Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), on Wednesday condemned federal court decisions striking down gay marriage bans in Utah and Indiana.

An appeals court upheld a lower court's order striking down Utah's ban, while a federal judge declared Indiana's law to be unconstitutional, which lad to a rush to the altar in Indiana.

Less than a week after NOM held a rally and march to the steps of the Supreme Court to call on justices to uphold state bans, Utah's challenge moved within striking distance of the justices' chambers as Utah declared it would appeal the ruling to the nation's highest court.

(Related: Utah says gay marriage case headed to Supreme Court.)

Brown called the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling “not surprising given that this Circuit refused to even order a stay of the district court decision when it came down during the Christmas holidays” and praised the court's dissenter in the case.

“While we strongly disagree with the two judges in the majority, we are encouraged by the strong defense of marriage articulated by Justice Paul Kelly in his dissent, and especially his defense of the sovereign right of the people of Utah to decide this issue for themselves,” Brown said in a blog post. “This principled recognition by a federal judge considering the marriage issue underscores that the people of a state are entitled to respect and deference in their desire to promote marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Indeed, the US Supreme Court decided in the Windsor case that the federal government must respect the right of states to define marriage. The majority in the Utah case engage in sophistry to attempt to argue their way around the Supreme Court's ruling that it is up to the states to define marriage. As Justice Kelly noted in his dissent, 'If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions – contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives – turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.'”

Brown described the ruling in Indiana as “judicial activism.”

“The elected representatives of the people of Indiana have decided, for good and proper reasons, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It is judicial activism for a single judge to substitute his own views on marriage for the considered opinion of the people's representatives. This is just the latest example of activism from the federal bench, but we fully expect this decision to eventually be reversed when the US Supreme Court upholds the right of states to define marriage as a man and a woman. We call on Governor Mike Pence to immediately appeal this decision and to seek a stay of the ruling. In the meantime, it is also imperative that the state legislature move forward a state constitutional amendment preserving marriage so that the people always remain in control of the definition of marriage in Indiana.”