The state did not reject an amendment legalizing gay marriage. Factual clarity please people.
The amendment defined marriage in the state constitution, so that judges could not rule that such a law was unconstitutional.
If the amendment had failed, gay marriage would not have been legalized. The status quo, of marriage defined in regular statute law, would have still been in effect.
It’s an important distinction you made. It’s time to start using the language as it is. This is NOT an argument against gay marriage. It needs to be an argument FOR traditional marriage and OPPOSED to anything else.
When you start talking about “gay marriage,” you’ve already lost the war of language—you’ve couched your argument in your opponents’ terms.
Make it a monolithic support of marriage as is and as it has always been. Throw them on the outside demanding massive change to a system that has served all of humanity across the globe through all of history well. Make them the outsiders and don’t start out on the defensive.