. . . blame activist judges for same-sex marriage in Vermont.

Although advocates of homosexual "marriage" had succeeded in overthrowing the natural definition of marriage in Massachusetts, California (briefly), Connecticut, and most recently Iowa, they have had to live with the albatross that it was only through the judicial usurpation of the legislative function that they had achieved this anywhere. Not one state had ever enacted same-sex "marriage" through any process that could be described as democratic.

Vermont has changed that. On April 7, the elected Vermont legislature succeeded in overriding a gubernatorial veto of a bill to grant civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Homosexual activists have gloated that, at long last, they have achieved a victory that we conservatives cannot blame on "activist judges."

Their historical memories are too short.

Let's remember that the Vermont Supreme Court, in a decision issued late in 1999, was the first in the nation to rule that same-sex couples must be granted 100% of the legal rights and benefits of marriage under state law. Only under the coercive pressure of this ruling did the Vermont legislature, in 2000, coin the now familiar term "civil unions," in order to comply without actually changing the definition of "marriage." And it was only because Vermont had already experienced nine years of desensitization, under the court-imposed counterfeit of "civil unions," that the legislature finally capitulated to the demands of homosexual activists to be granted the word "marriage" as well.

In the pro-homosexual war to destroy the meaning of marriage, court rulings have been the aerial bombardment, meant to soften the defenses. By accepting specious claims that homosexual "marriage" is a "civil rights" issue, courts have made it easier for liberal legislators to advance the same claim. Only now, and only because of those judicial assaults, has the ground invasion-serious efforts to legislate same-sex "marriage"-begun.

Advocates of same-sex marriage will argue, of course, that it's perfectly legitimate for the courts to drive social change. After all, didn't Brown v. Board of Education (1954) pave the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The problem with that argument is that the Brown decision was clearly rooted in the constitutional language of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, which established the principle of racial equality (albeit unfulfilled) nearly a century earlier. I've written elsewhere about why race is not comparable to homosexual conduct. But if advocates of same-sex "marriage" really see themselves as heirs of the civil rights movement, let them first amend the U.S. Constitution-and only then appeal to the courts.