My point stands about the fragility of relying on the somewhat tired judicial activism argument when a legislature enacts marriage equality. Allahpundit is at a loss:
Normally this is where I’d gauge whether a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision is feasible or not, but since Vermont’s gone off-script I’m without an angle here.
NRO manages to revive the judicial activism case by pointing out, accurately enough, that this process was kicked off by a court ruling that equal rights and benefits were mandatory under the state constitution. But are conservatives now saying that courts should have no role whatsoever in judging minority rights? Meanwhile, Hot Air's online poll of conservative blog readers finds that 74 percent of Hot Air readers are either fine with marriage equality in Vermont or happy to let a state make its own decisions. Only a quarter still support the federal amendment approach.