7 states pass marriage amendments

[ScreamingEagle]

Imagine that. Those Bible-thumping extremists have voted for Biblical law in the majority of states. :halo: Needless to say, little coverage of this in the press.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A majority of states in America now have adopted constitutional marriage amendments.

Seven states passed amendments Nov. 7 protecting the natural definition of marriage, bringing to 27 the number of states nationwide that have adopted amendments aimed at prohibiting "gay marriage." An eighth state, Arizona, seemed to be on the verge of becoming the first one to defeat an amendment, although conservatives there still hoped to see the final count yield a victory.

The seven states passed the amendments with an average of 63.6 percent of the vote, ranging from 52 percent in South Dakota to 80 percent in Tennessee. In Colorado, conservatives celebrated a double victory, watching the amendment win easily while also helping defeat Referendum I, which would have granted same-sex couples many of the legal benefits of marriage. It was a somewhat stunning loss for Referendum I after it led in pre-election polls.

"This shows that, nationwide, Americans still support marriage," Glen Lavy, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told Baptist Press. "They know that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and they're willing to say so by their votes."

A victory in the blue state of Wisconsin may have been the most significant for pro-family groups. It faced stiff opposition in the weeks leading up to the election but passed easily, 59-41 percent. Wisconsin became the third state that voted Democratic in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections to adopt a marriage amendment, joining Michigan and Oregon.

"There are a number of things that are not partisan issues, that we can work with people from any party on, and that's protecting marriage, protecting life, protecting religious freedom," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America and a supporter of the amendments, told Baptist Press.

Tennessee's amendment passed easily despite a high hurdle that all constitutional amendments on the ballot there face. Such amendments must get not only a majority of votes, but also more "yes" votes than half of all the votes cast in the governor's election. Approximately 1,800,000 votes were cast for governor, meaning the amendment needed more than 900,000 votes. On Nov. 7, it garnered more than 1,400,000.

"Perhaps the most encouraging hidden nugget in last night’s results is that 77 percent of 18-29-year-old Tennessee voters voted for the ban on same-sex marriage, confirming social conservative trends among younger voters," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Homosexual activists had hoped to tally a significant victory in Colorado by passing Referendum I, which would have legalized domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Instead, they suffered a significant loss. With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Referendum I was losing, 53-47 percent. In the final two weeks of the campaign, it led in separate polls by four and five points, although support had dipped below 50 percent. A September poll has it leading by 20 points.

"We knew from the outset that if we could just let people know what Referendum I was really about that they'd reject it," Jim Pfaff, a spokesperson for Colorado Family Action, told BP. "... Referendum I would have given all the rights and benefits of spouses to same-sex couples. It would have redefined the terms spouse, family and next of kin in all of Colorado law, making more than 1,000 changes in statutes. That's the message we got out to voters, and Coloradans, once they had an opportunity to hear that, made the right decision."

Lavy said the fact that a majority of states have marriage amendments could impact any future "gay marriage" case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It is significant from a perspective of the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to constitutional questions, because in recent years the court has been saying that the trends in the states are significant for whether something is constitutional," he said.

For instance, in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, the court said that "because most of the states no longer had laws prohibiting same-sex relationships, there was no rational basis for the Texas law," Lavy said.

The growing movement to pass marriage amendments further weakens a key argument by homosexual activists, Lavy said.

"Marriage opponents are always trying to relate this battle to the civil rights battle in the ’60s," he said. "There was never a time that there was a significant number of states with constitutional amendments prohibiting interracial marriage.... By 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia [which overturned interracial marriage bans], only 17 states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. So the consensus was going the other direction."

Arizona's amendment trailed 51-49 percent -- by 32,000 votes -- with 99 percent of the precincts reporting. Conservatives, though, were still holding out hope that enough absentee and outstanding ballots could help make up the difference. Much like a few other states, opponents of Arizona's amendment focused not on the issue of "gay marriage" but on other issues, such as domestic partner benefits. If the amendment fails, conservatives can try again in 2008 by launching another petition drive.

Vote totals for the seven amendments follow: Colorado (56-44 percent), Idaho (63-37), South Carolina (78-22), South Dakota (52-48), Tennessee (80-20), Virginia (57-43) and Wisconsin (59-41).

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=24352

 

[Avatar4321]

And the nation is really going moderate

 

[CharlestonChad]

Sadly, I'm from one of those states and I didn't get to vote against that amendment.

