See if you can stay with me as I recap the last year of political activism regarding marriage.

First we heard about the attorney general in Pennsylvania that simply could not bring herself to defend her state’s marriage amendment. Even though she swore to uphold the law of her state, she refused.

Next came newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring who very quickly after taking office said he would not defend the voter-approved marriage protection amendment in his state.

Then we watched as a federal judge struck down the marriage protection amendment in Oklahoma. Soon after a federal judge in Utah did the same thing. Then Kentucky saw a judge strike down part of their marriage protection amendment, no doubt paving the way for the entire amendment to be discarded.

Right now a challenge to Colorado’s marriage protection amendment has been filed and is awaiting court hearing. Unlike many states, the attorney general in Colorado plans to defend state laws because “It is the job of the Attorney General’s Office to defend our state laws, and we will defend against this new lawsuit as we would any other.”

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum is the most recent to say she will not defend her state’s marriage protection amendment. Soon after we heard about the shocking news that a judge in Texas struck down the lone-star states voter approved marriage amendment.

The most recent news involves Michigan, where a federal judge struck down that states ban on same-sex “marriage” in late March. One difference between this decision and others is that unlike other judicial rulings, the judge in Michigan, Bernard Friedman, did not stay his ruling pending appeal. That means the ruling took effect immediately. The day after the ruling was enacted the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals put a stay on the ruling pending appeal. So, for now, Michigan’s ban in still in place.

Just before the Michigan decision we learned that a judge in Tennessee has ordered the state to recognize the marriages of three same-sex couples pending appeal. The couples are appealing the states’ ban on same-sex “marriage” and the judge believes they will win and the ban will be struck own. In her decision U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger wrote that “all relevant federal authority indicates that the plaintiffs in this case are indeed likely to prevail on their claims that the Anti-Recognition Laws are unconstitutional.”

Just last week a lesbian couple joined a lawsuit against the state of Indiana to have their marriage from Massachusetts recognized in Indiana. Since one of the women is terminally ill they are now seeking a speedy decision. Also last week homosexual activists filed a lawsuit to overturn Florida’s marriage amendment, adopted in 2008. And article at Citizenlink reports:

“In 2008, 62.5 percent of Floridians voted to pass Amendment 2, amending their state constitution to reaffirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Having lost in the marketplace of ideas and having failed to convince the public to adopt their radical version of ‘marriage,’ homosexual activists, led by a Jacksonville Law firm and the ACLU, have now filed suit, asking the Northern District of Florida, a Federal Court, to throw out the votes of 8 million Floridians and to judicially impose homosexual marriage upon all Floridians.”

Last but not least, a federal judge in Ohio has ruled that Ohio must recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states; effectively striking down part of Ohio’s marriage protection laws. While the judge did not redefine marriage for the state, this ruling is just the first step in the process that will lead to redefinition.

There’s a lot that could be said here about these decisions and the swift, fierce nature by which they are descending on our nation. But let me make a couple of observations that I believe joins all of them together.

First, notice that these cased are taking place in very red, conservative states. For the most part these lawsuits are happening in places where voters by overwhelming margins approved constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman. Homosexual activists recognize that they have no chance in some states to get a majority of voters to reverse their decision so they are resorting to judicial activism to impose their will.

Since the Supreme Court decision last year returned the authority to define marriage back to the states, no doubt crushing many liberal dreams of a sweeping decision from the court. The tactic now is to pick off states one by one by suing and taking the fight to lower courts that are more than happy to tread where the Supreme Court refused to walk.

Additionally, notice that in each case there is an abundance of emotion involved. No doubt this is an emotional case, but there is also a predominant element of objective fact that is being ignored in favor of emotional narrative. This is a favorite tactic of liberals when they can’t win on the merits of their case. Activists will eagerly ignore the law, precedent, and bodies of facts in favor of emotional narrative if it means they can win.

In these cases we see attorney’s general ignoring the law, courts ignoring the will of voter’s and large bodies of evidence against legalizing same-sex “marriage”, and individuals using the emotions of their circumstances to seek special privileges. When you run out of arguments and facts to win, just make it all about emotions and people will side with you.

Concerning the absence of facts, Evan Lenow, writing at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission blog, commented on the idea that a birth certificate should contain the names of two women or two men:

“The logic of the names on a birth certificate is quite interesting. Biologically speaking, only one of the women is the mother although it is likely they both wanted to be listed as mothers. This demonstrates how the redefinition of marriage is attempting to separate the relationship completely from any aspect of procreation. Assuming the couple used an anonymous sperm donor as the father, then standard procedure would be to list the woman who gave birth as the mother. A second mother is biologically impossible for the purposes of a birth certificate. It is unclear how this causes undue hardship related to a medical record that is intended to connect a child to his/her biological parents…When someone makes the claim that they have a right to produce a birth certificate containing two mothers and no father as the biological record of the child’s birth, they undermine the right of the child to know his genetic history. If marriage includes unions other than those between a man and a woman, it undermines the creation ordinance designed to be the avenue of procreation and perpetuation of the human race. This is not an undue hardship placed on the couple by the state. It is Biology 101.”

It would probably surprise most West Virginians to know that right now there is a challenge in federal court to our state’s DOMA laws. Several couples from Kanawha and Putnam counties have filed a lawsuit against West Virginia seeking to invalidate our DOMA laws and redefine marriage.

Before anyone gets too self-righteous thinking “that won’t ever happen in West Virginia,” lets remind ourselves that our lawmakers not only rejected a ballot measure to add a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman; but our “pro-life” governor just vetoed a life-saving abortion ban.

Frankly, it’s absurd to think marriage won’t be redefined here in West Virginia because many people, though highly conservative and even religious, are also unaware of what is happening politically and content to be uninvolved. That combination has led to decades of poor political policies that make West Virginia a political disaster. By the way, have you heard one word about the challenge to our DOMA law from a single lawmaker? I didn’t think so.

Pennsylvania, Virginia, Utah, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Colorado, Oregon, Texas, Michigan, Tennessee, Indiana, Florida, and Ohio are all facing marriage redefinition from within. Judges and lawyers have determined the outcome for the people and decided marriage redefinition is inevitable so there’s no use in fighting it. Liberals are attempting to affect the outcome they desire by declaring themselves to be the winners.

If the apathy of the American people continues we can be certain that those who are eager to fundamentally alter the landscape of our country will succeed. If people are content to ignore what is taking place so long as they have their iPhone and a good internet connection we are all in serious trouble.