Conservatives Block Homosexual Marriage Law in Washington State

And this has radical leftists shitting bricks.

See the Los Angeles Times, "Washington state same-sex marriage opponents file to block new law."

SEATTLE -- Washington state’s same-sex marriage law was blocked from taking effect Wednesday when opponents submitted more than 230,000 signatures calling for a referendum on the measure — opening yet another contentious battleground for one of the nation’s most divisive issues.

State officials are expected to determine this week whether the measure qualifies for the fall ballot. Opponents of the law, passed on a bipartisan vote by the state Legislature in February, said they believe Washington voters will defeat the measure, joining every other state that has put the issue to a public vote.

“Thirty-two states have voted on this issue. No states have voted to redefine marriage. People think this country is divided down the middle on this issue, and that’s simply not true,” Christopher Plante, spokesman for Preserve Marriage Washington, said in an interview.

“The fact of the matter is, if you look at what Americans have done, from the deepest blue states like Maine, California and Wisconsin to the Bible Belt, when they’ve had a chance to define marriage as one-man, one woman, that’s what they’ve done,” he said.

More at the link, where you can see the freaked-out comments from the gay rights extremists.

Preserve Marriage has the background on the law should it go into effect, "The Threat to Marriage":

Marriage Would Be Redefined For Everyone

Contrary to what some people think, same-sex 'marriage' would not exist in the law alongside traditional marriage; as if it were a different expression of the same marriage institution they have always known. Marriage will be redefined for everyone. Our historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman would be replaced by a new paradigm for marriage as the union of two people, regardless of gender.

Genderless Marriage the Only Legally Recognized Definition

This new, redefined version of marriage as a genderless institution would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage in Washington. Such a radical change in the definition of marriage will produce a host of societal conflicts that government - exercising its enormous enforcement powers - will have to resolve. Citizens, small businesses and religious organizations whose own beliefs, traditions, morals or ethnic upbringing are at odds with the new definition of marriage will find themselves subjected to legal consequences if they do not act according to the new legal orthodoxy.

Not a 'Live and Let Live' Issue

Legal experts on both sides of the marriage debate agree that the issue has profound impacts on society. Scholars from some of the nation's most respected law schools have written that the issue implicates a host of issues, ranging from religious liberty, to individual expression of faith, to education and the professions.

For example, these legal scholars predict 'a sea of change in American law,' and foretell an 'immense' volume of litigation against individuals, small businesses and religious organizations.

Racists and Bigots?

Those who do not agree with this new definition of marriage as a genderless institution existing for the benefit of adults will be treated under the law just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs. This is already occurring elsewhere:

Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.
Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage. They have, for example, been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies.

Nonprofit groups are faced with abandoning their historic mission principles in order to maintain governmental contracts (for things like low-income housing, health clinics, etc.)

Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction.

Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers.

Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse 'marriage therapy' to a same-sex couple because she doesn't believe in gay marriage. She'd put her licensure at risk.

Those people - a strong majority of Washington voters - who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs. Refusal to accommodate and recognize same-sex 'marriages' would be the equivalent of racial discrimination. Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.

The Needs of Children Take Second Place to the Desires of Adults

Perhaps most importantly, SB 6239 shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don't matter (especially fathers) - any two 'parents' will do. It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father - that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children. And it undermines the marriage culture by making marriage a meaningless political gesture, rather than a child-affirming social construct.

The Deconstruction of Marriage

An example of how SB 6239 contributes to the deconstruction of marriage is its provision decreeing that 'husbands' can be women and 'wives' can be men. Any person with an ounce of common sense knows this is not true!

When marriage ceases to have its historic meaning and understanding, over time fewer and fewer people will marry. We will have an inevitable increase in children born out of wedlock, an increase in fatherlessness, a resulting increase in female and child poverty, and a higher incidence of all the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a home without their married parents.

Ultimately, we as a society all suffer when we fail to nourish a true, thriving marriage culture founded on the truth experienced by virtually every civilization in every nation since the dawn of time - marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

And notice how the New York Times frames the issue: "Opponents of Gay Marriage Face Tougher Test in Washington State."

RELATED: At Rolling Stone, "The Fight for Marriage Equality Moves to State Ballots."

That's good!

PREVIOUSLY: "Coming to America: The Crackdown Against Considered and Empathetic Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage."

Public Consistently Opposes Same-Sex Marriage

Pew Research has published a new report, "The Gay Marriage Debate: Where It Stands":

Most supporters of same-sex marriage contend that gay and lesbian couples should be treated no differently than their heterosexual counterparts and that they should be able to marry like anyone else. Beyond wanting to uphold the legal principles of nondiscrimination and equal treatment, supporters say there are very practical reasons behind the fight for marriage equity. They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry -- from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.

Most social conservatives and others who oppose same-sex marriage argue that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they contend, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in serious trouble as a result of high divorce rates and a significant number of out-of-wedlock births. Moreover, many predict that giving gay couples the right to marry will ultimately lead to granting people in polygamous and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry as well.

See also Pew's primary report, "Public Opinion on Gay Marriage: Opponents Consistently Outnumber Supporters."

I'm struck by that tailing uptick of opposition to same-same marriage in the chart above. It's not large, but the 5 point increase of those opposed coincides with the extreme left-wing demonization and outing campaign following the passage of Proposition 8 last November. Diana West argued that the brutalization inflicted on supporters of the initiative was as "soul-grinding as something out of Soviet show trial history." And if we recall what's happened in the last 8 months, no state has voted by popular majority to define marriage as including two men or two women. It's just not how it's done. Meanwhile, the survey data show that Americans favor some kind of civil unions for same-sex partners. Gay marriage is not a civil right. Further as we can see, there is some bedrock of marriage traditionalism that transcends partisanship, race, and gender. And the reality is that the radical left has been intent to virtually crucify those not kowtowing to the nihilist agenda.

Interestingly, today's New York Times features the latest example of an enduring traditionalism that rises above the stereotypical categories of radical identity politics. It turns out that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is looking to remove the Rev. Eric P. Lee, its Los Angeles chapter president. Rev. Lee is a gay marriage activist and thus out of step with not just the SCLC, but with the 70 percent of black voters in California who voted to preserve the historic conception of marriage last year. Responding to this, Darren Lenard Hutchinson, the black radical law professor at the American University, attacked the SCLC as a bigoted organization that has betrayed its "rich history of progressive advocacy."

Actually, the old-line civil rights groups have become key constituencies in the fight for the preservation of moral values in society today. Black folks know that it's a slap in the face to equate same-sex marriage rights to the horrors blacks faced through the battles of the freedom struggle. It's kind of sad to see a black professor, Darren Lenard Hutchinson, so deeply ignorant of that element of the civil rights legacy. For more on this, see Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson, "Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy."

More commentary at Memeorandum.

Graphic Credit: Pew Research.

