ChristiansUnite Forums

Newspaper gives readers wake-up call over 'gay' marriage 
Voters in 8 states to consider protecting one-man, one-woman standard

Eight states have on their election ballots next week proposals to set requirements in their constitutions that a marriage involves one man and one woman. Many mainstream media outlets, if they don't advocate outright for same-sex wedding bells, are saying such actions are unnecessary, but one newspaper has given its readers a wake-up call.

That newspaper, the Grand Junction, Colo., Sentinel, earlier had recommended against approval for a state ballot initiative that would add to the Centennial State's Constitution the Biblical and historically traditional definition of marriage.

Then came New Jersey.

That state's Supreme Court recently said the state Legislature there must find a way to grant the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

"A few weeks ago, this corner reasoned that because state law already clearly defines marriage as a union only between one man and one woman, there was no need to formalize such language in the state Constitution. The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court this week has changed our view."

The newspaper continued with a description of the decision, that in effect had one branch of government ordering another what to do. In this case the courts ordered lawmakers that within 180 days they must either come up with a law endorsing homosexual marriage or "some creature that is not called marriage, but provides all of the rights, benefits and requirements of marriage for gay couples."

In Colorado next week there will be conflicting issues on the ballot. Amendment 43 would establish the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage in the constitution; a plan called Referendum I would create "gay marriage" by another name.

"Shades of Colorado's Referendum I. That measure on this year's ballot, we also argued, would create gay marriage in all but name only. We urged voters to reject it,' the newspaper said.

"The New Jersey ruling provides more reason to oppose Referendum I. If it is passed, some future Colorado Supreme Court likely will conjure up a reason to decide it's discrimination not to extend the imprimatur of official marriage to gay partnerships."

So, the newspaper concluded, "clear language in the Colorado Constitution that cannot be so easily overturned by judicial fiat is a virtual necessity to ensure that marriage in Colorado remains a union between one man and one woman."

Focus on the Family Action, and Colorado Family Action immediately issued calls to other newspapers whose editorial boards had urged readers to vote "no" on Amendment 43 to reconsider.

"Nobody likes to admit that they were wrong, especially a newspaper editorial board," said Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issues analysis for Focus on the Family Action. "But the Sentinel's editors did what they are supposed to do as an advocate for their readers: they considered all the facts and arrived at the only conclusion that will ensure the protection of marriage."

"The situation in New Jersey shows what can happen to a state that doesn't have protections in place like Amendment 43 will provide," said Jim Pfaff, a spokesman for Colorado Family Action. "Any editorial board that is truly interested in giving its readers sound direction on how to cast their ballots Nov. 7 must now re-evaluate its position in light of what happened in New Jersey. Anything less is irresponsible."

The Family Research Council also weighed into the argument.

Referring to the New Jersey decision, the FRC said, "Such reckless and irresponsible rulings by judges from Massachusetts to Hawaii highlight the need for constitutional amendments to protect marriage."

Next week's ballots across the U.S. will include marriage-protection amendments in Arizona, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin in addition to Colorado.

"There is desperate need for passage of marriage amendments in these eight states codifying marriage between one man and one woman," the FRC said.

Voters in 20 other states already have added that constitutional protection.

And the Thomas More Law Center said the New Jersey decision was especially objectionable.

"The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex unions despite the fact that current state law defines marriage as between one man and one woman and despite the fact the court acknowledged there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriages."

"This decision should be a wake-up call to the vast majority of Americans who oppose same-sex marriages," said Richard Thompson, chief counsel for the Law Center. He described the ruling as "a reckless act of social engineering and judicial activism which, if allowed to stand, will have bitter consequences for society in the future."

Two years ago that center collaborated with the Coalition For The Protection Of Marriage and other organizations to secure Michigan's Marriage Amendment. During that campaign, it defeated arguments that the amendment wasn't needed because "Michigan law limited marriage to the union of one man and one woman."

"The Center warned that a constitutional amendment was the best guarantee against a redefinition of marriage by an activist court," the center said.

To date, Massachusetts is the only state with authorized same-sex marriages. Vermont and Connecticut have "civil unions.

Tom Fitton, chief of Judicial Watch, noted that ex-Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently questioned why there is such an "intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary."

The New Jersey Supreme Court answered that question, he said.

"So how on earth did the court find … a mandate … to require a legislature to change the law to give the rights of marriage to homosexuals? I'll tell you how. They made it up. That is what judicial activists do. They 'find' rights where none exist," he said.

States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, earlier told WND that the biggest problem for the pro-"gay" campaigns is that they find out "people just want traditional marriage protected."