WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Until this year, David Stanghellini often voted Democratic. His family is made up of strong, practicing Catholics with cultural ties to Italy. But voting for a Democrat who took clear positions in favor of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research proved too difficult to stomach.

“I voted for George W. because ‘moral values’ was the most important thing for me,” said Stanghellini, a nurse from White Plains, N.Y. “I think there's a lot of good in the Democratic Party platform, like helping the less fortunate. But I think they miss the key issue in this country: the right to life. If you allow citizens to extinguish the next generation, it's a major problem — especially to legally sanction it. I think the Kerry platform was too liberal.”

Stanghellini was not alone in citing “moral values” as the decisive factor for him in the voting booth. In a poll by Zogby International released Nov. 9, 22% of voters claimed “moral values” was the most important factor for them in the presidential election.

Just what those “moral values” are has been more difficult to quantify, though marriage certainly seems to be one. To some Catholic observers around the country, the high turnout Nov. 2 was the result of two principal forces: fear with regard to national security and the desire to safeguard traditional marriage.

Maria Luisa Rojas, a nanny in New York City opposed President Bush's war in Iraq but voted for him because of “moral values.”

“The moral values important to me are defending the family — meaning man, woman and children,” she said. “I'm opposed to gay marriage and divorce because I believe the family is the most important thing in society. This is more important to me than the economy. If we destroy the family, the essence of society, then a good economic plan will never be able to save it.”

Marriage was not on the ballot in New York, and Sen. John Kerry won the state. But voters in 11 states by wide margins passed referendums to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. And the issue proved to be the determining factor in Bush's re-election, particularly in the swing states.

“What we saw was a democratic tidal wave for marriage,” said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, the main group pushing for a federal amendment that would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. “The only way to describe it was a landslide victory for our cause. The American people are clearly on our side. In the race for the White House, it was very clear: The marriage issue played a decisive role in the election.”

Referendum?

While TV news outlets aired pieces on whether the election was a referendum on moral values, Austin Ruse, president of the Culture of Life Foundation, thought referendum was “too strong a word.”

“The moral values of those who oppose abortion and gay marriage played a big role in this election. Between 20%-25% said it was the most important issue. If 80% had said it, than it would have been a referendum,” Ruse said.

“In the matter of defining marriage, [the state marriage initiatives were] clearly a referendum,” said Archbishop John Myers of Newark, N.J. “Many of us ordinary Americans are concerned with the deterioration of values in public and private life. Was this a watershed? Not with 22%. I'd want much more than that.”

“It's not the whole picture but a substantial part of the picture,” said Robert George, professor of political science at Princeton University. “The meaning of marriage was at stake, and everyone knew it.”

“For the element of the population that cares about the pro-life issue, this election determines the fate of Roe v. Wade,” said George, a member of the president's Council on Bioethics. “With a Bush win, it can be changed. We may see two, three, maybe even four vacancies in the Supreme Court. Plenty of people cared deeply about this election because of the great moral issues of human life and marriage.”

‘Hope Springs Eternal’

Meanwhile, many Catholics who left the Democratic Party because of the abortion issue are asking: Will the party change in response to a perceived rejection of its tooth-and-nail defense of Roe v. Wade?

“I think they are worried within the Democratic Party,” said Kristen Day, head of Democrats for Life. “This election was a big wake-up call. Planned Parenthood and NARAL don't speak for the majority of the American public. A recent CBS poll concluded that Democrats are clearly out of touch with their base. Now that we've watched the party deteriorate, we want to take the party back.”

“Somewhere in the last two decades, the leadership of the Democratic Party decided to appeal to a certain identifiable group,” Archbishop Myers said. “And they moved in one direction morally. They have since been caught in this current. Is there hope for a change? Well, hope springs eternal.”

But Princeton's George doesn't share in the optimism. “There'll be gnashing of teeth. The base of the party remains social liberals, the journalistic establishment and cultural elites,” he said. “They can't change — no matter how much they are advised by James Carville to be born again. This is their religion. It's like what Catholicism means to you and me. Liberal ideas — that is their religion. They can't give it up.”

Ruse believes the Democrats are still missing the point. “Their core beliefs — a woman's right to choose, a permissive attitude toward sexuality, the family and marriage — these have been rejected in the voting booth,” he said. “And their reaction is a sneer. Republicans should fear the day that Democrats really do engage the pro-Reagan Democrats who are pro-life.”

“On the moral issue, there is a big divide between the elites of the Democratic Party and their popular base, especially minorities,” George said. “The elites aren't going to change their spots. If their base begins to vote on values, the way they have for Catholics and evangelicals — that will mean the end of the party. What if the black church really got behind marriage? What if Republicans, instead of getting 11% of the black vote, got 25%? There would be no Democrats elected at the national level. The majority of Catholics today no longer vote on economic issues but on values.”

Sabrina Arena Ferrisi writes from Jersey City, New Jersey.