Mission Accomplished! (Ten Years Ago.) Now Can We Fix Our State Constitution?

Back in 2004, Republicans were worried about getting that imbecile George W. Bush reelected.  So GOP operative Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove got the bright idea to put gay marriage bans on state ballots across the country.  He figured this would draw gobs of socially-challenged conservative bigots to the polls, and he knew he'd need every one of 'em to keep Dubya in the White House.  He figured correctly.  All the prejudiced prigs turned out to vote against married gay terrorists, and Bush was narrowly reelected.

Mission accomplished.  (Worked out great, didn't it.)

"This is the number of people
who still believe my bullshit."

The GOP of ten years ago didn't have any real animus toward gays and lesbians, but they were happy to exploit those who did to keep their man in office.  But now the wheel of progress has turned, DOMA is toast, there is wide-spread acceptance of equal rights for all, and all the anti-gay laws still on the books look pretty stupid -- discriminatory and unconstitutional.

In 2004, Ohio went full-monty on the anti-gay thing.  We didn't just pass a law banning gay marriage, we wrote it into our state constitution.

Now we have four same-sex couples, living in Ohio but legally married elsewhere, who've sued the state to have their marriages legally recognized, and have both parents names listed on the birth certificates of their children.   District Court Judge Timothy Black found in their favor.

Well, sort of.
We welcome 8 of you for now.
The rest of you, check back later.

The judge agreed to delay state-wide implementation of his order, at the urging of Ohio A.G. Mike DeWine.  DeWine's job is to defend the state constitution, even when it's indefensible.  He argued that judge's ruling could prompt thousands of Ohio same-sex couples to rush to get married in other states, and this might be "premature" and could cause "confusion."  (Yeah, those sound like terrible problems, Mike.)  Both DeWine and Black agreed, however, to give full legal recognition to four couples who brought suit.  So I guess eight really is enough.  Ten?  Now you've gone too far.  Confusing!

Some right-tards say that Black's decision is an example of an "activist judge legislating from the bench."  That's bullshit.  Sometimes a law is unfair, mean, serves no useful purpose, and must come to an end.  This is one of those cases.  Conservatives can appeal all they like, but in this case, Ohio's constitution is unconstitutional, and sooner or later it must be and will be fixed.

Wouldn't we have saved ourselves a whole bunch of time, trouble and money if we'd told Karl Rove to piss off and never gone down this stupid path in the first place?