In the wake of Barack Obama’s first term as president, when he vocally advocated for homosexuality and transgenderism, installed openly “gay” behavior in the U.S. military and endorsed same-sex “marriage,” voters in Maryland and Maine apparently have decided to follow his lead, endorsing at the ballot box the behavior condemned in the Bible as an abomination.
Voters in Maryland adopted the idea of legalized same-sex “marriage” on a margin of 52-48 percent and in Maine, 54 percent of the voters endorsed the idea, while 46 percent opposed.
In two other states where the issue was on the ballot, Washington, same-sex “marriage” proponents were ahead 52-48 but in Minnesota traditional marriage supporters were ahead 49-48.
Maryland, Maine and probably Washington join six other states, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New York, where courts or lawmakers have imposed the practice on citizens in allowing same-sex “marriage.”
At the same time, dozens of states have constitutional amendments prohibiting it, and about another dozen states have laws banning it.
In Minnesota, the vote will be largely irrelevant since the effort was to define marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution, while the state already expresses that in its law.
Between 1998 and 2012, voters in 30 states supported traditional marriage by limiting its definition to one man and one woman and explicitly writing such language into their state constitutions or laws.
Hawaii also amended its state constitution by giving the legislature rather than the courts the authority to define marriage. Officials responded by passing legislation limiting marriage to a man and woman.
In 42 states marriage is currently defined as between a man and a woman under state law and 44 states limit the granting of marriage licenses to unions between a man and a woman.
“Gay” rights supporters have frequently called the initiatives a “gay” marriage ban. However, a reading of the language reveals that the word “ban” or similar language is not found in these initiatives. Rather the language is an affirmation of traditional marriage and simply states what definition of marriage the state will use in issuing marriage licenses.
This election, voters in three of the four states it is on the ballot are being asked to vote in favor of same-sex “marriage.” The language is a departure from previous ballot measures in other states which were an affirmation of traditional marriage.
In Maine, Question 1 asked voters to overturn a 2009 ballot measure passed by voters that affirmed traditional marriage. The language states, “Do you want to allow the state of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
Question 6 on Maryland’s ballot and Washington Referendum Measure 74 asked voters to signify their approval of legislation passed by lawmakers granting same-sex couples “marriage” rights.
Washington’s initiative was placed on the ballot after the legislature passed legislation legalizing “gay” marriage. In an attempt at compromise with “gay” activists who claim the issue is about benefits denied them in the legal system, the state had previously passed legislation guaranteeing same-sex couples all of the same rights as married couples. The only thing it did not do was give them the word marriage.
Activists said legal benefits aside it is important they be allowed to have the right to change the definition of marriage to fit them as the word implies social acceptance of their relationships.
Following passage of the legislation, Democratic Rep. Jamie Pederson, a “gay” lawmaker from Seattle, acknowledged the purpose was to grant same-sex couples acceptance rather than legal rights.
Pederson said “domestic partnership is a pale and inadequate substitute for marriage.”
“I would like for our four children to grow up understanding that their daddy and their poppa have made that kind of a lifelong commitment to each other,” he said during remarks on the House floor. “Marriage is the word that we use in our society to convey that idea.”
Maryland’s language would establish that the state’s civil marriage laws allow same-sex couples to obtain a “marriage” license. When legislators legalized same-sex “marriages” earlier this year, the bill was amended to not take effect until Jan. 1, 2013, in order for give residents and opportunity to vote on the matter.
The Maryland law specifically exempts clergy from having to provide any services, benefits or goods to same-sex couples. However, there is no similar protection to Christian business owners who provide services such as photography or wedding cakes.
In Minnesota, voters are being asked to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution.
The National Organization for Marriage launched a series of last-minute ads that appear to have borne fruit. The ads featured testimony from David and Tonia Parker, Massachusetts parents who warned voters that legalizing “gay” marriage would ultimately usurp parental rights to determine what their children were being taught regarding sexual matters.
WND reported extensively on how Parker was arrested and jailed for disorderly conduct in 2005 after protesting against a Lexington, Mass., school that was sharing books on the homosexual lifestyle without notifying parents, which was a violation of state law requiring parents be notified before materials regarding human sexuality being discussed in the classroom.
The district claimed parents had no right to be notified when they taught young children about homosexuality because the lessons are not about “human sexuality” but rather about “tolerance and respect.”
A judge dismissed a civil rights lawsuit filed by the Parkers ruling public schools have an obligation to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality. The judge’s reasoning was that teaching children to accept homosexuality as normal was “reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”
The Los Angeles Times reported “gay” rights activist Fred Sainzo said the momentum is shifting away from support for traditional marriage to support for same-sex “marriage.”
That would coincide with Obama’s agenda on the issue, and his advocacy for alternative sexual lifestyle choices.
“I feel that this is something that was destined to be,” Alice Brock, of Falmouth, Maine, told Boston.com.
“It’s time,” said Alison Smith, of Portland.