Marriage Wins (this is NOT a Vanity!)

With the important exception of Arizona, 2006 was an excellent election for those who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Amendments defining marriage as a man-woman union passed in seven out of eight states (Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Colorado, South Dakota, and Idaho) by an average vote of 61 percent. The narrow loss in Arizona was not because voters favored gay marriage, but because of a successful campaign against the measure’s ban on domestic partner benefits.

The Arizona result might seem to indicate that voters favor domestic partner benefits, yet even here the message was mixed. Colorado, for example, not only passed a marriage amendment, but also defeated a separate measure creating domestic partnership benefits. And several other state amendments that included civil-union/domestic-partnership bans also passed. Wisconsin, for example, had a measure much like Arizona’s. Yet the amendment passed comfortably in this fairly liberal state, even in the face of a huge effort by same-sex-marriage supporters. So voters everywhere still see marriage as the union of a man and a woman. They are more closely divided on the matter of civil unions and domestic partnerships, yet lean against these as well.

No doubt we’ll see more state votes on marriage amendments in 2008, and perhaps a measure introduced in Arizona stating the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, while not dealing with domestic partnerships. (For ongoing coverage of the state-amendment battles, the best source is Maggie Gallagher’s marriagedebate.com blog.)

There are still plenty of ways for the marriage issue to explode into a multi-state crisis. All it would take is for one state to adopt full same-sex marriage — especially if that state has no law comparable to the Massachusetts statute that prohibits couples from marrying there if their union would be illegal in their home state. A full-fledged gay-marriage state, without a Massachusetts-style statute on out-of-state unions, would create a national Mecca for same-sex marriage, and would likely launch a series of lawsuits in other states. That could speed up the legal path to a big decision by the U. S. Supreme Court.

There is now a good case to be made that turning to liberal courts to make an end-run around the legislative process was a serious strategic error for supporters of same-sex marriage. More than half of the states now have marriage amendments in place, and that number seems likely to grow.

Nonetheless, if we someday see a legal challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, there is a very real possibility that the Supreme Court could impose same-sex marriage on the nation as a whole, despite the passage of these state-level amendments. That is why we need a federal marriage amendment. In the meantime, the passage of these state amendments has the effect of narrowing the potential range of same-sex marriage to an ever smaller circle of jurisdictions. So while, in the absence of a national amendment, the gay marriage movement’s legal strategy has a real prospect of ultimate success, it has backfired badly in the meantime.

Hold on folks.....check this out:

From: Jeff & Rennie
Date: 11/08/06 12:36:44
Subject: Unnoticed Election Day Story

Wednesday, November 8, 2006

The unnoticed Election Day story

Posted: November 8, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

© 2006
Forget yesterday's elections for a moment – just a moment.

There are plenty of pundits and would-be pundits offering analysis of the results today – and it will be spewing forth for weeks and months.

But a huge story broke yesterday that got almost no attention because it was overshadowed by stories of people going to the polls voting. In fact, I would dare say that this story could have more impact on our lives in America in the next 20 years than the results of yesterday's midterm congressional elections.

I'm talking about news of an imminent action by the New York City Board of Health to permit people born in the city to change the sex recorded on their birth certificates and, thus, change their legal sexual identity.

(Column continues below)

Think about the implications of this move.

At first blush it may not sound so momentous:

It's just New York City;

It's just for people born there.
But, if that's your reaction, you miss the point.

Boards of health have not historically been considered political agencies subject to lobbying pressures by activist groups. But this action is very much the result of such lobbying activity by a small but determined group of "transgendereds" and wannabe "transgendereds."

Let's face it: There's no good health reason for such an action even to be considered.

Since boards of health are unelected and relatively unaccountable bodies, they can take actions like this without suffering political fallout – just like unaccountable judges.

Surely everyone can see how this action can bring to a screeching halt all of the political debate taking place across the country over same-sex marriage. Because if all Person X has to do to marry Person Y is make a cosmetic change on his or her birth certificate, than all the constitutional amendments in the world can't save the institution of marriage.

And, fundamentally, I think that is the real intent behind this move.

This is the way the manipulative "social engineers" operate. They know they can't win an election. They know they can't win an honest and open debate on their issues. So they force their will upon the people – whether it is through a judge's ruling or an action of an unaccountable bureaucracy that can say its political decision was made for "health reasons."

Now imagine the next domino falling. Will it be Los Angeles? Will it be San Francisco? Will it be the whole state of California? Or will Massachusetts beat the Golden State to the slap?

Do you see why this overlooked local story may someday overshadow in impact all of the millions of votes cast in yesterday's election?

This is why I've been telling Americans for years and years that they focus too much attention on elections and too little attention on other ways our nation's political and social and cultural agenda is being set, often in spite ofthe way Americans vote.

Think about this sexual identity story. Beginning next month, people born in New York will be able to change historical records – permanently. People who were born girls will be able to say they were actually born boys. People who were actually born boys will be able to say they were born girls.

Since when does lying have anything to do with health? Don't ask me. But that's the story from New York – and I believe it could have profound ramifications for the nation.

Don't worry about how states voted on marriage amendments yesterday. The debate is over – because sexual identity just became as simple to change as a stroke of the pen.

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.