Voting on Marriage in 2012 toward Family Restoration

Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington State will all vote on marriage on November 6th. Each state has a different approach to addressing marriage expansion or marriage protection, and understanding these various marriage amendments can be confusing. In this post we'd like to remove some of that confusion.

Previously this blog has informed our readers on this issue after I was asked to write a JURIST.com post on the matter. You can read that post at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/2012/09/marriage-and-election-2012.html, and you can access the JURIST.com piece at http://jurist.org/forum/2012/06/lynne-kohm-marriage-referendum.php. We've also discussed the implications here for voters concerned about racial fairness and marriage, and you can read that post at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=African+american+voters.

With these votes on marriage in four particular states fast approaching, we've tried to give you a quick glimpse below. Some important definitions include:

"Marriage": that legal lifetime union between one man and one woman unrelated and of suitable age.

"Marriage expansion": that union of two men or two women that may be known as same sex marriage, or a civil union, or a domestic partnership, with the objective of expanding marriage as it is commonly known to include partners of the same gender.  Marriage expansion often includes other ways than gender similarity to expand marriage (i.e. by eliminating minimum age, or increasing the number of partners, or the elimination of affinity or consanguinity norms), but in the November 2012 election the term generally means expansion of marriage to include same sex couples.  Marriage expansion in one area opens the door to expansion in these other areas, as currently evidenced in other nations. For a good discussion on how polygamy is the new frontier for marriage expansion see http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/polygamy-may-be-hot-but-in-marriage-threes-still-a-crowd/2012/10/05/daf41284-0e39-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html?hpid=z5. This blog has featured similar warnings; see our post on this about the US and Canada at  http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=polygamy.

and regarding Brazil at http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/search?q=Thruple.

Here's a quick summary for voters in each state:

Maryland – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "AGAINST" Question 6. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to vote "FOR" Question 6. Some resources for Christian voters can be found at http://www.marylandmarriagealliance.org/church-resources/

Minnesota – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "YES" for the marriage amendment. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to vote "NO," against the amendment. Resources for faith-based voters can be found at http://www.mnpastorsformarriage.com/.

Maine – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to vote "NO" on Question 1. Marriage expansionists ask that you vote "YES" on Question 1. Christian resources can be found at http://protectmarriagemaine.com/church-tools/.

Washington – The pro-marriage campaign asks you to "REJECT" R-74. The marriage expansion campaign asks you to "ACCEPT" R-74. Resources for Christian voters are available at http://www.preservemarriagewashington.com/churchresources.php.

Any voter's Marriage Amendment position will reflect his or her position not only on marriage's definition, but on what that voter hopes marriage will look like in another generation, and on that voter's hopes for family restoration. Marriage expansion hinders family restoration because it dilutes the meaning and substance of marriage. To read more about this phenomenon specifically, see m

y scholarship on how marriage is altered by the proliferation of domestic partnerships on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269418.  To read more about accuracy and fairness in discussing marriage and homosexuality see my article on this at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317699.  

This November be an informed voter can assist you in wisely voting your values on marriage looking toward stronger marriages and stronger families on the road to societal family restoration.  

African Americans with Family Values Face Tough Election

African Americans who understand the importance of marriage to family restoration face a tough election choice in November. In fact, a recent article by Bethany Monk of CitizenLink is entitled "Black Voters Say They May Stay Home on Election Day." In the September 17, 2012 piece Monk writes: "Left with the option of voting for a presidential candidate who supports same-sex marriage or one who practices the Mormon faith, some black pastors are encouraging their congregations to just stay home on Election Day." Read that entire article here at http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/09/17/black-voters-say-they-may-stay-home-on-election-day/.

The Huffington Post is also reporting a similar story at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/16/african-american-christians-voting-election_n_1887956.html. It is very significant that President Obama won 95 percent of black votes in 2008, but many of those voters are not certain they will repeat that vote. "When President Obama made the public statement on gay marriage, I think it put a question in our minds as to what direction he's taking the nation," said the Rev. A.R. Bernard, founder of the predominantly African-American Christian Cultural Center in New York. According to the Post, Bernard's endorsement is much sought-after in New York and beyond, but he's unsure how he'll vote this year. According to The Associated Press (AP), most churchgoers cannot support same-sex marriage, as President Obama has done publicly since May. Another point for African-American voters is the previous prohibition on blacks into the priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although the ban was lifted in 1978, church authorities never explained why, and never issued a formal apology.

