(Updated 11:21 a.m. EDT, Oct. 22, 2008)
In the wake of Connecticut’s Oct. 10 high court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, voters in three states will decide in November whether to roll back or prevent a similar ruling by defining marriage in their state constitutions as a union between a man and a woman. In Connecticut, a ballot proposal to rewrite the state charter has become a platform to reverse the high court’s ruling.
On Election Day, Arizona voters will be asked for the second time in two years whether they want to prohibit gay marriage, and Floridians will decide whether to ban not just same-sex marriage but also unions such as domestic partnerships that are “treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent.” So far, supporters of the proposed marriage amendments in the two states outnumber opponents.
In California, meanwhile, a majority of voters say they plan to vote against their ballot measure that would override the state Supreme Court’s historic decision in May legalizing gay marriage, according to
according to a Sept. 18 poll by California survey research firm, The Field Poll. If approved, the measure would rescind gay couples’ newly won right to marry and prevent any future liberalization of traditional marriage laws without voter approval. (An Oct. 17
poll by Survey USA, which a 4 percent margin of error, found 48 percent who favored the ban and 45 percent who opposed it. But the research firm cautioned that the three point difference is "not necessarily statistically significant.")
In Connecticut, a recent poll indicates a majority of residents say they favor the state Supreme Court’s decision.
Campaigns for and against the measures have been hard-fought and well-funded in all four states, but California, traditionally a bellwether for social change and the most populous state, is considered by advocates as the prize.
The lead group supporting the California proposal —
Protect Marriage.com — has raised $25.4 million, while opponents, led by
Equality California, have raised only $15.8 million, according to a report filed with the state Oct. 6. In the last weeks of the campaign, money is reportedly pouring in on both sides to pay for a last-minute media blitz.
For gay rights advocates, approval of the measure would be a serious setback — marking the first time a state would recognize marriage equality for same-sex couples and then remove those rights, said Chris Edelson, state legislative director for the
Human Rights Campaign. “But if it’s defeated, it will be an incredibly energizing victory.”
In 2000, 61 percent of Californian's voted in favor of a measure,
Proposition 22, that created a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman
. The state Supreme Court overturned that law in May this year. If voters in November reject a new ban on gay marriage -- one that would cement the restriction by making it part of the state constitution -- it would mark a major shift in California politics.
Gay marriage foes caution that such a loss in California could open the floodgates for liberalized marriage laws in the other 49 states.
Also at stake in California, is the legal status of more than 11,000 marriages — many from out-of-state. Although Attorney General Jerry Brown has said the passage of Proposition 8 would not invalidate those marriage licenses, gay rights advocates say they are not sure his opinion would withstand a court challenge.
Less than a year after Massachusetts’ high court became the first to rule that same-sex marriage was a guaranteed civil right on Nov. 13, 2003, voters in 13 states — Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah — rushed to the polls to enact constitutional bans that would prevent similar judgments.
By the end of the 2006 election cycle, ten more states — Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin — had approved similar bans, while voters in Arizona became the first to reject the proposal. Four states already had constitutional gay marriage bans before 2003, bringing the current total to 27 states with constitutional prohibitions against same-sex marriage.
Like Florida’s broad proposed amendment, 17 other states have constitutional bans that reach beyond marriage to civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Forty-two states — including California and Connecticut — enacted statutes banning gay marriage, but all are subject to judicial interpretation. This year, California and Connecticut courts overturned their state bans, reducing the number to 40.
In Arizona, voters rejected a proposed marriage amendment two years ago, in part because senior citizens feared it would affect their own domestic partnerships. This time, the proposal, called Proposition 102, does not extend to so-called marriage equivalents. A September
poll by Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism indicates 49 percent of voters say they approve of the amendment and 40 percent plan to vote against it.
Florida voters also are split over the marriage proposal with 55 percent favoring Amendment 2 and 41 percent opposed, according to a September
poll by Quinnipiac University. Although supporters have a healthy 14-point lead, Florida, unlike most other states, requires at least 60 percent voter approval to pass a ballot measure.
Connecticut’s Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell has said she disagrees with the high court’s ruling legalizing marriage, but says she’s “firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success.” She does, however, support the proposal to hold a constitutional convention, which would be the first in four decades.
See Related Stories:
By Ivan Erickson on Oct 24, 2008 5:25:58 AM
Extract from: Part Two: âDiscourse on Gay and Lesbian Marriagesâ?, by Ivan Erickson, author of the spiritual novel, âSong of the Storm Windsâ?: http://www.ivan-erickson.com
Please be aware that I love all people of all faiths and ethnicities whom God loves, and it is for this reason that I toil continuously to bring His Truth and Light to all who have ears to hear with and eyes to see with:
âThe âapprovalâ? of the sinfulness of man is also being displayed in a brazen manner in other areas of modern life. Teachers in the classrooms and other misdirected poor souls, such as some TV celebrities and hosts, go out of their way to teach and demonstrate to children and others that homosexuality is âacceptableâ? to God and man, or worse, that it is not sinful. Some churches and their hierarchy and clergy preach in front of God and man that homosexuality is permissible â that it is not a sin. Judges and other lawmakers are enacting laws that allow gays or lesbians to live together as a man and wife do; to have the same tax advantages and other benefits as married couples do; to allow them to âwedâ? one another; and to allow them to adopt children, or to act as surrogate mothers, in some cases. Do you not yet realize, all of you who are sinning in these manners, that you must not enact laws, condone, or be a party to sinfulness? Man must not attempt to supersede or countermand the Commandments, mandates, laws, decrees or jurisdiction of God, you must understand! Should you attempt to bless in âmarriageâ? that which God abhors? And you are doing this by the acts that many of you are committing, that allow either yourselves or others to sin â whether it be in matters of homosexuality, pedophilia, child abuse, lowering the age that children are âlegallyâ? allowed to commit sexual acts out of wedlock, âlegalizingâ? divorce, as well as in other areas of modern life in which man is brazenly telling God that our laws take precedence over His!
The fate of those of you who commit these acts, or allow or enact laws whereby others may commit these acts, will be more lamentable than the hapless ant that sits atop its anthill with tiny âfistâ? upraised, in defiance to the approaching bulldozerâ?!
May the Beloved Lord bless each of you in all things, always.
Report as Offensive
Marriage is religious
By G Z on Oct 22, 2008 12:41:48 PM
Marriage is religious, civil unions (AKA marriage) is not. Same sex unions why not also call them civil unions - not Marriage. I think its the rights allowed by civil unions that same sex couples are really striving for. Same sex unions are not recognized by any religious institutions that I am aware of...so are you really trying to just have civil unions? or are you trying to redefine religion.
Put it this way, I don't impose on who you are willing to share the rest of your life with...and have a family with (which by the way...by nature, you cannot do without opposite sex included), why impose on my religious belief of the right to marry? We as religious people also have to register as civil union to be recognized by the state. Leave Marriage alone, strive for civil union.
Marriage is religious...join a religion who embraces same sex unions and register your union there...just as everyone else. Otherwise, call it what you really should...a civil union. Just like religious marriage, it is not valid in the state unless it is registered as a civil union. I know, I had to do both.
May God Bless all of us. We really need it!
Report as Offensive