Perhaps I just don't read enough web sites or the right web sites, but I have seen less chatter about this explosive recent federal court decision than I might have expected. I didn't even see the news linked from Drudge! I found out about it when I was driving and flipped on a very conservative talk radio show on a fundamentalist Protestant station.
A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize out-of-state same-sex "marriages," thus striking down a portion of the state's same-sex marriage "ban" passed by the voters. The state may appeal but hasn't even said yet if it will appeal. This comes close to home for me, not because I live in Kentucky, but because my state of Michigan has a similar ban, passed by the voters as a voter initiative and made part of the state constitution.
So much, by the way, for the declaration that a federal marriage amendment is not needed. The activist judges are never finished, so yes, it's needed.
Let me note, too, to those reactionaries who attribute our woes to the evils of democracy: Nowhere has this analysis been more clearly erroneous than in the history of homosexual "marriage" in the U.S. (As if Roe v. Wade weren't a clear enough counterexample.) Not invariably, but for the most part and repeatedly, this agenda has been moved forward by liberals in a hurry who get the courts--state or federal--to force their agenda onto a reluctant or opposed electorate.
Finally, my own crystal ball is broken on this one. This was "just" one federal judge trying to force the issue of cross-state recognition of homosexual "marriage." Will the state appeal? Will his ruling be upheld or overturned at the higher federal levels? What do readers think?