Skip to comments.Nine More States Promise Constitutional Gay "Marriage" Ban
Posted on 11/15/2004 5:14:03 AM PST by DBeers
Nine More States Promise Constitutional Gay "Marriage" Ban
WASHINGTON, November 9, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Nine more US states have pledged the introduction of constitutional amendments to ban same-sex "marriage."
Legislators in the states of Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina and Washington have promised to introduce amendments in the coming weeks, while Texas and Virginia representatives have begun the process with "pre-filed" constitutional amendments.
Massachusetts, Tennessee and Wisconsin amendments have already passed a first vote and require one additional vote in either of the legislative assemblies, before going to voters for final approval.
The overwhelming success of marriage amendments in all 11 states that proffered them November 2, "will encourage legislators in other states to follow suit," Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Glen Lavy said. The approval of traditional marriage as typified by the vote last week "was an overwhelming endorsement of the idea that marriage is what it always has been - [the union of] a man and a woman," Lavy said, as reported by The Washington Times.
The success of the amendment vote last week should give lawmakers "some confidence that this is an issue that the American people are behind and are willing to support," Institute for Marriage and Public Policy in Washington legal analyst Joshua Baker said.
Constitutional amendments banning same-sex "marriage" have already passed in 17 states, including: Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska, Missouri, Louisiana and Nevada. Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all passed their amendments November 2.
Canadian Conservative MP Rob Moore introduced a private member's bill Friday, allowing Parliamentarians the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage for Canada.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage: Voters in 11 States Ban Homosexual "Marriage" Despite Massive Media Bias http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04110304.html Canadian Conservative MP Introduces Bill on Definition of Marriage http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04110806.html
They should get on the ballot in 2006. Which presents a dilemma for the Democrats: do they want to offend their gay backers or side with the folks who have the votes in flyover country? Its going to be an interesting two years.
But some of those are BLUE states....
Yep. It passed even in liberal Orgeon. Something to make Blue State Dems pause.
Political canabalism anyone? This should be entertaining.
I don't think there is a state in the Union where gay marriage would pass on a ballot initiative. Many would pass a "marriage-lite" domestic partnership initiative, however.
There is something to be said about being able to secretly "speak your mind" in a voting booth. Political correctness can not influence you in there.
This is why we Canadians have had this shoved down our throats. Our esteemed (lowly) former prime-minister declared loudly that the majority of people should not be able to decide what is best for a minority. He knew what we would have voted, given the chance.
No, the majority of the people should never decide a matter of such importance. A few ultra-liberal politicians and judges should do that. Right.
That could help usher in more Republicans into office. :) Maybe we could get those extra seats we need to prevent a filibuser.
Good point - "gay marriage" would not pass anywhere. Creating a new social institution - "domestic partnership" - and which types of relationships it would cover is a whole other kettle of fish; people will have to debate it and decide.
I agree that the Democrats have their problems. Either go with their liberal instincts and lose, or try to hide them and appear insincere (and also lose). I do worry, though, that the Republicans need to be careful as well. I keep hearing about Guiliani as a Presidential candidate. I admire him a great deal, but NO "pro-choice," pro "gay rights," pro-gun control candidate will ever get the Republican nomination. Or if such a person did, it would open the door wide for a third-party on the right or many conservatives just staying home. The Democrats can still win if the conservatives split the vote.
This may be splitting hairs, but I note the ever-increasing whine from the Left is that these referendums were "bans!" and get the sense that they feel like some inalienable right was snatched away from them, just as they were about to achieve it.
The interesting thing is that in practically every state, blue or red, it passed by a greater margin than people who voted for President Bush. Now I'm no math whiz, but that tells me that a percentage of DEMOCRATS are responsible for the passage of the ban, not just the "intolerant, homophobic, Jesusland" people they've been whining about for the last couple of weeks. THAT is the statistic that should give the DNC serious pause.
" Problem in MA is that it probably [will] not make it through the legislature..."
Also the Massachusetts amendment allows for so-called civil unions, so what the heck---anyone will be able to play house and collect benefits. And I suppose adopt and raise children.
Probably right. Remember the English Immersion vote?
memo to gays: have you looked at canada?
The Lord may keep His hedge about America for a while longer. His Spirit is surely at work. Now, we need our consciences pricked about abortion.
If such an amendment passes in Mass., the libs may as well give up.
Isn't that funny how so many things today are being embrassed as their "right." So many things are being touted as "their right." But, I wish someone would point out to me where it says so in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is a holy blessing from God, which has been overtaken by the Law. The Law could say that homosexuals are married but it would NOT be blessed by God.
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.