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.”