DISCUSSION FORUMS
MAIN MENU
Home
Help
Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
Community
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
Read
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
Connect
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
Graphics
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
Webmasters
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

ChristiansUnite
Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 26, 2024, 05:35:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
287029 Posts in 27572 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  Entertainment
| |-+  Politics and Political Issues (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  Voters keep choosing to protect traditional marriage
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Voters keep choosing to protect traditional marriage  (Read 948 times)
Soldier4Christ
Global Moderator
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 61165


One Nation Under God


View Profile
« on: November 08, 2006, 03:22:47 AM »

Voters keep choosing to protect traditional marriage 
New definitions added in 7 states, 1 vote total incomplete


Voters in Virginia – and six other states – have "settled" the issue of same-sex unions in their state by approving a constitutional definition that restricts marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

"We knew all along that a majority favored the amendment. It was just a matter of getting people to the polls," Victoria Cobb, whose Virginia organization called Family Foundation supported the proposal, said after yesterday's vote.

"Tonight, this issue has been settled," she said. Voters in Idaho, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Colorado, South Dakota and South Carolina also voted to approve such amendments.

The results from Arizona were incomplete, but showed the measure trailing by a few percentage points. If that becomes an official loss, it would be the only time in 28 attempts that a marriage protection constitutional amendment has not been endorsed by voters.

The vote to ban "gay" marriage in South Carolina came on a nearly 4-1 division, and supporters say such constitutional amendments are not nearly as likely to be overturned by activist and liberal judges as state laws, which already had been used in several states to provide some level of protection for traditional marriage.

In Colorado, voters went one step further, defeating a separate proposal that would have created "equal" benefits for same-sex couples, which promoters claimed would just provide "basic legal" protections.

The protection for traditional marriage, before this election, had been approved by voters in 20 out of the 20 states where it had been proposed.

"The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue," States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WND as the campaigns for the marriage protections gained speed in recent weeks.

"What they're running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected," she said.

During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Missouri and Nevada also voted for the plan. Five other states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.

Wisconsin's victory was especially gratifying for campaign workers in that state. There state lawmakers went through the process a second time after first passing a Defense of Marriage law in 2003, only to see Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle veto it. The second time around, for this year's election, they pursued the constitutional amendment process, which does not require a governor's signature.
Logged

Joh 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



Copyright © 1999-2025 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media