Voters in California, Florida and Arizona approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on Nov. 4th.
While traditional marriage advocates hailed the approval of the gay marriage bans in the three states, that was tempered by the legalization of same-sex marriage in Connecticut just eight days later.
In California, 52 percent of voters favored Proposition 8. Sixty-two percent of Florida voters approved Amendment Two, while in Arizona, Proposition 102 was passed by 56 percent of the voters.
A total of 30 states now ban same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
Connecticut last month joined Massachusetts in legalizing gay marriage. Same-sex marriage had been allowed in California earlier this year, under a State Supreme Court ruling. However, Californians' approval of Prop 8 negated that ruling just six months later.
The marriage status of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who married in California will likely be decided by the courts. For now, they remain legal. Also, a handful of lawsuits challenging the legality of Prop 8 were filed in the wake of its passage. The prevailing issue is whether a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage can go before voters, or must it go to the legislature first?
The Alliance Defense Fund said the success of the gay marriage bans in the three states "demonstrates that voters want to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
ADF Senior Legal Counsel, Brian Raum, continued, "These results provide even more evidence that the simple and timeless value of marriage unites people of all ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds.
The principles of marriage transcend the personalities of the campaign. Voters do not want the will of the people thwarted by courts or legislatures that listen more to political special interests than they do to them. ADF will continue its work to defend marriage in all 50 states," Raum said.
Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins, said on the issue of same-sex marriage, "democracy has spoken."
"From every corner of California, Florida and Arizona, voters proved that marriage crosses demographic lines–even party lines, in some cases. The attachment to marriage and its meaning is deeply rooted in the African-American, Latino, Asian and white communities," Perkins said.
Dr. Janice Crouse, director and senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, "These victories for traditional marriage resulted from heroic efforts by pro-marriage leaders across the nation. Their efforts were, in many respects, similar to David going up against Goliath. The homosexual activists launched unprecedented public relations efforts, and they were supported by the media, who gave them positive coverage. In California, voters reversed the decision of their State Supreme Court decision last May to make same-sex ‘marriage' legal in California. Arizona came back to support marriage after falling short in a previous effort two years ago. All of these efforts in support of same-sex ‘marriage' were nothing, though, when they were up against the prayers of thousands of Christians across America who fasted and prayed that our nation would protect marriage as the foundation for the family. These believers recognize that married couples who form strong families and nurture children in solid values are a bulwark against those forces that undermine American culture.
The decisions in Florida, Arizona and California are affirmations of the sacred nature of marriage and indicate wide public support for conservative values across the board. These decisions also reflect the continued influence of the ‘value voters,'" Crouse said.
Institute on Religion and Democracy President, James Tonkowich, commented, "We see once again, when traditional marriage is put to the people, they will support traditional marriage. Americans across this nation are taking their voice to the ballot box to rein-in activist judges whose actions have undercut democracy, the will of the people, and marriage, our most basic social institution. This is not a ‘red state' or ‘blue state' issue. The three states were in different parts of the country and went for different candidates by widely-varying margins."
The ballot initiative with the biggest implications was California, where gay marriage had been legal for six months.
A major proponent of Prop 8 was Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families.
"Marriage licenses can now only go to whom they were originally intended–a man and a woman, a bride and a groom. The people of California have successfully overruled the judges and politicians, and restored marriage licenses to a man and a woman. Now the false marriages done this summer must be declared null and void. California law now says, the only valid or recognized marriage ‘is' between a man and a woman, ‘regardless of when or where peformed.' It is time for all Californians to respect the new marriage law, which has restored an age-old institution, whether they voted for or against Prop 8," Thomasson stated.
Among those who are challenging Prop 8's passage is the American Civil Liberties Union.
ACLU staff attorney, Elizabeth Gill, said, "A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution."
Likewise, Jenny Pizer, a staff lawyer with Lambda Legal, noted, "If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw–it removes a protected constitutional right–here, the right to marry–not from all Californians, but just from one group of us. That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."
Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said, "The continuing movement in public opinion underscores that it is only a matter of time before we undo this loss and add more states to the march for marriage equality. This is not over. In California, our legal rights have been lost, but our human rights endure, and we will continue to fight for them."
Since Proposition 8's passage, there have been a series of protests against churches, small businesses and individual supporters of traditional marriage in California and nearby states, in addition to incidents of vandalism, boycotts of some merchants and possibly related mailings of envelopes filled with white powder, primarily targeting the Mormon Church.
Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, said, "Tragically, some opponents of Prop 8, who claim to cherish tolerance and civil rights, are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others. No matter your opinion on Proposition 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate and harass churches, businesses and individuals for participating in the democratic process. We call on our government leaders to urge all citizens to respect the rights of everyone to express their views on marriage without fear of reprisal and recrimination."
Traditional Values Coalition Chairman, the Rev. Louis Sheldon, stated, "Christians didn't storm the offices of PG&E or Apple for their role in donating thousands of dollars to defeat Proposition 8. We can't forget that a ballot measure isn't a partisan issue. Churches may be involved in supporting issues that are related to their doctrines–especially the sacrament of marriage."
The brunt of the backlash has been directed at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which called on members to support Prop 8. Frank Schubert, campaign manager for the initiative, said members of the Mormon Church provided $15 million to $20 million of the estimated $40 million dollars raised to support the effort.
Michael Otterson, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City-based denomination, said, "It's very clear that we've been singled out."
"We're talking about 750-thousand Californians who are Latter-day Saints. These are California families. They are registered voters. They have the right and the obligation to express themselves on a major social issue. To imply that there was an attempt to manipulate the election from outside the state is bizarre and absolutely ridiculous.
Church members have a right to speak, they have a right to vote -- and to do so without this kind of reaction and without this kind of intimidation," Otterson stated.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-to-3 on October 10th that gay couples have the right to marry, rather than accept a civil union law which had been in place since 2005, designed to give them the same rights as wedded couples.
However, Connecticut voters subsequently rejected the idea of a constitutional convention to amend the state's constitution on the November ballot.
Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, a group which opposes gay marriage, said, "Unlike California, we did not have a remedy. It must be overturned with patience, determination and fortitude."
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family, reflected on the gay marriage initiatives in California, Florida and Arizona.
"Why were these amendments necessary," given that "the vast majority of states already had statutes defining marriage in the traditional way?"
"The answer is, as it has always been, the danger posed by arrogant judges who see themselves as above the law–indeed, creators of the law. It took only four judges in Massachusetts, four in California and four in Connecticut to brush aside state marriage statues by ‘discovering' a new constitutional ‘right' to same-sex ‘marriage' hidden between the lines of their state constitutions. Judges can trump statutes, but constitutional amendments trump judges. When judges attempt to rewrite constitutions, they cross the line that separates the judicial function from the Legislative function, and violate their oaths of office in the process," Hausknecht said.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]