Given this majority opposition to legitimizing gay marriage (60%), Clayton wonders why 18% (60% minus the 42% who approved the amendment) of the respondents did not also favor a federal amendment. He theorizes:
1. This 18% wants the states to have the authority to legalize gay marriage in the future.While both of these are possible, there is a third option. Right now, I probably fall into that group, so I'll share my feelings. I do not think the Federal government has any business getting involved in this issue. They may have to do so since some activist judges are attempting to impose their will on the State of Massachusetts and, by proxy, all States that do not have a local Defense of Marriage Act. In addition to Massachusetts, this ruling – if it stands – will affect Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming. So yes, if some liberal judges are allowed to force yet another social change on us by judicial tyranny and completely bypass our democratic-republic system, then I would support a constitutional amendment to prevent this.2. This 18% was rejecting either the particular text of this amendment that was presented to them, or the polling question's description of that amendment.
However, first I want to give politicians the chance to do the right thing. Despite appearances to the contrary, politicians have a way to stop judges who overstep their authority. Judges can be impeached. This requires politicians to have some courage, which unfortunately seems to be in short supply. If I lived in Massachusetts I would be calling my representatives and demanding that they impeach these judges who are dictating terms to the Legislature. If politicians had the balls to impeach every activist judge who usurped the power of the Legislature, many of our current problems would have been nipped in the bud.