Gay-Marriage Cases Pose Legal Tests for Administration

A report at the Wall Street Journal, "Gay-Marriage Legal Tests Loom":

President Barack Obama last week cast his support for same-sex marriage as a personal view on policy, not a constitutional imperative. But because the Supreme Court long has defined the right to marriage as a "fundamental freedom," legal analysts say his administration is sure to face pressure to weigh in on the marriage question when it reaches the Supreme Court.

That pressure could mount as early as this fall, if the challenge to California's Proposition 8, a voter-approved initiative that barred gay marriage, reaches the final stages.

If that happens, Mr. Obama "will surely be asked by advocates for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] rights to support a decision upholding a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, which would take it out of the hands of the states," said Theodore Olson, the Republican former solicitor general who has helped lead the challenge to the 2008 initiative restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

Mr. Obama said Wednesday that while he now believes same-sex couples should be able to marry, historically the definition of marriage "has not been a federal issue." He said he viewed the battles over same-sex marriage at the state level as a "healthy process."

Thirty states now ban same-sex marriage, while six states and the District of Columbia permit it. Two additional states have passed bills allowing gay-marriage, though it's possible they could be overturned by voter referendums.

Asked if he would request the Justice Department to join the legal fight against state laws banning same-sex marriage, the president said only that he had "helped to prompt" the department's decision to abandon its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. That 1996 law bans federal recognition of state-authorized same-sex marriages.

"We consider that a violation of the equal protection clause," the president said.

That law and California's Proposition 8 are the two major gay-marriage issues working their way through federal courts.

Chuck Cooper, an attorney representing Proposition 8's backers, declined to comment on the legal implications of the president's remarks. The measure's sponsors have asked the full Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a February opinion that upheld a federal district judge's ruling striking down Proposition 8. Whatever happens in that circuit, the losers are expected to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court.

That's an excellent summary, and there's lots more at the link.

Same-Sex Hate-Seekers

I had a long and extremely interesting exchange with Alex Knepper yesterday. Alex is a member of my Facebook community. He's a young conservative who thinks the GOP needs to moderate its social conservatism. He sent me an e-mail after finding an old essay of mine on Sarah Palin at RealClearPolitics. We debated Palin for a little while, and then our discussion turned to gay marriage.

We went back and forth for a few iterations. Alex got a little agitated when I mentioned a continuing controversy in the literature over the biological basis for sexual orientation. He turned at that and said, "if you actually think that homosexuality is not a choice, then you're accusing me of being a liar and a con artist. All of those feelings toward boys that I started having at the ages of 11 and 12 - were they fake?" I then wrote back calmly, "I'm not doubting your feelings, Alex. All I'm saying is that biological determination is still controversial in the literature." (See, for example, "Current Theories on the Genesis of Homosexuality.")

Alex mellowed out a little later, especially after I told him that he'd be my friend irrespective of his sexual orientation. As some may know from my writing, I get along fine with homosexuals. Indeed, I lost friends during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. A good friend of mine now lives in San Francisco. We used to party on the weekends. He graduated from high school with my older sister. As much as I liked him, I declined his offer to perform oral sexual favors. "I'm straight," I told him, "and not interested." So much for "not knowing a single gay," as leftists always allege.

I mention all of this since we're seeing the gay marriage debate pick up again this weekend. The California Supreme Court will rule tomorrow on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The Court is expected to uphold the will of the voters, and gay activists have planned massive statewide demonstrations to protest the "hatred."

In my discussions with Alex, he mentioned that he'd written a lot on all of this, and he linked to his essay, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage." But while doing some research last night, I found Alex's piece, "Gay. And Republican. And Not Confused." According to Alex:

I believe that the gay subculture is destructive. I am not completely sure why a person should be "proud" of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment. I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they're just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society ....

I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay — their lives are gay. I am not interested, though, in living my life as a gay man, but simply as a man. I envision a future in which a person's sexual orientation will be an afterthought. I do not in any way whatsoever see the Democratic Party furthering that.

I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly packaged view of what a gay man is "supposed" to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.

I asked Alex if I could share our exchange with readers, so it's not like I'm "dishing dirt." Indeed, Alex has grappled with these issues more than most people. And I especially appreciate Alex's identification of gay radical leftists as those who evince the most vicious intolerance on these issues.

I've been blogging gay marriage regularly since last November. As I've noted repeatedly, the same-sex marriage agenda is the capstone to the nihilist revolutionary program that's sweeping the country. Leftists constantly impute "bigotry" to their conservative enemies. The truth of the matter is it's become politically incorrect to stand for traditionalism in America today. As Diana West argued after the radical gay protests last year:

Conservatism isn't simply in political retreat, it is fast travelling beyond the pale, fast becoming anathema in America. And not just "conservatism" - any bumper sticker sentiment that denies due reverence for the precepts of progressivism as exemplified by the leftward evolving sensibility of the media and cultural mainstream ... It is anything that smacks of the traditional that is under assault now in the public sphere, in the cultural mainstream, and sometimes literally.

And it's coming again. One of the most incredible memes on the left right now is that conservatism - especially as seen in faith-based opposition to the homosexual marriage program - is essentially a violent militia movement that's spring-loaded to erupt in a last-gasp violent backlash against the "inevitable" political success of same-sex marriage.

Check out Sara Robinson's essay at Orcinus, "Decision Day on California's Prop 8." This is really a mind-boggling piece of gay marriage advocacy. The tone is not just of political inevitability, but of outright moral condescension toward anyone who deviates from the radical same-sex marriage party line. If you read it close enough, the piece is essentially a propaganda précis justifying mayhem in the streets if the California Court upholds the will of a majority. It's extremely interesting, since these are the same people who are all about constitutional rights and due process, and what not. But when those same legal and political processes leave them on the short end of the stick, all bets are off. It's now "Mormon bigotry" or "extremist Dominionism." In fact, some of Robinson's assertions are truly out there in left field. I mean really, we're talking 9/11-trutherism type stuff:

In the worst case, this decision could become the catalyst for a new round of large-scale domestic terrorism from the right. As I've noted, everything I'm seeing points to a subculture that is gearing up for this kind of heroic last stand in defense of a lost cause. And this time, it's not going to be just a few white supremacist/militia/patriot/anti-choice wackos. The new crop of right wing militants is better connected, better trained, better armed, and absolutely determined to go down fighting. And, as the SPLC keeps telling us, there may considerably more people motivated to support them than there have been in the past. It’s not unthinkable that between 15 and 20% of the country could be inclined to start - or at least support - a civil war over this.

You really have to step back for a second to catch your breath. Just 31 percent nationally support full-on same-sex marriage rights when given a choice between that or civil unions. And in the allegedy "liberal" Iowa, only 26 percent support unequivocal gay marriage given the same choices. But majorities like this, seen as standing athwart the radical left's agenda, are excoriated as "white supremacist/militia/patriot/anti-choice wackos."

