Posted on 06/20/2013 11:36:58 AM PDT by Maelstorm
A new Pew opinion poll shows that a majority of Americans believe the redefinition of marriage is “inevitable.”
We’ve heard “inevitable” language before, particularly from statists of all stripes. History is filled with supposedly “inevitable” causes that turned out not to be so. Nothing in life is inevitable except death and taxes—and at The Heritage Foundation we’re doing what we can about taxes.
So, too, on marriage. Consider some facts about the polls that matter most: elections. Citizens have gone to the polls to vote about marriage in 35 states. The truth about marriage has prevailed 32 of those 35 times. In only three states have citizens voted to redefine marriage—all in the 2012 election—and in each state the truth about marriage far outperformed the Republican presidential candidate. For example, in liberal Maryland, Mitt Romney received 36 percent of the vote, while marriage received 48 percent.
All this in a campaign in which proponents of redefinition had a 4:1 financial advantage and the backing of national figures: President Obama, Vice President Biden, governors, and a host of business, sports, and entertainment leaders.
Just last week, citizens in deep-blue Illinois prevented their legislature from voting to redefine marriage—and they did this despite a Democratic supermajority in the statehouse—and despite President Obama, Governor Pat Quinn (D), and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) all urging passage of the bill.
And just last year at this time, marriage won in a landslide—61 percent to 39 percent—in a referendum in the swing state of North Carolina, a state Obama had carried in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.
Still, no one can deny that Americans’ support for marriage is not what it once was. This is largely because we have done an insufficient job of explaining what marriage is, why marriage matters, and what the consequences will be if we redefine marriage.
To fill this void, we have worked with our allies at the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, and the National Organization for Marriage to produce an easy to read pamphlet to explain why marriage matters in everyday language. Download a free e-book version today at TheMarriageFacts.com.
Marriage is founded on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that the union of a man and woman also creates new life, and the social reality that children need a mom and a dad.
For decades, social science has shown that children tend to do best when reared by their married mother and father. Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens. It protects children by incentivizing adults to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.
All the polls in the world cannot undo the truth about marriage. But they can obscure the truth and make it less likely that men and women commit to each other permanently and exclusively. This in turn reduces the odds that children will know the love and care of their married mothers and fathers.
Whatever pollsters and pundits may tell us about “inevitability,” the only way to guarantee a political loss is to sit idly by. We should frame our message, strengthen coalitions, devise strategies, and bear witness.
Witness to the truth matters for its own sake. And persistent, winsome witness also tends to produce good fruit, even if it takes, as in the pro-life cause, 40 years and counting. In this struggle to preserve marriage, we need to take that long view—one that doesn’t look to immediate wins or losses but decades-long paradigm shifts that reshape how Americans think about marriage.
If those on the left really believed that the redefinition of marriage was “inevitable,” they wouldn’t be asking the Supreme Court to do their bidding—they would respect the democratic process. Laws that reflect the truth about marriage are constitutional. And the Court should respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy—not issue an activist ruling redefining marriage by judicial fiat.
A careful look at the polls reveals complex and dynamic trends. But how those polls change will depend on human choice, not blind historical forces. The question is not what will happen but what we should do.
After all, there’s no such thing as being on the “right” or “wrong” side of history. There’s only being on the right or wrong side of truth.
The bigger problem is allowing re-definition of many words in our language, gay and marriage being the two most obvious. The lords of evil purposely choose words that convey normalcy and benevolent feelings in their attempt at desensitizing the population to the underlying agenda.
Tragically, even many FReepers believe it.
The problem here is that when you go from 90% opposition 30 years ago to 75% opposition 15 years ago to a (possible) slight majority in favor today, it is ludicrous to pretend that a decades-long trend will suddenly reverse itself for no particular reason.
A much more likely scenario is 75% in favor by 2030 and 90% in favor by 2045.
I’ll always be one of the minority against, but that’s no way to maintain a political program in a democracy.
