This national question requires a national solution. And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts but from the people of the United States.
First off, people in the U.S. elect their judges. If you've ever driven around any American city around the time when judicial elections occur — "Vote Mary Schmuck for 44th District Court Judge" — you'll see signs covering pretty much every square centimetre of every lamppost, fencepost and compost. Therefore, the judicial branch of government largely reflects the will of the people, by definition.
Yet, the M-i-C continues to invoke the "activist judges" boogeyman to scare people into thinking that, for some odd reason, an "activist president" is somehow a better choice.
Another thing he talks about is the "sanctity of marriage." To me, two people who have been in a stable, loving relationship for 20 years who are looking to have that officially recognized as a union-for-life should be able to do so; if it walks like a marriage, and it quacks like a marriage, then it's a marriage.
If you think marriage is so vital to the stability of a society, why not ban divorces? I'd think that people who say "I do" a half-dozen times are more of an affront to the "sanctity of marriage," whatever you choose that to mean, than two dudes or two dames exchanging rings.
Of course, because Steve Harper didn't like the way the Parliamentary vote went on same-sex marriage a few short months ago, he's all too gung-ho to reopen the debate. WE SETTLED THAT ALREADY. DON'T BE SUCH A SORE LOSER.
Anyway, the point of all this ranting and raving is this:
If you don't approve of same-sex marriage, don't marry someone the same gender as you.
It's as simple as that.
Of course, with the 2006 midterm elections staring Republicans in the face, they need something to whip up their Bible-thumping constituency into a frenzy. Hey, it worked in 2004.