I imagine leftists are in fact so insecure that such demonological conspiracy discourses are necessary to sustain whatever momentum they've got. Frankly, most people I've talked to don't really want to deal with allegations of "homophobia" and "racism" toward "marginalized" minorities. The attacks get old, and people have lives. The media plays along, and today's youth aren't acculturated to traditionalism and American exceptionism. So the leftist demonization seeks to gain traction.

Alexander Cockburn, in a recent Nation essay on the decline of the GOP, ridiculed the notion that "there's a right resurgence out there in the hinterland with legions of haters ready to march down Main Street draped in Klan robes, a copy of Mein Kampf tucked under one arm and a Bible under the other ..." According to Cockburn, folks like Morris Dees at the Southern Poverty Law Center are "hate-seekers" barking up the wrong tree. The truth, for Cockburn, is that the true "haters" are right under our noses: "The effective haters are big, powerful, easily identifiable entities. Why is Dees fingering militiamen in a potato field in Idaho when we have identifiable, well-organized groups that the SPLC could take on?"

According to Discover the Networks, Cockburn is an "unreconstructed Communist." As strong as that sounds, what's interesting is how close Cockburn's "legions of haters" meme tracks with the claims of the gay radical agenda.

I mean, really. Check out Pam Spaulding's post on Sara Robinson's, "Decision Day on California's Prop 8." The leftists are now gearing up for cultural Armageddon: "Folks, arm yourselves. Get training, buy a gun and a good personal safe, get a carry permit, and protect yourselves."

People often talk of how polarized is American politics today. Leftists see traditionalists as racist militia members out to defend their culture in a final battle of righteousness. But in making such arguments, the radicals transmogrify into a caricature of the very enemy they seek to destroy.

Meanwhile, the regular workings of the democracy will function tomorrow. The California Court will rule on the constitutionality of a ballot initiative supported by a mainstream majority of the people. The fact is, the real "wackos" we'll likely be seeing in the next few days are the gay marriage extremists who take to the streets to protest the legal affirmation of the popular will.

This is the battle for America's future. It's hardly any longer a fight for gay marriage "rights." No, we'll see the battle lines drawn at the landing grounds of America's partisan culture wars this week. The stakes are extremely high. The left will continue to browbeat and bully those slow to get in line. Boycott lists will be circulated once again, and show trials will be mounted for the "collaborators." We saw the countours last November. The next phase is about to begin.

Cindy McCain Shills for No on H8 (and Meghan Too)

This article has got me thinking, so I'm just going to come out and admit it: I'm tired of it. I'm tired of standing up for my principles and then having to turn around to be attacked as a "hater." No one who knows me as a dedicated family man would call me a "hater." No one who knows me and my work with students and communities would call me a "hater." Not one my own students -- gay or straight, man or woman, black, white, or hispanic -- would call me a "hater" (at least not one of those students who has really worked with me, and benefited from my teaching and mentoring). But after supporting Proposition 8, and then blogging the hell out of the gay marriage issues for months after the November 2008 election, I'm even more frustrated by the left's campaign of vilification of cultural traditionalists. So, I'll be clear: I believe marriage exists for the fundamental purpose of child-rearing and the biological regeneration of society. In no way can a same-sex couple do what a man and woman can to reproduce the essential unity of physiological oneness of children and procreation. This is simply what I understand as constitutive of the marriage union. And thus, I don't consider same-sex marriage as equal to the historic struggles for civil rights, for example, the reversal of the historic wrongs of discrimation against interracial couples. There's no need to provide links. I've blogged all of these issues time and again, and there's not much more to prove. I love all people regardless of ethnicity, gender, language, national orgins, and religion, etc. And I really don't want to fight with people because of my traditional values. All along, throughout the debates on Proposition 8 in California, and in the recent politics of gay marriage in the states across the union, I've accepted the notion that majority rule should decide the issue -- even if that means gay marriage should prevail. We need to observe the people's will on this crucial question of society. Should the courts authorize a blanket right to same-sex marriage, we'll have decades of cultural wars along the lines of the politics of abortion following Roe v. Wade in 1973. There are some issues so fundamental to the stability of society that the deep emotions and partisan battles are never quite resolved. I don't see the question of gay marriage fading away if the Supreme Court eventually decides the issue in favor of the radical left. Too many people of both religious and secular standing see the historic family of husband and wife as the pillar of the community. Without that, America will never be the same, and our nation will almost certainly not be as strong as we've been as a people over time. We must decide the controversy over same-sex marriage at the state level and as a question of federalism and the rights of states to organize the legal status of the family according the local norms and community standards.

Okay, why am I'm I moved to write this? No one has ever made compelling arguments on the facts to rebut what's been written here over time. Indeed, it almost always ends up, the responses I get, as leftist namecalling and the politics of radical hatred and demonization. It's really sick sometimes. You think Andrew Sullvan's just recently gone off? Whatever he's said of Scott Brown this week is all of a piece. You're "Christainist" (and thus a fanatical terrorist) if you're into the historical conception of family unity and regeneration. But I'm afraid it's getting to the point that even people of strong values have capitulated to the demonization of what's good. If it's gotten to the point where the Cindy McCains and the Meghan McCains of this world are the arbiters of what's an acceptable Repubican, I doubt that party will ever regain any credibility on the right, no matter how many Scott Browns we elect. I know, I know: Lots of top Republicans favor so-called "marriage equality." Dick Cheney comes to mind, one of the most forceful critics of the Obama administration, but one who has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. For all of Dick Cheney's wisdom, I don't think he gets it on this issue. Once conservatives concede marriage to the radical left, it's all downhill -- there's not going to be much to uphold regarding fundamental values of goodness and social preservation. It's all up in the air at that point. But don't just take my word for it. Listen to the folks who Cindy McCain and Meghan McCain have joined in the "NO on H8" campaign, "Meghan McCain is Redefining Republican"

Teabaggers are definitely getting all the attention these days when it comes to the Republican Party. Look no further than Massachusetts, where Republicans have graciously told their candidate, Scott Brown, to shove a curling iron up Democratic nominee Martha Coakley's butt, or to Oklahoma, where teabaggers have prayed for Senate Democrats to die.

Talk about a civility FAIL. Is there any hope left for the Republican Party? Maybe some sort of superwoman? Or, well, at least a super Tweeter and/or blogger?

Enter Meghan McCain, the daughter of U.S. Sen. John McCain, who has grown tired of childish kvetching and teabaggers. She's ready to redefine Republican, and for her, that starts with increasing the number of Republicans supportive of marriage equality for gays and lesbians.

McCain is scheduled to speak at George Washington University's "Marriage Equality Week," scheduled for February 9. That is, unless a civil war among students breaks out. A student gay rights group is thrilled that she's coming. But a student Republican organization feels like they were duped. They wanted Meghan McCain to speak about the new face of the Republican Party, and now they're miffed that she'll be talking about marriage equality ...