 

[Rico]

Sadly, I'm from one of those states and I didn't get to vote against that amendment.

Ah ain't that a bitch. Don't tell me you're queer and liberal...

 

[CharlestonChad]

Ah ain't that a bitch. Don't tell me you're queer and liberal...

I'm straight and liberal, but I know a couple that could have benefited from not being discriminated against by almost 80% of our voters.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think whats interesting here is Arizona is the First state to oppose the Constitutional Ban on same sex marriage.

It was very close, and im honestly very surprised Arizona is the first state. My question is this because the tides are turning on the gay marriage initiatives or is it because Conservatives didnt show up to the poll.

 

[Kagom]

I'm straight and liberal, but I know a couple that could have benefited from not being discriminated against by almost 80% of our voters.

A good friend of mine in Tennessee literally wept when he heard the amendment was approved. But he kinda expected it.

 

[CharlestonChad]

A good friend of mine in Tennessee literally wept when he heard the amendment was approved. But he kinda expected it.

Yeah, it sucks that people still discriminate.

 

[glockmail]

Ah ain't that a bitch. Don't tell me you're queer and liberal...

Ain't they the same thang?

 

[glockmail]

I'm straight and liberal, but I know a couple that could have benefited from not being discriminated against by almost 80% of our voters.

Its not discrimination when their behaivior is abhorrent to the majority.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Its not discrimination when their behaivior is abhorrent to the majority.

Ok, so then blacks weren't being discriminated against since most [Americans] were white during the civil rights movement.



I have lost much respect for glockmail.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, so then blacks weren't being discriminated against since most were white during the civil rights movement.



I have lost much respect for glockmail.

Your analogy is idiotic and you know it. Homosexuality is a behaviour. Black is not.

 

[manu1959]

Ok, so then blacks weren't being discriminated against since most were white during the civil rights movement.

blacks were white?

 

[CharlestonChad]

Your analogy is idiotic and you know it. Homosexuality is a behaviour. Black is not.

Yeah, b/c one day people someone can just choose to be homosexual. Do you believe being heterosexual is a behavior or a state of being?

 

[CharlestonChad]

blacks were white?

edited so you can understand it

 

[manu1959]

edited so you can understand it

got it ... so explain to me how the plight of black folk is the same as the plight of gay folk?......

 

[CharlestonChad]

got it ... so explain to me how the plight of black folk is the same as the plight of gay folk?......

Blacks had it MUCH worse, no doubt. I'm not saying that gays have it as bad.

There are many similarities in the train of thought that leads to discrimination towards both parties.

-whites justified their racism w/ biblical quotes
-evangicals justified their hatred of gays w/ biblical quotes

the list can go on, but I think you already get the point.

 

[mattskramer]

Its not discrimination when their behaivior is abhorrent to the majority.

People will discriminate for a variety of reasons (good and bad reasons). I discriminated against redheads when I was dating. I prefer brunettes. I discriminate against talkative people. Yes. People discriminate against people when people think that a behavior is abhorrent. Abhorrent is relative. What is very abhorrent to one person might be just a tinny bit abhorrent to another and not at all abhorrent to a third person. Additionally, just because most people think that a behavior is wrong does not mean that the behavior is wrong. Majorities have been wrong about things before. A majority of those who voted in the presidential election of 1992, little more than 42 percent of the popular vote went to Clinton and little more than 37 percent of the popular vote went to Bush. Were the people right in voting for Clinton?

 

[Gunny]

Ok, so then blacks weren't being discriminated against since most [Americans] were white during the civil rights movement.



I have lost much respect for glockmail.

 

[Gunny]

People will discriminate for a variety of reasons (good and bad reasons). I discriminated against redheads when I was dating. I prefer brunettes. I discriminate against talkative people. Yes. People discriminate against people when people think that a behavior is abhorrent. Abhorrent is relative. What is very abhorrent to one person might be just a tinny bit abhorrent to another and not at all abhorrent to a third person. Additionally, just because most people think that a behavior is wrong does not mean that the behavior is wrong. Majorities have been wrong about things before. A majority of those who voted in the presidential election of 1992, little more than 42 percent of the popular vote went to Clinton and little more than 37 percent of the popular vote went to Bush. Were the people right in voting for Clinton?

Enter Mr Relativism and his usual disjointed, bullshit reasoning.