Print Edition: Feb. 22, 2015
Sign-up for our E-letter!
To: (Multiple email addresses may be specified by separating them with a comma)
California’s high court decision on homosexual “marriage” is only one of a number of battles raging in other states.
BY TOM MCFEELY
WASHINGTON — Defenders of traditional marriage say last month’s California Supreme Court
decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” is both a crisis and an opportunity.
before the decision was announced, Catholics and other supporters of
traditional marriage had succeeded in placing an initiative on the November
ballot next fall that would overturn the May 15 decision by amending the state
constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
we win this in California, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court
decision, this will send shock waves throughout the country,” said Brian Brown,
executive director of the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage.
of same-sex “marriage” stress that they aren’t downplaying the significance of
the California decision when they predict it will galvanize Americans to reject
the concept decisively at the ballot box.
say that it’s precisely because the decision is so potentially damaging —
because it explicitly equates discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
with race-based discrimination — that it highlights to voters what’s really at
stake in the national marriage debate.
said the California decision has opened the door to challenges of churches’
hiring practices, tax-exempt status and other areas where they have policies
based on their belief that homosexual conduct is immoral.
a nutshell, this decision opens up all sorts of fronts for undermining
religious liberty,” Brown said. “There is no question that the decision has now
made same-sex ‘marriage’ a major issue in the upcoming elections.”
Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said homosexual activists are
currently targeting several states, including Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland,
Connecticut, Iowa and New York, as the next venues where same-sex “marriage”
may be legalized.
he said homosexual activists are delaying their push until after the November
elections because they are fearful of a backlash like that in 2004, when
“values voters” came out in force to vote against candidates who support
Daniels, “Those are all states where the other side has made significant
progress in the past and is poised either in the courts or the legislature or
both to renew their efforts after the election.”
California decision overturned a ban on same-sex “marriage” instituted in 2000
through a referendum called Proposition 22, which defined civil marriage as
between one man and one woman.
whose organization is promoting an amendment to the federal Constitution that
would define marriage as consisting “only of the union of a man and a woman,”
said this confirms that only constitutional amendments can provide the required
protection against activist judges who don’t respect the judgment of voters.
the state level in 2008, California and Florida both have initiatives on their
ballots to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and a drive is
under way to place a similar measure on the ballot in Arizona.
in 25 other states already have voted in favor of initiatives that amended
their state constitutions to define marriage as an exclusively heterosexual
seen victories in virtually every state where voters have had a chance to
express their views democratically,” Daniels said. “Whenever we take it to the
people, we win.”
activists oppose allowing voters to decide whether the federal and state
constitutions should be amended to bar same-sex “marriage.”
Luna, director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said his
organization opposes such initiatives because historically the U.S.
Constitution has been amended only to expand rights, not restrict them.
while he acknowledged voters have generally rejected same-sex “marriage” when
given the chance, Luna attributed this to propaganda employed by “the anti-gay
rejected the argument that homosexuality is a behavior rather than an innate
characteristic like race and therefore not deserving of similar civil rights
person’s sexuality is an innate trait of who they are,” Luna said, “So this is
not a ‘lifestyle’ or a ‘behavior’ or, you know, all of those buzzwords that
anti-gay extremists on the right like to throw out there.”
But according to Pennsylvania psychiatrist Dr.
Richard Fitzgibbons, co-author of the Catholic Medical Association’s handbook
“Homosexuality and Hope,” scientific studies of the incidence of homosexual
behavior among identical twins have proven it is not an inborn characteristic.
research demonstrates very clearly that it is not innate,” he said. “The issue
is not fundamentally one of civil rights because this is something that is not
suggested that in political debates over the definition of marriage, it’s also
important to note that it’s scientifically known that homosexual relationships
are associated with extremely high rates of promiscuity and other damaging
relationships are fundamentally pathological,” he said. “They are radically
different from marriages.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically
disordered” and that “under no circumstances can they be approved” (No. 2357).
the national controversy generated by the California Supreme Court decision,
Human Rights Campaign spokesman Luna insists same-sex “marriage” will have
little influence on the outcome of the 2008 elections.
2004, I think it reached its peak,” said Luna, who called efforts to make it a
key election issue “a political ploy” to deflect voter attention away from
other issues like gas prices and health care.
said Luna couldn’t be more wrong — so long as defenders of traditional marriage
do the political legwork required to ensure the issue remains prominent in the
minds of voters.
states where a constitutional ballot is going to be on the ballot, especially
in California and Florida, they need to get the word out, they need to
volunteer and they need to donate,” Brown said. “In the other states, people
need to be talking to their legislators. They need to find out who their
legislators are and make clear that they do not support same-sex marriage.”
noted that talking points for discussing the issue with politicians are
available on the National Organization for Marriage’s website,
Brown, “People need to have hope, and they have to get involved because we can
still stop this.”
Tom McFeely is
A Window of Opportunity
HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut has been targeted by the homosexual lobby as one of the
likeliest states to approve same-sex “marriage” in the near future.
state already allows same-sex civil unions, and a lawsuit currently before the
Connecticut Supreme Court could amend state law to include homosexual
because there is no provision in Connecticut for placing a voter initiative on
the November ballot, supporters of traditional marriage can not utilize the
same mechanism that has been used in 25 other states to protect marriage
against judicial or legislative redefinition. But according to Peter Wolfgang,
executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut (ctfamily.org), a
provision of state law provides a window of opportunity for voters to engage
the democratic process to protect the institution of marriage.
every 20 years, the state constitution requires that a question be placed on
the ballot asking Connecticut voters if a constitutional convention should be
providentially, that question will next appear on the ballot on this Election
Day, Nov. 4,” Wolfgang said. “We have no direct initiative law in Connecticut,
so what we want is a ‘Yes’ vote on the constitutional convention and a direct
initiative law to result from the convention.”
said the Family institute of Connecticut has formed a coalition with several
other groups, including the Connecticut Catholic Conference and the Knights of
Columbus, to explore methods of protecting the definition of marriage.
believes that persuading a constitutional convention to approve a direct
initiative law is the best avenue for achieving that goal.
want the same right that some 25 other states have had, which is to vote
directly on defining marriage as between a man and a woman and amending the
state constitution to say that a marriage is between a man and a woman,”
Wolfgang said. “It’s the only way to stop the courts once and for all.”
Copyright © 2015 EWTN News, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction of material from this website without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Accessed from 18.104.22.168