I can't hold back in my intense resentment at being attacked as a "teabagger" by these freakin' gay marriage ayatollahs. Meghan McCain is too stupid to realize these she's simply the most colossal tool of the neo-Stalinist gay rights lobby (including the International ANSWER cadres and Code Pink traitors who've long supported the killing of American troops overseas). Put it all together and it's just plain grotesque. It's really time for conservatives to take a stand (and if you don't think so, read Diana West's, "The Stage Is Being Set"). Will Meghan and her mother define the agenda of the GOP? Take a look at that article: "Cindy McCain Joins California’s No H8 Gay-Rights Campaign." It's hard to believe that John McCain's wife would be sucked into this by the same groups that worked to destroy her husband in 2008. But they are one and the same. John McCain as a candidate supported marriage traditionalism. I don't know where he stands now, but his wife and daughter certainly don't represent what the McCain presidential campaign stood for at the time.

Anyway, it's all coming to a head again this week. Court's back in session in San Francisco, and the left's campaign of lies and distortion is picking up steam. See, the Los Angeles Times, "Documents Show Links Between Prop. 8 Campaign and Church Leaders" (via Memeorandum). And the San Jose Mercury News, "Prop. 8 Trial Day 7: Live Coverage From the Courtroom."

RELATED: The Advocate, "Cindy McCain Poses for NOH8." And the Washington Post, "McCain's Wife, Daughter Back Gay Marriage Movement."

California Voters Sharply Divided on Gay Marriage

A new survey from the Field Research Corporation finds Californians deeply split on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, which if upheld by the California Supreme Court will define marriage in the state as between one man and one woman. According to the poll:

The latest statewide Field Poll conducted February 20 ... asked voters how they would react if a new constitutional amendment were placed on the ballot to allow same-sex marriages in the state.

The results reveal a voting public that remains sharply divided both overall and across political, demographic and regional lines. If a new constitutional amendment about same-sex marriage qualified for the ballot, 48% of the state’s registered voters say they would vote Yes to permit such marriages, 47% would vote No to oppose them and 5% are undecided.

As was true with regard to the vote on Prop. 8 last year, there are large differences in voter preferences by party, political ideology, age, marital status, gender, religion and region of residence.

The San Francisco Chronicle has an analysis of the survey, "Field Poll Finds Voters Still Split on Marriage."

Most observers expect the Court to sustain the will of the voters, and hence activists on both sides of the issue are gearing up for the next round of electoral politics.

National Journal has a recent piece on the controversy, "Proposition 8's Embers Smolder" (behind a subscription firewall), and this passage from the conclusion provides an excellent glimpse into the ideological thinking of the left's gay marriage activists:

Gay-marriage opponents say that this fight would go away if homosexuals would be satisfied with civil unions. Such unions have been offered as a compromise in California and other states, Maggie Gallagher said, but gay-rights advocates increasingly oppose them as an apartheid-like demotion of gay and lesbian relationships. This rejection, she said, is a predictable consequence of the effort to apply the “bigot” label in law to those who see child-rearing at the center of marriage. “This leads not to live-and-let-live tolerance, which is most people’s goal, but the use of the law to repress people’s views and to marginalize people who disagree with you ... in a zero-sum clash,” Gallagher insisted.

“The word ‘marriage’ needs to be used to describe all relationships of two people who are loving and committed to each other,” countered [activist Sara Beth Brooks] Brooks. “To deny that semantic attachment to our relationships is the exact same thing as denying an African-American person the right to attend the same schools as a white person.” “I could support some version of partnership benefits, but not if they’re going to endanger marriage,” Gallagher replied. “I don’t know how you persuade young men and young women that children need a mother and a father if that idea is viewed as racist.”

I have written much about this. Gay activists will not be content with a compromise on civil unions (such as that offered by Blankenhorn and Rauch) because the fight for gay marriage constitutes a larger struggle of existential symbolism: Nothing less than full marriage equality will be found acceptable for a rights group that is perceived to still face pernicious social stigmas posing even more entrenched barriers to inclusion than those faced by previously disadvantaged groups.

See my recent essay for more on this, ""No Faggots, Dykes or Trannies"?", for a taste of both the vitriol and the hypocrisy on the issue emanating from the left.

As for the poll numbers, we'll likely see similar findings in upcoming polls, but a lot depends on question wording as well as the quality of the sample. When gay marriage hits the ballot box again, say, in 2010 or 2012, the strength of the respective "ground games" may decide the race. But as I've noted many times here, if the hard-left activists become increasingly and outwardly belligerent toward people of faith and tradition (which is highly likely), a significant backlash may shift some of the polling numbers in the direction of social conservatism.

Gay Marriage Conservative Tokenism

The Colorado Independent posted a muckraking essay today smearing Focus on the Family for its purported $727,000 in contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign in California: "Focus on the Family Vastly Outpaced Mormon Spending on Proposition 8."

Commenting on the piece (with its scandalous aspersions to alleged Mormon extremists), I saw a new term of repudiation at Pam Spaulding's: "the fundievangelical movement." Spaulding also attacks Focus on the Family as an "evil, Bible-beating, anti-gay organization."

All that for exercising First Amendment rights through the political process? Of course, Spaulding applauded the Stalinist intimidation tactics of the No on H8 activists who are mapping the names and ZIP codes of financial backers of the California initiative, so she's consistent in her totalitarianism.

But what about the "young turks" at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen? You wouldn't think a bunch of rising intellectuals would stoop to Pam Spaulding's level of rank demonization, right?

Well, think again:

The true driving power behind the anti-gay marriage movement resides in a community with many names. For the sake of simplicity I’ll return to the tried and true Religious Right (and the Religious Right’s red headed stepchildren, the Mormons).

Couching their anti-gay agenda in Christian dogma, the Religious Right has been successful in essentially swimming up stream against the march towards equality for homosexuals. While homosexuality is enjoying more social acceptance now than during any other period in American history, the Religious Right is also enjoying successes in actively inhibiting homosexual rights, enacting constitutional gay marriage bans in a number of states.

This would seem counter-intuitive at first, after all, if gays are moving up in the world, how is it that they are suffering setbacks on things like their right to marry?

This extraordinary piece continues with this eye-opening proposal:

What makes a marriage sacred? That answer is different for many people. People of faith are likely to reply that the sanctity of their marriage is divined from the authority of their God. For those who are without faith, they are more apt to say that the sanctity of the marriage resides in the marriage itself, and the common union between the two partners involved. Further, of the faithful, the devout churchgoers may say that their unity is blessed by their God through their church, while those who are of faith but skeptical of organized religion may decide that the church does not bestow that happy blessing, but God gives it to them anyway.

The point that I’m getting at is that in a country where everyone is free to choose what they believe, the sanctity of marriage is something that is not universal, but is instead unique to the situation. I have a coworker that feels that God blesses both his marriage and mine. I personally believe that God has nothing to do with it, and the sanctity of my marriage comes from the fact that my wife and I are stubbornly attached to each other.

The solution? Simple. Abolish all marriage.