They’ve been brainwashed. When you have 90% of the news being pro gay its amazing not more believe it. That there is such a great push to norm homosexuality and gay marriage but the best they can manage is parity in the public suggests how easy it would be to turn this to our favor. What we need is something similar to the HRC but the reverse. An organization that takes the focus off of religion and puts it on the behavior which is simply unhealthy.
The religious arguments are valid but the opposition to homosexuality is not inherently religious. Gay behavior is inherently flawed and damages an organism’s propensity to reproduce. No one who is a strict Darwinian would see homosexuality as anything but harmful and no one who is honest would dismiss the negative health risks associated with it nor ignore the role that sexual abuse plays in a significant number of cases of gay self id.
They said the same thing about the prolife position many years ago but sure it shifted but it really hasn’t moved much since. This trend is highly dependent on media which thankfully is finally breaking down. Also the trend in Southern states is not nearly as pronounced. Also we know exactly why the trend is manifesting. It is not because of vast new information but the increasing prevalence of militant gay propaganda and political correctness which is getting worse but that it is getting worse makes it harder to maintain the faux victim status. Traditional marriage is still polling better than Republicans in blue states that should tell you something. This is something that can be reversed or at a minimum maintained near parity. It means that people in the conservative media need to step it up and make a place for anti sexual progressive position.
The moment the Courts try to enforce this evil deviancy onto my state, or the moment America seems to fully embrace it, is the moment I’ll be rooting for the whole country to burn to the ground. I might even be willing to lend the matches.
Well, maybe after the burned out remains stop smoldering we can learn the perils of getting fedgov involved in anything not clearly spelled out in article 1, section 8. It’s ALWAYS a bad idea to invite vampires into your home or let the mob or fedgov do favors for you.
You also have to ask the question why, if homosexuality is just so "natural" and "beautiful," why the activists have to fight so hard to gain what they've gained, with very marginal votes for their victories. If it were so self-evidently a natural "right," all of this vicious battle wouldn't even be happening.
They HAVE to force it. That is what you do with lies.
Quite right.
I fell for this during the last election, when I was dumb enough to listen to the pundits claiming the conservative and GOP vote was greatly undersampled. Then we had the election and it turns out the average of all the polls was pretty much on the money.
The world is what it is, not what you or I wish it was.
This is where I have to disagree strongly. Marriage is self-evident. It does not stand or fall by anyone's ability to "explain" it and its importance.
A society that needs such a self-evident truth explained to them is all but dead anyway. Not that we don't need to enumerate the obvious for some of the Products of Public Ejumacation that have been deprogrammed in logic.
“The truth about marriage has prevailed 32 of those 35 times.”
Did he miss Arizona failing to pass one and then passing it later, and I think CA passed it twice? Does anyone have a complete list of all the popular votes on ‘gay marriage?’
The ranges are spread between Minnesota’s 47% against their amendment in 2012 to Mississippi’s 86% for in 2004, as far as I can figure. There are states that would probably repeal their amendments right now by popular vote, and others that would seem to be a long way away from that. There are states that still don’t have an amendment or ‘gay marriage’ that would pass an amnendment easily right now and others that would might simply enact ‘gay marriage’ by popular vote. In general, I don’t think the picture is very rosy.
“And just last year at this time, marriage won in a landslide—61 percent to 39 percent—in a referendum in the swing state of North Carolina, a state Obama had carried in 2008 and lost narrowly in 2012.”
CA’s Prop. 22 passed by 61% in 2000 and Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008, that’s losing 9% in 8 years. NC voted in theirs by 61% last year, basically tying the CA of 12 years before, something that would have made folks call you nuts if you would have told them that in 2000. All the states around NC passed their amendments by 75%+ except VA (57% in 2006) at least 6 years ago. Beyond the fact that it passed and will probably last a while before it is within reach of being repealed, not a positive trend as far as I can see.
Freegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
