20 out of 20 times, Americans choose to protect institution from changes
Same-sex marriage
on rocks with voters
20 out of 20 times, Americans choose
to protect institution from changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Yesterday's stunning decision by Washington's Supreme Court upholding traditional marriage is not the only setback dogging same-sex marriage advocates.
In fact, 20 out of the 20 times it has come before voters, Americans have chosen to protect by constitutional amendment the idea of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
So this year as it's brought before voters in another six – or eight – states, what do opponents plan to do to get their first single?
Obfuscate.
"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 WorldNetDaily in an exclusive look-ahead at this fall's election season.
"What they're running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected," she said.
"We have six states that will have marriage amendments on their ballot (in 2006)," Passignano said, identifying them as Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Two more, Arizona and Colorado, still have yet to reach either deadlines for turning in petition signatures or decisions for whether enough signatures have been turned in. Arizona's marriage supporters turned in 300,000 names, for a requirement of 184,000, but they still are being verified. In Colorado, the deadline to turn in names is Aug. 7, and 68,000 verified names are needed, she said.
"The atmosphere (around the issues) right now is actually positive," she said. "But you can expect that to change in October." Then, the campaigning will get confusing.
Colorado's potential battle already is typical of what she expects.
There probably will be four ballot initiatives on the fall Colorado ballot addressing marriage or civil unions and the like. One would think that would be confusing, and Passignano said that's the plan.
"The campaign in Colorado already is to confuse the voters. The more confusion, the better the chance (for same-sex marriage being endorsed)," she said. "It's not exactly a new campaign, it's exactly the strategy that unfolded in Texas last year."
During that battle, same-sex marriage supporters actually "tried to get people to vote against the marriage amendment by pretending they were from the attorney general's office and telling people they were going to nullify actual marriages with their vote," Passignano said. Senior citizens, especially, were targeted.
She said she took calls in her office at Focus Action from Texans who would hesitate. "I think I voted the wrong way," they would tell her. "Yes, you did," she told them.
The salvation of the Texas amendment came from Christian pastors, she said.
"What's going to be the key is church participation," she said. "The IRS has said pastors have the right to talk about that, despite what we commonly hear, because it is a nonpartisan ballot issue. Pastors can talk about it all they want.
"Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you checked your rights at the door," she said.
Focus Action is a cultural action organization that is separate from Focus on the Family, the Christian broadcasting, publishing and ministry powerhouse. It was set up for Christians to have a platform for informing and rallying about moral issues.
Baptist Press earlier had cited a homosexual publication's report about a multi-point plan devised by the Democratic National Committee to combat the marriage protection plans.
Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the DNC told Baptist Press the committee opposes Republican efforts to use the issue to get voters to ballot boxes. But he didn't confirm or deny the homosexual publication's report about a plan that calls for labeling such initiatives "divisive" and training operatives in all 50 states how to campaign against them.
That report also said the plan included working with a homosexual advocacy group and campaign organizations in each state fighting marriage protection plans.
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. Five states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.
Representatives are especially tenacious in pursuing this particular issue, too. In Wisconsin 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.
State lawmakers in Washington also battled back to overturn a veto by Gov. Gary Locke in their pursuit of their 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriages to couples of one man and one woman.
That battle was crowned with victory this week when the state's Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality. The court noted that there may be homosexual weddings at some point in the future, but it will be because people have brought it about, not because of a judicial opinion.
The underlying conclusion of the Washington state court was that the Legislature had a legitimate interest in protecting traditional marriage and that action did not violate equal protection and other laws.
Even in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court created a right to homosexual marriage to become the only state ever to recognize such situations, supporters have collected 170,000 signatures and court approval and hope to have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2008.
One defeat for the traditional marriage supporters came in June in the Senate, which failed to endorse a change in the U.S. Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But that wasn't even on an up-or-down vote; only a procedural move.
It is "inconceivable" the U.S. Senate refused to even vote, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America.
"If the founders could have imagined a time when same-sex 'marriage' would be forced upon the people by judicial fiat, they would have established a uniform rule of marriage in the Constitution just as they did for naturalization and bankruptcy," she said.
