NEWS
States deny marriage
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
Related Stories:
- Marriage debate rages on (March 30, 2005)
- Same-sex marriage ban clears state Senate (March 22, 2004)
- Marriage bill passes Senate (November 7, 2003)
- Marriage referendum spurs statewide ethics feud (August 8, 2006)
- Showdown brewing over gay marriage in California (February 23, 2004)
Share This:
by Ryan Masse
Friday, November 5, 2004
Whether they painted their state Democrat blue or Republican red, voters in 11 states agreed on one thing Tuesday: marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.
Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, Mississippi, Montana, Georgia, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Arkansas all approved statewide bans on gay marriage in the election, with most passing by comfortable margins. Several of the states also passed bans prohibiting civil unions between gay couples.
For opponents of gay marriage, the results meant a sweep, as every ban up for vote passed. It also represented a turn in fortune after a federal amendment limiting marriage to a man and woman failed to generate momentum in Congress earlier this year.
Proponents of allowing gay marriage, meanwhile, reacted with surprise and dismay to the outcome in the 11 states.
“In 15 years, voters in those states are going to be embarrassed of themselves,” Eric Trekell, director of the University of Wisconsin LGBT Campus Center, said.
Wisconsin may be next in line, as a proposed amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman passed through the legislature by a sizable margin last session.
The amendment would again have to be approved by both chambers next session before going to a statewide referendum, which may come as soon as April 2005. A majority of voters would then need to approve the measure to change the Constitution.
Steve Baas, spokesman for Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo, said the amendment will be a priority when the legislature returns to session in January.
“We haven’t set the calendar yet, and we’ll have to talk to our partners in the Senate, but it is something we are going to do,” Baas said. “We’re overwhelmingly confident it will happen.”
Whether or not the referendum will appear in April is uncertain, Baas said. The legislature may instead wait so it appears on the ballot during an election with higher voter turnout.
Gay rights groups like Action Wisconsin are already engaged in voter outreach activities aimed at preventing the amendment from becoming law. Trekell said he hoped these efforts would help Wisconsin avoid the same fate as the 11 states Tuesday.
“There’s probably a better chance of defeating it in Wisconsin,” Trekell said, adding he was surprised by the ban’s passage in Oregon. “We have the advantage of a little more time and the fact there will be a great deal more attention on Wisconsin.”
Baas defended the amendment as the right way to define what marriage legally is in the state, saying activist judges in other states have prompted the legislature to take action.
“I think the reason driving this is Wisconsin is similar to those in other states,” Baas said. “The voters of this state should decide the definition [of marriage] in a public election instead of an individual judge behind closed doors in secret.”
Anonymous (November 5, 2004 @ 10:18am):
Hooray, bigotry wins again...
Homosexuals are icky, yeah "family values!"
God knows all good families have a mom and a dad, and that gays getting married is a much larger threat than divorce.
Maybe we can pass legislation so we can round them all up and put them in camps so we never have to deal with them. We can even put arabs, and other minorities in there too. That way all the straight religious white people can go on thinking that God only wants them to be treated fairly.
Anonymous (November 5, 2004 @ 12:40pm):
Where do we sign up for that?
Anonymous (November 5, 2004 @ 11:11pm):
Meanwhile, over at Andrew Sullivan's an emailer crunches the numbers on states with anti-gay-marriage initiatives and states without them, and concludes: "On the contrary, there is no evidence that suggests that the strategy of putting the anti-marriage initiatives on the ballot in several states did anything to improve Bush's performance in those states."
Sullivan's posted the numbers, which are quite interesting. This is the kind of analysis we ought to be getting from Big Media.
http://instapundit.com/archives/019070.php
Anonymous (November 6, 2004 @ 9:24am):
I'm just a little bit confused - if someone come explain it to me, how can polititians justify a ban on gay marriage without violating the separation of church and state? How is there a justification of denying a certain group of people a legal right and state without bringing in religious values?
I honestly do not understand so if someone could clear that up for me, that would be great.
