The decision was one that was not unexpected.  Gay rights activist across the Gem State are celebrating tonight because a federal judge ruled that Idaho's law defining marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.  Does that mean we will see same sex couples rushing to courthouses across the state to get hitched?  Probably not, if the legal system plays out as expected.  (Author's disclaimer, I received my legal training by watching episodes of Law and Order, although I was an investigative reporter on the Nancy Grace Show.)

Let's get to the simple facts that will be ignored by the usual incompetence of the local media.  Unlink the Utah decision, the order to allow same sex couples to marry does not go into effect until Friday.  This gives Governor Otter plenty of time to get his appeal up the judicial ladder and have an injunction served before any ceremonies take place.

It looks like the governor's staff was anticipating this ruling by asking the court earlier today for a stay just in case the ruling overturned state law.  What the governor and attorney general want to avoid is what happened in Utah, where same sex couples immediately started to marry until a higher court could rule.

This is not news, it's happening across the country and we can thank the US Supreme Court for this mess.  Regardless of your view on marriage, the Supreme Court had a chance to rule on this issue when California's Prop 8 came before the court.  Instead of ruling on the issue, the justices punted it back to the lower court's ruling and the will of the people was overturned.

The lack of critical thinking skills will be evident tomorrow morning, not on 580 KIDO, as folks try to digest the issue.  You will hear many folks in the media say this is a good thing.  That government should stay out of people's private lives.

This ruling is not about government being involved in our personal lives, it's about the rule of law passed by the people of Idaho being usurped by the tyranny of the bench.  When is a constitutional amendment not enough?  When one person in a black robe decides they know more than the good people of the Gem State.

Who has the final say?  The black robes or the people?  This issue is far from over and expect this case or the 27 others like it to be heard by the Supreme Court next year.  It is an issue that cannot be avoided.  I invite you to join me tomorrow from 5am-9am as we discuss this issue.  I'd like to get your feedback.