Posted on 06/06/2006 4:48:33 PM PDT by DBeers
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (BP)--Alabama citizens, going to the polls today, may make the state the 20th in the nation to pass a constitutional amendment protecting the natural definition of marriage.
The ballot issue, known as Amendment 1, would prevent Alabama state courts from redefining marriage. Since 2003, judges in five states have ruled for "gay marriage," and none of the states had marriage amendments.
Alabama's amendment states, in part, that marriage is "inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman." It also prohibits marriage licenses being given to "parties of the same sex."
Not surprisingly, many of the state's largest newspapers, including the Birmingham News and the Montgomery Advertiser, have written editorials opposing the amendment. Texas -- which adopted a marriage amendment last summer -- also saw newspaper editorials opposing its amendment.
But, so far, voters have paid little attention to media editorials. The 19 amendments that have been adopted have passed with an average approval of 71 percent of the vote.
Alabama already has a law banning "gay marriage," although laws -- unlike constitutional amendment -- can be overturned in state court.
At least six other states are scheduled to vote on amendments this year. Although Massachusetts remains the only state to recognize "gay marriage," homosexual activists are hopeful that a second state will join that list soon. Supreme courts in New Jersey, New York and Washington state are considering "gay marriage" suits.
Not surprisingly, many of the state's largest newspapers, including the Birmingham News and the Montgomery Advertiser, have written editorials opposing the amendment. Texas -- which adopted a marriage amendment last summer -- also saw newspaper editorials opposing its amendment.
But, so far, voters have paid little attention to media editorials. The 19 amendments that have been adopted have passed with an average approval of 71 percent of the vote.
Too bad the liberal Senators debating the FMA do not listen to their constituents and instead listen to the academic elite, critical thinking, morally devoid, evolving standards of decency, and judicially empowered homosexologists...
Which of these liberal Senators up for re-election is vulnerable?
I don't suppose they could ban marriages involving illegal aliens first?
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.