that happen – and if it follows two previous rulings – the high court will again decide in favor of states determining the definition of marriage.
"The Supreme Court has indicated that it believes the marriage issue should be decided by the people of the states," explains the NOM spokesman. "It indicated that in the Defense of Marriage Act ruling of last summer, the Windsor case. [And] it indicated that when it imposed a stay on the Utah decision."
Plante suggests people in all 13 states where judges have overruled their laws should be demanding action to halt the decisions and correct the ones that have been handed down.
A game plan for supporters of normal marriage
Matt Barber, a constitutional law expert with Liberty Counsel Action, believes governors need to turn their backs on federal court decisions against traditional marriage. He describes the decision in Pennsylvania by Judge Jones as "cartoonish."
"This decision is absolutely outrageous and it reads like a parody," he tells OneNewsNow. "We have moved beyond judicial activism into judicial imperialism."
Barber, founder of Barbwire.com, says the problem can be rectified. On a federal level, he suggests the other two branches of government "reject and start pushing back" against what he calls a "false, counter-constitutional notion of judicial supremacy."
On a state level? "It's time for governors to reject these opinions, and that's what they are," states Barber, pointing out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states can determine the definition of marriage. "[They need to] say No thank you, we are a sovereign state and we are going to adhere to our constitution in this state."
And finally, he adds: "... These judges who have abdicated their sworn duty to defend the United States Constitution [and] who are legislating from the bench? They need to be impeached."
But the single-most important aspect, according to Barber, is for people to rise up and politely demand that action be taken by all branches of the federal government.
An advocate for taxpayers thinks a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of Maryland would be a "disaster" for taxpayers.