Same Sex Marriage & The Presidential Race
Implications for Oregon
May 21, 2008 |
Is it possible that the May 15, 2008 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to force same-sex marriage on the people of that state might have sealed the fate of Senator Barack Obama?
It was four years ago on May 17, 2004 that same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts, thanks to a similar decision by that state's high court. The following day, May 18, Phil Burress, Chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, began the effort to place on the Ohio ballot a state constitutional amendment to protect Ohio from such judicial activism. |
John Kerry was "out of synch" with the American people on 'same sex marriage'
In 1996 Senator John Kerry declared his support for same-sex marriage by being one of only 14 Senators who voted against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That vote eight years prior proved to be Senator Kerry's undoing in Ohio in 2004. Most of the mainstream media as well as political pundits have stated that President Bush won in Ohio because of the Marriage Amendment. |
The Media was 'out of synch' with the people on 'same sex marriage'
In the 11 states where marriage amendments were on the ballot in 2004, 94 percent of the major newspapers opposed the measures. But the people of those states voted by nearly a 70 percent margin in favor of traditional marriage - showing that voters will not be swayed by the media when it comes to marriage! In 2004 Ohio's marriage amendment passed by a 62 percent margin. According to a poll conducted by a homosexual activist organization, the number of Ohioans who oppose same-sex marriage actually has risen dramatically since. |
The People were not in agreement with Kerry or the Media
In 2004, Market Strategies, an independent firm conducted a poll to determine the impact the marriage amendment would have on Ohio voters. Polling data showed the marriage amendment would swing undecided voters toward Bush by a 6 to 1 margin, and would double African-American votes for Bush. Their predictions proved correct on both counts.
When exit polls showed Senator Kerry winning in five out of six major Ohio cities (Cleveland, Dayton, Akron/Canton, Toledo and Columbus), no one who understood Ohio politics thought that Bush could win. Never in the history of Ohio elections had anyone lost in all those major markets and won a statewide race, But Bush won - by 118,599 votes, a two percent margin.
What the "experts" did not anticipate was the turnout of conservative voters in rural Ohio, where folks came out to vote for the marriage amendment. Eighty-seven of Ohio's 88 counties voted against same-sex marriage. Even 469,000 Kerry voters voted against same-sex marriage. |
| Will History repeat itself?
If Ohio's marriage amendment swung Ohio for President Bush against what many considered insurmountable odds, what effect might the issue of same-sex marriage have on the 2008 Presidential Election?
On the issue of same-sex marriage, the difference between Senators McCain and Obama (or Clinton, should she prevail) is even more distinct than the Bush/Kerry divide. In 2004, President Bush did not actively campaign in favor of that year's statewide marriage amendments. At a March 7, 2008 meeting in New Orleans, Phil Burres, Chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage - and the source of this information - asked Senator McCain in the presence of 1,000 attendees if he would "openly campaign for the marriage amendment already on the ballot in Florida and the ones likely to be on ballots in Arizona and California." His immediate response was an emphatic "Yes!" | |
It depends on Senator McCain
Senators Obama and Clinton may be on the record as being in favor of traditional marriage with support for domestic partnerships, but their voting records, their campaign rhetoric, and their response to the recent California decision clearly place them in the same mold as Senator Kerry, who opposed same-sex marriage with a wink.
The answer to the question depends on Senator McCain. We know that the mainstream media still stands in support of same-sex marriage. And we know that the majority of the American voters still stand opposed. Senator McCain needs to force this issue into the election equation. He needs to make it very clear that he is opposed to same-sex marriage and back up his talk with action by supporting the Marriage Amendments in Florida, Arizona and California. Without a doubt Senator Obama (or Clinton) will try to keep endorsement of same-sex marriage low-key. They both know that history might well repeat itself. |
|
Implications for Oregon
In 2004 Oregonians said "NO" to so called 'same sex marriage' 57% to 43% under similar circumstances. In spite of the will of the people and the amended Constitution, the legislature and the governor created marriage by another name calling it 'domestic partnerships'. In addition they created special 'rights' and privileges for homosexuals that have never existed before that will restrict freedom of speech, create greater social and civic division, and lead to lawsuits against business owners, public school officials, and anyone who expresses a different perspective.
Since that time state and federal officials have done their best to ensure the people of Oregon do not vote on repealing these two laws. The more citizens become aware of the damage to children, families, and our rights of speech and conscience, the more they are opposed to both 'domestic partnerships' and privileges for homosexuals. With regard to 'domestic partnerships' proponents have openly stated that it is only a 'stepping stone' to same sex marriage and ultimately the destruction of marriage itself.
If the Oregon Supreme Court acts timely in the next few weeks as the law instructs, and voters throughout Oregon sign Initiative petitions 145 and 146, we will have the opportunity to exercise our voting right to once again say "NO" to 'same sex marriage' as well as special rights for homosexuals. With opposition rising nationwide to this aggressive and self serving agenda, fewer and fewer politicians will want to accommodate their wishes any further. |
|
Sign up to be a Petition Circulator
|
|
"The original error
[was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation,
and which, from the citadel of the law,
can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend,
and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will."
Thomas Jefferson
| |