Abolish all marriage? Okay, let's just overturn thousands of years of social custom for the sake of the self-proclaimed "right" of a tiny oppositional minority of the population to be married

But I've dissected the left's gay marriage totalitarianism every which way since last November. What interests me here is that the proprietors of Ordinary Gentlemen are ostensibly conservatives. Yep, these folks are supposedly among the "young turks" Robert Stacy McCain identifies in his essay, Young Turks and Gay Marriage." Or, as Helen Rittelmeyer puts it:

I would add ... that support for same-sex marriage has become a mark, not only of defeatism, but of self-conscious tokenism among young conservatives. Being publicly pro-SSM is the quickest way for a young journalist to signal that he's one of the right-wingers it's okay to like. Haven't they heard that it's better to be feared than loved? Or, to put it less glibly, the real respectability of a solid argument is preferable to the worthless respectability one gets by being on the Harmless Right.

It's an interesting demographic, this young, harmless conservative tokenism, except I don't think these folks are all that harmless. Their effluence just works to feed progressive bull to the media's Obamatons. Besides, as cowardly as these folks are, their musings chum the waters for more dangerous folks like RAWMUSCLEGLUTES.

The bulk of the guys at Ordinary Gentlemen are supposedly of Burkean persuasions and libertarian leanings (Kyle Moore, the author of the abolish marriage proposal above, is liberal). But a regular reading of the posts shows little deviation from the godless licentiousness seen on the nihilist left - indeed, these guys are pretty much atheists through and through. For all the long-winded "intellectual" dialog, the page offers mostly unexceptional commentary, the type that's routinely available on any number of the more tasteless blogs found across the netroots fever swamps. The Ordinary Gents are all into bashing neoconservatives and excoriating pro-lifers. The blog's mission is to encourage "internal" debate, but frankly that sound a bit incestuous, and with the public's Obamessianism already starting to fade, this league's honeymoon likely winding down as well.

Coming to America: The Crackdown Against Considered and Empathetic Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

Michael Coren is discussing gay marriage in Canada, but he might was well be describing the U.S.

See: "Canadian Crackdown":

A considered and empathetic opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with phobia or hatred, but that doesn’t stop Christians, conservatives, and anybody else who doesn’t take the fashionable line from being condemned as Neanderthals and bigots. This is a lesson that Canadians have learned from painful experience.

Same-sex marriage became law in Canada in the summer of 2005, making the country the fourth nation to pass such legislation, and the first in the English-speaking world. In the few debates leading up to the decision, it became almost impossible to argue in defense of marriage as a child-centered institution, in defense of the procreative norm of marriage, in defense of the superiority of two-gender parenthood, without being thrown into the waste bin as a hater. What we’ve also discovered in Canada is that it can get even worse than mere abuse, and that once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law.

Although precise figures about gay marriages in Canada are elusive, there are thought to be fewer than 30,000, after an initial surge of around 10,000 as soon as the law was passed. But if large numbers of gay people failed to take advantage of the law, the law certainly took advantage of its critics. Again, definitive figures are almost impossible to state, but it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.

In 2011, for example, a well-known television anchor on a major sports show was fired just hours after he tweeted his support for “the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.” He had merely been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving numerous death threats and other abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign. The case is still under appeal, in human-rights commissions and, potentially, the courts.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. He is hardly a reactionary — he used to be known as “Red Fred” because of his support for the labor movement — but the archdiocese eventually had to settle with the complainants to avoid an embarrassing and expensive trial.

In the neighboring province of Saskatchewan, another case illustrates the intolerance that has become so regular since 2005. A number of marriage commissioners (state bureaucrats who administer civil ceremonies) were contacted by a gay man eager to marry his partner under the new legislation. Some officials he telephoned were away from town or already engaged, and the first one to take his call happened to be an evangelical Christian, who explained that he had religious objections to carrying out the ceremony but would find someone who would. He did so, gave the name to the man wanting to get married, and assumed that this would be the end of the story.

But no. Even though the gay couple had had their marriage, they decided to make an official complaint and demand that the commissioner be reprimanded and punished. The provincial government argued that, as a servant of the state, he had a duty to conduct state policy, but that any civilized public entity could accept that such a fundamentally radical change in marriage policy was likely to cause division, and that as long as alternative and reasonable arrangements could be made and nobody was inconvenienced, they would not discipline their employee for declining to marry same-sex couples. Anybody hired after 2004 would have to agree to conduct such marriages, they continued, but to insist on universal approval so soon after the change would lead to a large number of dismissals, often of people who had given decades of public service. This seemed an intelligent and balanced compromise. Yet the provincial courts disagreed, and commissioners with theological objections are now facing the loss of their jobs, with the situation replicated in other provinces and also at the federal level.

BONUS: Here's Pat Buchanan talking to Megyn Kelly a couple of weeks ago. Buchanan delivered the famous "culture war" speech to the 1992 RNC Convention. I don't agree with Buchanan on foreign policy and Israel, but few people have a better handle on the radical politics of gay marriage in the U.S.

Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right

The debate on homosexual marriage continues to rage after the passage of California's Proposition 8 on Tuesday.

As we saw yesterday, gay rights activists have turned against black voters in the state, who voted in overwhelming numbers to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman. Well, it turns out that today's Los Angeles Times offers a look at black views on same-sex marriage, "For Many African Americans, It's Not a Civil Rights Issue":

For Trebor Healey, a 46-year-old gay man from Glendora, Tuesday's election was bittersweet.

He was thrilled that the nation elected its first African American president. But he was disappointed that black voters, traditionally among the most reliably liberal in the state, voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex marriage.

He understands that there are differences between the civil rights battles of blacks and gays: For one thing, he notes, gay people have a much easier time blending in. Still, he says, he thinks it's sad that "people do not equate one civil rights struggle with another."

Many black voters didn't see it that way.

"I was born black. I can't change that," said Culver City resident Bilson Davis, 57, who voted for Proposition 8. "They weren't born gay; they chose it," he added ....

Los Angeles resident Christopher Hill, 50, said he was motivated by religion in supporting Proposition 8. Civil rights, he said, "are about getting a job, employment."

Gay marriage, he said, is not: "It's an abomination against God."

One of the common attacks on supporters of Prop 8 is that they're bigots, and folks on the left are incredulous that the same voters who supported Barack Obama could in turn reject homosexual marriage rights.

The truth is that if we recall the original foundation of marriage as a union of man and women for the central purpose of procreation, it makes sense that Yes on 8 supporters resist expanding a definition of rights to those who make a lifestyle choice.

Indeed, the effort to change the language of traditional civil rights to include gay marriage has been one of the most clever yet sinister elements of the same-sex marriage movement this last few years. Yet, as Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson indicate, the equation of gay rights with the black feedom struggle - and the traditional civil rights agenda - is a fraud that cheapens the historic legacy for equal treatment under the law in the United States:

There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights ....

