By Sheldon Kinsel
The
impact of Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage last
May continues to reverberate across the political landscape
in the
It has focused support in Congress for a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as few other events could have done. Both the Senate and House leadership scheduled votes to test support for an amendment and put senators and congressmen on record on the issue, a major step forward in the campaign to amend the Constitution.
The Senate fell short on a vote to overcome a procedural obstacle and never voted directly on an amendment. While a solid majority in the House of Representatives did vote for an amendment, it fell 63 votes short of the required two thirds majority to send it to the Senate. As a result of these votes, however, same-sex marriage and support for a constitutional amendment have become more significant campaign issues in a number of House and Senate races across the country.
In a strong warning to activist federal judges, the House also passed a “jurisdiction stripping” bill by a comfortable majority to remove the authority of the federal courts to rule on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While no consideration is expected by the Senate in this Congress, the House action is the first time either body has exercised Congress’ constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts on a substantive issue.
President Bush’s support for a marriage amendment, and Senator Kerry’s opposition, have made same sex marriage a “second tier” issue in the presidential race as well. It has come up in several of the debates and President Bush has made his support for traditional marriage and a constitutional amendment a frequent element in his standard stump speech.
Nowhere has the political impact of the Massachusetts’ court decision had more impact than at the state level, however. Additional states have now enacted “defense of marriage acts” specifically defining marriage as only the union of a man and a woman, bringing that total number with these laws to thirty nine. Efforts to put marriage constitutional amendments on state ballots were undertaken in nearly two dozen states. Thirteen have been successful.
Two
states, Missouri and Louisiana, passed their constitutional
amendments in primary elections by 71% and 78% respectively.
Amendments are on the November ballots in Arkansas,
Some of these amendments, such as the one passed in Missouri, are simple definitions of marriage. Most, like the one adopted by Louisiana voters, are so-called “two-part amendments” which in addition to defining marriage prohibit the state from recognizing alternative “marriage-like” arrangements for same-sex couples such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships.”
The campaigns to pass these amendments are educating millions of Americans in these amendment states and across the country about the dangers posed to traditional marriage and the family by the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. Not only will amendments to these state constitutions prevent activist state judges to imposing same sex marriage or alternative same-sex arrangements such as they did in Massachusetts and Vermont, adopting these amendments also helps build momentum for passing the federal constitutional amendment.
Homosexual activist and their allies recognize the legal and political significance of these amendments and have committed millions of dollars to defeating as many of them as they can. In a number of states they challenged the amendments in court in an effort to keep them off the ballots.
In all these states, they are waging dishonest and deceptive campaigns in an effort to confuse and frighten voters. This is particularly true in two-part amendment states where opponents commonly claim that the amendment’s second part will also impact heterosexual relationships, common law marriages, hospital visitation privileges, private employer benefit plans and other impacts well beyond prohibiting marriage-like alternatives. While even simple legal analysis easily refutes these objections, voters in a number of states are being deluged with this misinformation in slick and extensive media campaigns.
Here is a state-by-state rundown of the status of these state constitutional amendments a week before the election.
Measures passed so far:
Missouri—The first political test of same-sex marriage sentiment among voters since Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage came when Missouri voters adopted a simple amendment defining marriage by a 71% margin in the state’s August Primary. Amendment supporters racked up this impressive margin despite being outspent 22 to1 by opponents of the amendment.
Louisiana—The state’s two-part amendment first survived a court challenge by opponents and voters passed it by a 78% margin in the September Primary. Opponents then immediately filed suit charging that the amendment dealt with two issues, prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil union type arrangements, in violation of the state constitution. A lower court judge agreed and declared the amendment unconstitutional. His decision is being appealed.
Prospects in the eleven remaining “marriage battleground states:”
Arkansas—A poll in early October found that 80% of Arkansans support the constitutional marriage amendment, Amendment 3. Seems certain to pass.
Georgia—A recent poll shows 60% support for Georgia’s marriage amendment, Amendment 1 is on the ballot. However, a lawsuit to prohibit counting the votes on the amendment was to be heard by the Georgia Supreme Court on October 26th. If the amendment is actually voted on, it is likely to pass.
Kentucky—The state’s two part constitutional amendment has 3:1 support among Kentuckians. Seems certain to pass.
Michigan—A Gallup Poll in early September showed only 51% support for the Michigan amendment, Amendment 2, but a poll in late September showed support at 61% compared to 33% opposed and only 6% of voters undecided. Passage is likely but the state is the secondary target of homosexual activists and the margin of support is expected to narrow before Election Day.
Mississippi—Voters oppose same-sex marriage by a margin of about 4 to 1 and the amendment seems certain to pass.
Montana—The latest poll in the state puts the amendment ahead by just under 2 to1 at 61% to 32% with only 7% undecided. Passage seems likely.
North Dakota—North Dakota’s two part amendment, with wording identical to Utah’s, is expected to pass handily.
Ohio—Despite protracted litigation by opponents to keep the amendment off the ballot, Ohioans will vote on Issue 1 on Election Day. Recent polls show a wide spread in the level of support for the amendment, with several of the most widely respected polls showing support in the low 60% range, with less than 10% of the voters still undecided. Other polls, however, show levels of support and opposition almost even and within the polls’ margins of error.
Prospects for passage are made more uncertain because the state’s governor, attorney general and two U.S. Senators oppose the amendment. Also making it more difficult to guage the prospect for passage is the uncertain impact of the massive voter registration drives conducted by the two presidential campaigns in this key battleground state. More than 800,000 new voters have been registered and the fate of Issue 1, as with the presidency itself, may well rest on which campaign is more successful in getting these voters to the polls. All in all, however, passage seems likely.
Oklahoma—After surviving a court challenge contending that it covers two issues in one amendment in violation of the state’s constitution, polls show the marriage amendment, State Question 711, is supported by voters by better than a 3 to one margin. Passage seems certain.
Oregon—The latest opinion poll shows support for Oregon’s simple marriage definition amendment, Amendment 36, at only 51% to 40% opposed and 8% undecided. As a result, Oregon is the state where homosexual activists and their allies think they have the best chance of defeating a state marriage amendment. Out-of-state money is pouring in to defeat the amendment. Just one national homosexual group has already pumped $500,000 into the opposition campaign.
Amendment supporters in the state have been energized by the actions of Multnomah County (Portland) Commissioners who decided in a secret meeting last spring to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples. More than 3,000 marriage ceremonies were performed before a judge ruled that the county was acting illegally (but, astonishingly, also ruled that the state had to recognize these marriages as valid anyway!). Organizers gathered a record number of petition signatures in about five weeks in an all volunteer effort to put the petition on the ballot. The chance of passage is uncertain.
Utah—Polls show support for Utah’s two-part marriage amendment, Amendment 3, in the low 60% range. Homosexual activists and their allies in the state are waging an aggressive, well-financed and particularly deceptive and dishonest campaign against the second part of the amendment, however.
Complicating the efforts to pass the amendment has been the opposition of the Utah Attorney General. In an unusual political move, he and his two challengers in the upcoming election signed a joint statement opposing the amendment that was drafted by the amendment opposition group. Legal analysis done by highly respected law professors has thoroughly debunked the concerns and objections raised by the Attorney General (as well as other concerns cited by the opposition group) and the Attorney General has refused to defend his opposition to the amendment in a debate with amendment proponents.
Last week, the First Presidency The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement that endorsed constitutional amendments such as Utah’s that also prohibit same-sex alternative arrangements such as civil unions. In a state where 70% of residents are LDS, the church’s statement will carry tremendous weight in solidifying support for the amendment. Passage seems likely.