It's about time!
Judge Doris Ling-Cohen of New York and Constance Russell of Georgia were sent stinging rebukes by their state's highest courts, and in cases that will be watched by other high courts in New Jersey, California and perhaps most importantly Washington. These women were given very clear lessons in judicial clarity and "We the People" rejoiced!
Judge Ling-Cohen knew when she issued the decision to allow marriage to be redefined in New York City that she had stirred up a hornet's nest. The very same afternoon my radio show organized communications with some of the 8000 church leaders in the New York metro to begin aggressive opposition to her unilateral mandate that defied the state's constitution. Mayor Michael Bloomberg also felt the sting; thousands of phone calls pouring into his office finally forced him to begrudgingly acknowledge that it was the city's responsibility to attempt to have the decision overturned. He also then promptly went to several homosexual advocacy groups and made it clear that he preferred the ideas that Judge Ling-Cohen had put forward.In addition, at the beginning of PRIDE month, the Mayor went on-air for his weekly radio address and promised quick compliance if the state high court returned a verdict that defended the radical activists seeking changes in the state law. He promised that the city would "immediately begin performing so called 'gay' marriages." He also then added that should the decision go against the activists and for the families of New York, he would begin working to craft legislation in the state assembly to get voters to approve the redefining of marriage. (Good luck with that, Mayor.) I played the arrogant comments over and over the following Monday on my radio show and again thousands of calls poured into the Mayor's office.
The Court of Appeals, the highest court in the Empire State, answered all the involved parties with a 4-2 spanking of the activists and made perfectly clear that only the people of New York have the ability to redefine the institution of marriage, clarifying the division that exists between the judiciary and the legislature. It is notable that this case mirrored nearly to perfection its predecessor in the Massachusetts courts that eventually legalized a redefinition of marriage.