The extraordinary history of the United States as a slaveholding republic included the kidnapping and brutal transport of blacks from African shores, and the stripping of their language, identity, and culture in order to subjugate and exploit them. It also included the constitutional enshrining of these evils in the form of a Supreme Court decision--Dred Scott v. Sandford--denying to blacks any rights that whites must respect, and the establishment of Jim Crow and de jure racial discrimination after Dred Scott was overturned by a civil war and three historic constitutional amendments.

It is these basic facts that embarrass efforts to exploit the rhetoric of civil rights to advance the goals of generally privileged groups, however much they wish to depict themselves as victims. Whatever wrongs individuals have suffered because some Americans fail in the basic moral obligation to love the sinner, even while hating the sin, there has never been an effort to create a subordinate class subject to exploitation based on "sexual orientation."

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry. Let us consider the question of rights. What makes a gay activist's aspiration to overturn thousands of years of universally recognized morality and practice a "right"? Why should an institution designed for the reproduction of civil society and the rearing of children in a moral environment in which their interests are given pride of place be refashioned to accommodate relationships integrated around intrinsically non-marital sexual conduct?

One must, in the current discussion, address directly the assertion of discrimination. The claim that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination is based on a false analogy with statutory prohibitions on interracial marriages in many states through much of the 20th century. This alleged analogy collapses when one considers that skin pigmentation is utterly irrelevant to the procreative and unitive functions of marriage. Racial differences do not interfere with the ability of sexually complementary spouses to become "one-flesh," as the Book of Genesis puts it, by sexual intercourse that fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation. As the law of marital consummation makes clear, and always has made clear, it is this bodily union that serves as the foundation of the profound sharing of life at every level--biological, emotional, dispositional, rational, and spiritual--that marriage is. This explains not only why marriage can only be between a man and a woman, but also why marriages cannot be between more than two people--despite the desire of "polyamorists" to have their sexual preferences and practices legally recognized and blessed.

Moreover, the analogy of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage disregards the whole point of those prohibitions, which was to maintain and advance a system of racial subordination and exploitation. It was to maintain a caste system in which one race was relegated to conditions of social and economic inferiority. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not establish a sexual caste system or relegate one sex to conditions of social and economic inferiority. It does, to be sure, deny the recognition as lawful "marriages" to some forms of sexual combining--including polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, and same-sex relationships. But there is nothing invidious or discriminatory about laws that decline to treat all sexual wants or proclivities as equal.

People are equal in worth and dignity, but sexual choices and lifestyles are not. That is why the law's refusal to license polygamous, polyamorous, and homosexual unions is entirely right and proper. In recognizing, favoring, and promoting traditional, monogamous marriage, the law does not violate the "rights" of people whose "lifestyle preferences" are denied the stamp of legal approval. Rather, it furthers and fosters the common good of civil society, and makes proper provision for the physical and moral protection and nurturing of children.

I have no illusions that such rigorous argumentation and logic will convince homosexual rights advocates that gays face no discimination on the question of marriage rights.

But as we can see, the homosexual movement is attempting to create a right to marriage that has no basis in historical practice, and such attempts trivialize the bloody march to equality Americans have endured and overcome.

This is a lesson gay activists should consider, for when 70 percent of blacks in California - the nation's most liberal, trend-setting state - oppose the demands of an extremely vocal radical minority, it's a pretty good indicator that the movement for same-sex marriage rights falls outside the bounds of both traditional law and universal morality.

New York Legalizes Gay Marriage

Well, six down and 42 to go.

At Los Angeles Times, "New York Legislature passes gay marriage bill."

With the forceful backing of a newly elected Democratic governor, the New York State Legislature gave final approval late Friday to a bill permitting same-sex marriage, enabling gay couples to head for the altar in late July.

After a sometimes emotional hourlong debate, the 62-member, Republican-controlled Senate approved the measure, 33 to 29. Earlier in the evening, the Democratic-led Assembly had amended its version of the bill to match the Senate's, which carried additional exemptions for religious organizations that do not want to acknowledge or extend benefits to gays who marry.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who made the issue a centerpiece of his election campaign last year, signed the bill just before midnight. It will take effect in 30 days, making New York the sixth state, and the most populous by far, to permit same-sex marriage.

"What this state did today brings marriage equality to a new plane," Cuomo told reporters. "We reached a new level of social justice." Outside the Senate chamber, many opponents sat on the floor and prayed aloud for the state.

The amazing thing is how anti-climactic this is.

Gay marriage is coming to America, but it's not coming through a wave of popular, down-home demand. It's coming through the ram-it-down-your-throats progressive politics on the coasts, and the Berkeley-esque enclaves in the major urban areas across the heartland. If there was ever a case for letting federalism prevail, this is it. States should be free to decide their own policies on same-sex marriage. The Blankenhorn and Rauch manifesto is workable, and vital in preventing a progressive tyranny at the federal level from crushing the states. See: "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." And the progressive sensationalism on this is deeply offensive, for example, "The arc of history bends towards justice in N.Y." Actually, gay marriage is not a civil right. Gay Americans are not an oppressed minority, but one of the most affluent and powerful interest groups in American politics. That's why a federal solution to the gay marriage issue remains vital. The gay radical lobby will browbeat kind and reasonable Americans, folks who don't want to put up with the fuss of being hammered over the head or dragged before Stalinist show trials. It's pretty bad, but it's the way things are going around here.

Image Credit: Good as You, "Photo: Stonewall. Right now. 42 years later" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: Rim-station radicals celebrate in New York.

Gay is the New Black?

I've spoken already on the gay marriage movement's false equivalence between same-sex marriage and the historical struggle for black civil rights.

But I wanted to share Dennis Prager's new piece, "Is Gay the New Black?":

"Gay is the new black" is one of the mottos of the movement to redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex.

The likening of the movement for same-sex marriage to the black civil rights struggle is a primary argument of pro same-sex marriage groups. This comparison is a major part of the moral appeal of redefining marriage: Just as there were those who once believed that blacks and whites should not be allowed to be married, the argument goes, there are today equally bigoted individuals who believe that men should not be allowed to marry men and women should not be allowed to marry women.

It is worth noting that the people least impressed with the comparison of the gay struggle to redefine marriage with the black struggle for racial equality are blacks. They voted overwhelmingly for California's Proposition 8 which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as being the union of a man and a woman.

One reason given is that blacks tend to be socially conservative. But another, less verbalized, reason may well be that blacks find the comparison demeaning and insulting. As well they should.

One has to either be ignorant of segregation laws and the routine humiliations experienced by blacks during the era of Jim Crow, or one has to be callous to black suffering, to equate that to a person not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex. They are not in the same moral universe.

There is in fact no comparison between the situation of gays in America in 2008 and the situation of most black Americans prior to the civil rights era. Gays are fully accepted, and as a group happen to constitute one of the wealthiest in American life. Moreover, not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is not anti-gay; it is pro-marriage as every civilization has defined it. The fact is that states like California already grant people who wish to live and love a member of the same sex virtually every right that marriage bestows except the word "married."

