Such an amendment is needed, of course, because otherwise activist judges will substitute their political preferences for the law. An aide to James Dobson of Focus on the Family warned: "All it would take is one ruling by the state Supreme Court, and homosexual marriage would be legal here."
I don't think he needs to worry, considering that two of the state's seven Supreme Court justices attended the rally.
Just coincidentally, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court rewrote the rules of judicial ethics after one justice was criticized for getting involved in partisan politics; while the rules used to say (as do the rules in most states) that judges should avoid political activity, they now affirmatively say judges may engage in such activity. Supreme Court justices are elected in partisan races (i.e., they run as Democrats or Republicans), and the conservatives who run the court have been so immersed in partisan politics that they decided to get rid of any rules that might hinder them.
So I'm wondering: did any of the speakers at the rally warn the two justices in attendance that he'd be held accountable if he let his political beliefs affect his decisions? Or does that rule apply only to liberals?