However, just in the past few weeks, other courts in Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee and New York have endorsed the legality of protecting marriage.
on rocks with voters
20 out of 20 times, Americans choose
to protect institution from changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Yesterday's stunning decision by Washington's Supreme Court upholding traditional marriage is not the only setback dogging same-sex marriage advocates.
In fact, 20 out of the 20 times it has come before voters, Americans have chosen to protect by constitutional amendment the idea of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
So this year as it's brought before voters in another six – or eight – states, what do opponents plan to do to get their first single?
Obfuscate.
"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 WorldNetDaily in an exclusive look-ahead at this fall's election season.
"What they're running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected," she said.
"We have six states that will have marriage amendments on their ballot (in 2006)," Passignano said, identifying them as Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Two more, Arizona and Colorado, still have yet to reach either deadlines for turning in petition signatures or decisions for whether enough signatures have been turned in. Arizona's marriage supporters turned in 300,000 names, for a requirement of 184,000, but they still are being verified. In Colorado, the deadline to turn in names is Aug. 7, and 68,000 verified names are needed, she said.
"The atmosphere (around the issues) right now is actually positive," she said. "But you can expect that to change in October." Then, the campaigning will get confusing.
Colorado's potential battle already is typical of what she expects.
There probably will be four ballot initiatives on the fall Colorado ballot addressing marriage or civil unions and the like. One would think that would be confusing, and Passignano said that's the plan.
"The campaign in Colorado already is to confuse the voters. The more confusion, the better the chance (for same-sex marriage being endorsed)," she said. "It's not exactly a new campaign, it's exactly the strategy that unfolded in Texas last year."
During that battle, same-sex marriage supporters actually "tried to get people to vote against the marriage amendment by pretending they were from the attorney general's office and telling people they were going to nullify actual marriages with their vote," Passignano said. Senior citizens, especially, were targeted.
She said she took calls in her office at Focus Action from Texans who would hesitate. "I think I voted the wrong way," they would tell her. "Yes, you did," she told them.
The salvation of the Texas amendment came from Christian pastors, she said.
"What's going to be the key is church participation," she said. "The IRS has said pastors have the right to talk about that, despite what we commonly hear, because it is a nonpartisan ballot issue. Pastors can talk about it all they want.
"Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you checked your rights at the door," she said.
Focus Action is a cultural action organization that is separate from Focus on the Family, the Christian broadcasting, publishing and ministry powerhouse. It was set up for Christians to have a platform for informing and rallying about moral issues.
Baptist Press earlier had cited a homosexual publication's report about a multi-point plan devised by the Democratic National Committee to combat the marriage protection plans.
Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the DNC told Baptist Press the committee opposes Republican efforts to use the issue to get voters to ballot boxes. But he didn't confirm or deny the homosexual publication's report about a plan that calls for labeling such initiatives "divisive" and training operatives in all 50 states how to campaign against them.
That report also said the plan included working with a homosexual advocacy group and campaign organizations in each state fighting marriage protection plans.
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. Five states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.
Representatives are especially tenacious in pursuing this particular issue, too. In Wisconsin 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.
State lawmakers in Washington also battled back to overturn a veto by Gov. Gary Locke in their pursuit of their 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriages to couples of one man and one woman.
That battle was crowned with victory this week when the state's Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality. The court noted that there may be homosexual weddings at some point in the future, but it will be because people have brought it about, not because of a judicial opinion.
The underlying conclusion of the Washington state court was that the Legislature had a legitimate interest in protecting traditional marriage and that action did not violate equal protection and other laws.
Even in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court created a right to homosexual marriage to become the only state ever to recognize such situations, supporters have collected 170,000 signatures and court approval and hope to have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2008.
One defeat for the traditional marriage supporters came in June in the Senate, which failed to endorse a change in the U.S. Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But that wasn't even on an up-or-down vote; only a procedural move.
It is "inconceivable" the U.S. Senate refused to even vote, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America.
"If the founders could have imagined a time when same-sex 'marriage' would be forced upon the people by judicial fiat, they would have established a uniform rule of marriage in the Constitution just as they did for naturalization and bankruptcy," she said.
However, just in the past few weeks, other courts in Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee and New York have endorsed the legality of protecting marriage.
posted by shummer60 at Thursday, July 27, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home