A certain number of gay men will feel better if they can call their partner "husband" and some lesbians will enjoy calling their partner "wife," but society as a whole is not benefitted by such a redefinition of those words. Society as a whole does not benefit by removing, as California did, the words "bride" and "groom" from marriage licenses and substituting "Partner A" and "Partner B."

But hoping that the more radical gays and straights of the gay rights movement will ask "what benefits society?" before "what makes some gays feel better?" is useless.

And so, the movement appropriates the symbols and rhetoric of the black civil rights struggle when that struggle and the movement to redefine marriage have next to nothing in common. How can a seriously moral individual compare forcing a black bus rider to sit in the back of a bus or to give up his seat to a white who demands it, or prohibiting a black human being from drinking from the same water fountain or eating at the same lunch counter as a white human being, or being denied the right to vote, or being prohibited from attending a school with whites, let alone being periodically lynched, to either the general gay condition today or specifically to being given the "right" to redefine marriage for society?

There's more at the link.

I was thinking along the same lines as Prager this morning, when reading Anna Quindlen's touchy-feely (and vapid) essay on Loving v. Virginia and same-sex marriage at Newsweek.

The left's spouts an anything-goes mentality and plays fast-and-loose with history and constitutional law (for example, here).

See also my earlier piece, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."

Lindsay Beyerstein: 'If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You're a Bigot' ... Now That's Original!

I haven't blogged much on same-sex marriage, although the holding pattern on Cal's Prop 8 trial will come to an end in June, when closing arguments are scheduled. And we'll see things pick up big time then, especially since hack Judge Vaughn Walker scheduled arguments to coincide with the LA PRIDE FESTIVAL, which celebrates the 40th anniversary of L.A.'s first gay pride demonstration. Not only that, I see folks like Lyndsay Beyerstein have kicked up with the extremist gay marriage agitation, which we find here is the not-so-original meme of defining conservative marriage traditionalists as bigots with no reason other than, well, they're supposed to be bigots. I know. Beyerstein's one Class A anti-intellectual. Still, she's apparently looking to break records with this entry, "If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You Are a Bigot":

By definition, bigots are people with unshakable baseless prejudices. There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage.

You can use religious language to express your belief that gays and lesbians are disgusting second class citizens unworthy of rights that heterosexuals take for granted, but it doesn't make your position any less bigoted. Logically, there is no reason to put same-sex relationships on a lesser legal footing than opposite sex unions, unless you think there's something wrong with them.

You can insist you don't wish gay people any harm. Perhaps not. But there were lots of pro-segregationists who didn't wish ill upon black people, but still didn't want to drink out of the same fountains. They too were bigots.

You can point out that discrimination against gays and lesbians is a longstanding tradition, but that doesn't excuse your bigotry. If anything, it makes it worse. It was one thing to fear what the expansion of gay rights might do when gays and lesbians had no rights. Today we're decades into gay liberation and none of the dire predictions have come true. For example, children raised by same-sex parents are at least as healthy and well-adjusted as those raised by opposite sex parents--and no more likely to identify self identify as gay.

So, if you're still clinging to those irrational fears in the face of evidence, guess what? That's bigoted. If, like the voters of California, you voted to break up families in the name of preserving family values, that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot.

As longtime readers know, I've debated this issue up and down to heaven and back. And I've yet to encounter anyone with a prevailing argument. The most folks can muster is that the much-esteemed youth demographic is supposed to carry the pro-gay marriage vote over the top any time soon. Well, the youth vote's petering out as Obama remorse hardens, and, frankly, the Stalinist actions of gay rights forces were so over the top as to alienate potential allies. That whole outing campaign, and the Google maps, etc. God, totally ridiculous, come to think of it, but desperation drives that kind of extremism, so understandable.

And now we've got this screed from Lindsay Beyerstein that's so bereft of anything substantial it's plain ludicrous. She holds herself up as a journalist, which is obviously hard to sustain when your MO is to completely ignore extant arguments against SSM while yammering "There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage." No, Lindsay, there are lots of reasons. You're simply too closed-minded, er, bigoted, to even entertain the idea that there might actually exist fundamental non-religious cultural norms, social folkways, and regenerative biological facts that easily repudiate the radical gay licentiousness and hedonism that's never far from the gay marriage program. I mean, sheesh. At least excitable Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan puts up some arguments when making the case, as whacked as he is. You're just proving yourself to be the more genuine bigot than anyone of those anti-SSMs you excoriate. It's all you've got (remember, dissent is the new racism).

For reference, see Susan Shell, "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage," and David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage.

North Carolina Amendment 1 Wins in Landslide Vote for Traditional Marriage

The Associated Press reports, "NC voters approve amendment on gay marriage."

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.

Meanwhile, supporters had run their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

Both sides spent a combined $3 million on their campaigns.

And at the Raleigh News & Observer, "Latest results show marriage amendment up 60 percent to 40 percent":

RALEIGH North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.

North Carolina is the last state in the south to add such an amendment, and supporters hoped for a resounding victory.

Incomplete returns show the amendment up 59.72 percent to 40.28 percent. Some large counties, including Durham and Mecklenburg have not reported results.

Primary turnout was heavy. Though there were many other races on the ballot, including primaries for statewide offices and congressional seats, the amendment appeared to drive much of the political discussion.

Marriage rights for gay couples has been a topic of national debate this year, and North Carolina’s amendment and the campaigns for and against it drew international attention.

North Carolinians think of the state as progressive, but that’s within the context of the rest of the South, said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University. “This is a socially conservative state,” he said.

The state has a 16-year-old law banning same-sex marriage.

At least two other states will be voting on gay marriage rights in November. Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on its ballot. Maine has a referendum to allow same-sex marriage. Voters in Maryland and Washington state may be asked to affirm new state laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Money from national interest groups poured into North Carolina. The National Organization for Marriage contributed $425,000 to the Vote for Marriage campaign, according to the latest reports, and the Human Rights Campaign and its affiliates contributed nearly $500,000 to the opposition Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families.

Vote for Marriage raised more than $1 million, and the Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families raised more than $2 million.

And now the progs are having epic hissy fits on Twitter, for example, Chris Kromm, "NEWS: NC officially joins ranks of bigoted states whose neanderthal laws will be overturned by courts in coming years."

And lesbian radical Pam Spaulding is on Twitter as well. The cries of bigotry and homophobia are going to be deafening.

More on this later.

UPDATE: That didn't take long. See Daily Kos, "The bigots win: North Carolina passes Amendment One."

More at Twitchy, "Liberals freak out over North Carolina gay marriage ban."

Barack Obama's Abject Political Calculations on Homosexual Marriage

Elliot Abrams has a great piece on Obama's newfound support of gay marriage, "‘On My Behalf’ - Really?" (via Memeorandum):

The debate over same sex “marriage” has engaged the heartfelt feelings and convictions of millions of Americans. Then there is Barack Obama.

