Federal judges may have the last word on marriage – but they won’t have the final one. That’s becoming abundantly clear in Alabama, the latest state to feel the sting of a runaway court invalidating the will of the people on marriage. In a letter to Governor Robert Bentley (R-Ala.), Chief Justice Roy Moore made that quite clear – explaining that this isn’t an issue that the federal courts will resolve. Rather, he said, it “raises serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction over the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.”

Unelected judges and a handful of lawyers have been pushing state marriage amendments over like sleeping cows. Meanwhile, stunned Americans have struggled to make sense of a legal system that puts its own political agenda ahead of the expressed will of the people. Like most conservatives, FRC has watched in horror as the courts have robbed tens of millions of Americans of their voice on an issue of critical importance – not just to our nation’s stability, but to its very survival.

If the Supreme Court completes the circle and invents a right to same-sex “marriage,” I believe it will be the Roe v. Wade of the 21st Century. People then, as now, insisted that the Supreme Court had the final say on the issue. Forty-two years later, they couldn’t be more wrong. Far from settling the issue of abortion, the Supreme Court ignited a powerful, nationwide movement – now four decades strong – to overturn the justices’ ruling.

Of course, there are a few out-of-touch writers who take issue with the comparison, surprised that anyone wouldn’t just “move on” and accept the redefinition of mankind’s most fundamental institution. Damon Linker at The Week insists that legalizing same-sex “marriage” would never spark the kind of nationwide protest that abortion has. It’s “nonsense,” he argues. “Unlike Roe v. Wade, same-sex ‘marriage’ isn’t a life or death issue. They can’t even convincingly demonstrate that anyone is hurt in any way by a gay wedding,” he writes. “The harm, in the present, is purely figurative.”

It certainly wasn’t “figurative” for Melissa and Aaron Klein, Jack Phillips, Barronnelle Stutzman, Nang and Chris Mai, Craig James, and others who may not have lost their lives – but did lose their livelihoods over their moral beliefs on marriage. Meanwhile, abortion wasn’t widely accepted because it runs counter to nature – mothers don’t kill their own offspring. Same-sex “marriage” also runs counter to nature – since it isn’t the natural bridge that brings the two sexes together.

Linker goes on to argue that public approval for redefining marriage has surged, “because there are no cogent arguments on the ‘anti’ side.” That not only flies in the face of social science, but of public polling too. While some may accept same-sex marriage as they have abortion-on-demand, same-sex “marriage” will never enjoy universal acceptance as the norm that natural marriage does. We’ve already seen a decline in public acceptance of same-sex “marriage” as others have lost their freedoms of speech and religion. Those numbers will increase.

And if this were such non-issue, why are GOP candidates and voters so motivated by marriage? “Candidates have got to be declarative about where they stand. Period,” Republican Sam Clovis told reporters after Iowa’s forum. “If you’re not vocally pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, I don’t think you can win here because you’re going to get hammered. Maybe you could win in New Hampshire, but it’s a different culture.”

Which brings us to another point. Linker wrongly suggests that Roe – not marriage – “undemocratically overruled the will of the people.” Thirty-six states, he explains, have same-sex “marriage.” What he fails to mention is that only three of those states redefined marriage at the ballot box – the other 33 were imposed by judges, given as ultimatums by the courts to legislatures, or passed by lawmakers in defiance of voters. If liberals honestly believe that Americans – millions of whom turned out to protect natural marriage in law – will stand by while the courts silence their voice, they’re mistaken.

Saluting Sergeant Monk…

It was a long journey, but Master Sergeant Phillip Monk finally retired from the U.S. Air Force – on his own terms. After 20 years – the last few of which he spent fighting a different enemy – the distinguished airman finally closed the book on his distinguished career in the U.S. military. FRC’s own Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin retired Sgt. Monk, who became a national figure in the debate over religious hostility in the military when he was read his Miranda rights for telling his lesbian commander that service members shouldn’t be punished for believing in natural marriage. Despite pressure, Sgt. Monk refused to back down and was rewarded for it. In February of last year, he was presented with the Meritorious Service Medal for his contributions to his country.

Friday’s ceremony was the crowning moment of those 20 brave years, as both Lt. Gen. Boykin and Pastor Steve Branson helped thank Sgt. Monk for his sacrifices in defense of this nation – and its freedom. “The greatest shortage we have in America is courage,” General Boykin said. “But the kind of courage that Phillip Monk showed… is the kind of courage of our founding fathers.” In a fitting tribute, Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who lost their shop over a similar intolerance to their biblical beliefs, made the cake for the celebration. We congratulate Sergeant Monk and his family on his retirement and look forward to the next chapter in his service to God and country.

Noisy in Boise! Voters Speak out on Special Rights

Not every city is smart enough to learn from the mistakes of Houston’s special rights ordinance. Other towns are stubbornly moving ahead, ignoring the massive grassroots outrage – at their own risk. In Idaho, voters are trying to beat back a similar attack to businesses’ beliefs – a debate that came to a head yesterday as more than 500 people lined up to testify on the bill, including FRC’s own Peter Sprigg.

“When it comes to the operation of private businesses, our default decision should be to support freedom, not to increase the regulatory burdens imposed by government,” Peter explained. By adding “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” as special classes whose rights are elevated above everyone else’s, freedom is sacrificed – not protected. The ultimate arbiters of “discrimination” ought to be customers.

“A business that places unfound prejudice” ahead of serving customers “will be punished by the forces of the free market itself. There is no need to bring the heavy hand of government down upon it. We should have faith,” Peter said, “that the people who know best how to run a business are the people who own and operate it – not lawyers, government bureaucrats, or even legislators. And we should have respect for the freedom of businesses, schools, and non-profit organizations to hold to their own, deeply-held beliefs, and to act on such beliefs. Yet this bill would substitute the judgment of government officials for that of private businesses and organizations regarding what qualities or characteristics are most relevant to a particular job, and regarding how to operate their business.”

If the turnout in Boise is any indication, the Left’s days of quietly slipping these ordinances through local legislatures is over! And not a moment too soon.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.