The Georgia House's decision to sign off on a constitutional ban on gay marriage doesn't make lawmakers homophobic.
It makes them "judge-ophobic."
And for good reason.
There's already a law on the Georgia books prohibiting same-sex marriages. So there's no reason for a constitutional amendment.
Except for the danger presented by arrogant, activist judges who think they know better than either the people or the representatives they elect.
Indeed, it's a legitimate fear. Judges all across the country have been making law and arbitrarily throwing out laws passed by legislatures. The ink was hardly dry on the national "do not call" registry for telemarketers, for instance, before judges were declaring it invalid.
And in Massachusetts, the state supreme court not only said the constitution there required allowing same-sex marriage, but also gave the legislature a May deadline to institute it.
Thus, the real reason for the highly unusual step of asking voters Nov. 2 whether to amend the Georgia Constitution: the very distinct possibility that the courts would decide what, by all rights, the people should decide.
The constitution is the one thing our judges can't hijack.