In his ABC interview, the president pretended that his much touted “evolution” had now led him, ineluctably, to speak out now, today; he simply could longer stay silent. ABC let him off the hook, but this is not a credible account.  In March, the Washington Post was reporting the debate among his advisers on whether the issue would help or hurt the reelection campaign and what, therefore, Obama should say: “Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election.”

The same advisers told the Post that Obama would make the decision based on his gut, but that is an insulting way to refer to the vice president.  There is no evidence that Obama planned to speak until Joe Biden said last weekend that he was for gay “marriage” and forced the issue.

In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

Mr. Obama’s statement today is a marvel...

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "President Obama Backs Homosexual Marriage."

Newsweek on Gay Marriage: "At Least Get Scripture Right"

I need to follow up my piece from last night, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage," where I argued against Newsweek's cover story this week, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage."

It turns out that Mollie Hemmingway takes apart Newsweek's Lisa Miller and her disastrous hack job on the Bible's scriptural foundations for traditional marriage:

This is such hackery that it’s offensive ....

I hold sacred the New Testament model of marriage and find Miller’s comments to be beneath contempt. I also wonder what, if anything, she has read from the New Testament.

When my husband read the opening graph of this train wreck of a hit piece, he wondered if these words of Jesus, found in the Gospel of Matthew, indicated indifference to family:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Would that be the indifference that Miller is referring to? Because it really just doesn’t sound indifferent to me. This quote from Jesus comes in a larger section on, well, earthly attachments. One part notes that only those who have the gift of celibacy are to be celibate. I have no doubt that my elementary school-age nieces know these things. Shouldn’t Lisa Miller?

And while St. Paul does endorse single life enthusiastically, for those who are able (a key point left out of Miller’s little opening paragraph), he writes extensively about marriage. In fact, he’s normally picked on for his clear endorsement of traditional marriage, as in Ephesians 5:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

There is nothing lukewarm about this. In fact, there is nothing lukewarm about any of the writings of Paul.

Now, as a member of a contemporary marriage, albeit one that isn’t so foolish as to think marriage is about gender equality or romantic love, I can honestly say that the Bible has been the only guide that has helped my husband and myself. We turn to it constantly to be reminded that the husband is to sacrifice for the wife and the wife is to respect the husband (these things don’t come naturally to either my husband or myself).

And yet Miller discounts our faith by saying that “of course” a contemporary married couple wouldn’t turn to Scripture as a guide for marriage. Just who does she think she is? And why does she have the cover story of Newsweek?

The rest of the piece is about as worthless and mendacious as the opening paragraph. She repeatedly pretends that marriage is not defined in Scripture — although the two examples I gave above manage to define it unambiguously as a heterosexual union. Even her own mentions of the patriarchs prove the point that Biblical marriage is heterosexual in nature.

RELATED: "KipEsquire" has no effective response for my essay on the secular case against gay marriage:

It’s all circular: Since marriage is procreative, anything that is not procreative is not marriage.

Actually, the argument at the post is not circular, but gay advocates are more about visceral emotion than rigorous logic.

The Presidential Politics of Same-Sex Marriage

The big news in the morning papers is the California Supreme Court decision striking down the state's ban on gay marriage.

How will the ruling play out on the presidential election trail?

The Los Angeles Times suggests the decision introduces some hot-button volatility to the race:

The California Supreme Court's decision allowing same-sex marriage probably throws the politically volatile issue into November, when a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage could spill into the presidential campaign and contests for Congress and the state Legislature.

The court's Thursday ruling was not necessarily good news for the presidential candidates, on whom it could exert problematic pressure.

Republican John McCain's success depends on melding a fractious coalition of GOP conservatives -- who are among those pressing for a ban on same-sex marriage -- with independents and conservative Democrats who tend to recoil from candidates campaigning on social issues. Although a November ballot measure could encourage higher turnout by conservatives who are not naturally aligned with McCain, it also could alienate moderates and young voters, who polls show are far more accepting of same-sex marriage.

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had sketched out a more centrist path than the court's. The decision could encourage Democratic interest groups to press candidates to extend their support for civil unions to same-sex marriage itself.

All three offered finessed responses Thursday, saying that defining marriage is best left to individual states.

In an apparent effort to assuage supporters, McCain reiterated his belief that states have a right to ban same-sex marriage. Obama and Clinton emphasized support for civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples.

Not surprisingly, the most definitive political statement Thursday came from someone not on the November ballot: California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the Constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

A coalition of religious and conservative activists has submitted 1.1 million signatures to qualify a November constitutional amendment to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

A random sampling of those signatures is underway, and in late June the secretary of state is expected to announce whether, as expected, the groups collected the 763,790 valid signatures necessary to qualify the measure for the November ballot. If approved by voters, the initiative would overturn the Supreme Court decision, according to Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for groups backing the measure. He predicted it would be "a dominant issue" in November.

The politics of the ballot process is interesting here.

The Court's ruling overturns California's Proposition 22, which passed with 61 percent of the vote in 2000. If McCain's sincere about resisting activist judges in judicial appointments, here's a great chance to hammer far left-wing activists.

It's also striking that Governor Schwarzenegger's so out front in his position on supporting gay rights. He's ineligble for the White House, but in an era of electoral upheaval the Austrian Oak might be a model of moderation for those advocating Big Tent Republicanism.

Note, though, that conservatives activists are already mobilizing to overturn the ruling.

Not only that, Gallup data show that gay marriage is oppposed by a large majority nationwide:

Even as a majority of Americans believe homosexuality ought to be an "acceptable alternative lifestyle," only 40% currently say marriage between same-sex couples should be legal; 56% disagree.

The issue has been brought to the fore by Thursday's California Supreme Court decision to overturn a state ban on gay marriage, making California only the second state in the nation to legally recognize such marriages. Massachusetts blazed this trail with passage of a gay marriage act in 2004.

Public support for legalizing gay marriage is somewhat higher today than what Gallup found at the outset of polling on the subject 12 years ago. In 1996, about one in four Americans thought marriages between homosexuals should be recognized by the law as valid. That increased to 35% in 1999 and to 42% in 2004. However, for the past four years, public support has failed to grow in a linear fashion; rather, it has fluctuated between 37% and 46%.

That's interesting!

Over the past four years (during the Bush administration) there's been little demand for change on this issue. So, while everyone's touting '08 as a "change election," here we have a conservative majority saying, hey, slowdown a bit here!

This should work to the GOP's favor, as Ann Althouse notes:

I think the fear of rapid change will affect voters in the presidential election, especially since we expect the Democrats will control both houses of Congress. Do we really want a Democratic President too? Do we want, in addition to free-flowing legislative change, a President whose judicial appointments will be rubber-stamped in the Senate?

Now, Obama's message has been change. He's committed to that message, and it can be turned against him — a feat that becomes easier in the aftermath of the California decision.

Now there's a big "culture war" issue that will help drive political dynamics this fall.

And just think, Republicans have been in a panic of late, but now we'll have Gavin Newsome to kick around a bit!

See more at Memeorandum.

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times