- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Seven more states have seen voters reject the idea of “gay marriage” by implementing constitutional amendments that protect the biblical concept of holy matrimony – that is between one man and one woman only.
But legal experts are warning that homosexuals undoubtedly will try to bypass the will of voters however they can.
“When you look at the country as a whole, it’s obvious where Americans stand on marriage. But the battle is not over. The opposition will continue to attempt to bypass the will of the people,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.
In this election, voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin all adopted such amendments. Colorado voters went even one step further, emphatically rejecting a referendum that would have allowed the extension of benefits to “domestic partners,” a plan that would have created an “alternate marriage” plan for homosexuals.
The vote in Arizona on that state’s proposal was awaiting a final outcome because of large numbers of early ballots that hadn’t been counted yet, officials said.
The ADF, although not an activist group, has been involved extensively in defending marriage amendments from court challenges.
“This is another victory in the ongoing battle to protect marriage and what’s in the best interests of our children,” said Lavy.
But he said the nation needs marriage amendments “on both the state and federal level because they are the only way to prevent special interests from using the courts to sidestep the will of the people.”
“Political special interests shouldn’t trump what’s in the best interest of families and children. Who’s more important: our children or special interest groups?” he said.
To date, in 27 states where a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage has been proposed, voters have adopted it, with Arizona’s outcome pending.
“Americans clearly don’t want same-sex ‘marriage,'” he said. “Marriage is a national issue and the national results speak for themselves. Poll and national poll shows Americans want marriage defined as one man and one woman.”
He said more information about protecting marriage is available at www.domawatch.org, which stands for Defense of Marriage Act, state laws that also have been used to protect marriage.
In Virginia, Victoria Cobb’s group called Family Foundation lobbied for the proposal.
“We knew all along that a majority favored the amendment. It was just a matter of getting people to the polls,” she said. “Tonight, this issue has been settled.”
The vote to ban “gay” marriage in South Carolina came on a nearly 4-1 division, and supporters say such constitutional amendments are not nearly as likely to be overturned by activist and liberal judges as state laws, which already had been used in several states to provide some level of protection for traditional marriage.
The protection for traditional marriage, before this election, had been approved by voters in 20 out of the 20 states where it had been proposed.
“The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue,” States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WND as the campaigns for the marriage protections gained speed in recent weeks.
“What they’re running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected,” she said.
During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Missouri and Nevada also voted for the plan. Five other states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.
Wisconsin’s victory was especially gratifying for campaign workers in that state. There state lawmakers went through the process a second time after first passing a Defense of Marriage law in 2003, only to see Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle veto it. The second time around, for this year’s election, they pursued the constitutional amendment process, which does not require a governor’s signature.