These concerns tend to leave African-American Christian voters in a conundrum. It is unclear just how widespread the sentiment is that African-American Christians would be better off not voting at all. Many pastors have said that despite their misgivings about the candidates, blacks have fought too hard for the vote to ever stay away from the polls.

According to the Washington Post, Obama faces widespread discontent among black voters. Read that piece at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-faces-growing-discontent-among-black-voters/2011/09/23/gIQA3vYurK_story.html. Family values are a primary concern, along with joblessness, and a poor economy.

A valuable vote is not something to waste. The challenge is to use that vote to make a difference. Exercising the freedom to participate in the American Democracy is a significant victory in and of itself. Voting for values in that critical opportunity should not be passed up.

Marriage makes families strong, and strong families make a stronger nation. Whatever your race, ethnicity, religion, or creed, vote to bring restoration to families that need it. Marriage is absolutely vital to family restoration - and one vote can make a tremendous difference.

Marriage and Election 2012

Marriage was the focus of discussion at the NAACP Convention last week, noting the strong stance for marriage in the African American community:

A study by the Brookings Institution has shown that for those that graduate from high school, who get a full-time job, and wait until 21 before they marry and then have their first child, the probability of becoming poor is two percent. And if those factors are absent, the probability of being poor is 76%," said Gov. Romney, "Here at the NAACP you understand the deep and lasting difference that family makes. [...] Any policy that lifts up and honors the family is going to be good for the country and that must be our goal. As President I will promote strong families and I will defend traditional marriage.

NAACP members in the audience then gave Gov. Romney strong applause in response to his pledge. The significance of marriage to family and community strength is clearly embraced by many of the American electorate.

Voters in four States will face marriage referendums in November. I recently was asked to post this piece in the U Pittsburg JURIST, also available at http://jurist.org/forum/2012/06/lynne-kohm-marriage-referendum.php. Election 2012 will have a significant impact on family restoration.

Marriage and Grassroots Democracy in 2012

JURIST Guest Columnist Lynne Marie Kohm of Regent University School of Law says that the November 2012 elections will involve historic referendums in several states on legislation related to same-sex marriage...
________________________________________

The legislative and democratic events surrounding marriage have been anything but uneventful over the past year, and promise to be all the more interesting through the November elections. Among the states active in marriage legislation, North Carolina has been at the helm, with the state approving a marriage amendment in May 2012. Legal academics from Duke to Campbell [PDF] have been discussing the results of the referendum. Despite the great political pressure surrounding the vote, the people of North Carolina voted to protect and ensure the definition of marriage in their state constitution. Effective immediately, North Carolina joins the 31 other states [PDF] in the US that have made a similar constitutional resolution. That edict is not without question, as a recently filed lawsuit challenging the state's adoption regulations could also implicate the amendment.
Looking ahead to November 2012, other states will vote on constitutional guarantees for marriage, namely Minnesota, Maine, Washington and Maryland — all in the wake of US President Barack Obama's open endorsement of same-sex marriage. Minnesotans will head to the ballot box in November to vote on a referendum that will protect marriage from expansion to same-sex unions. Maine will also vote on marriage in the 2012 ballots — again — but differently than in the past. In 2009 Mainers voted to defeat marriage expansion despite that state's legislative move toward same-sex marriage. As one local news publication reported, "[a]fter the Legislature approved gay marriage three years ago, opponents forced the question before voters, who overturned the law 53 percent to 47 percent." The upcoming vote in Maine will be the first of its kind. Not because it is a rerun of the previous 2009 ballot, but because it is the first democratic test of same-sex unions anywhere in the country — one driven by the people and put to a popular vote.
Washington voters will cast their ballots on a same-sex marriage measure in November similar to, but distinct from, the Maine initiative. This referendum is driven by the state legislature and the vote is framed to endorse the same-sex marriage law approved by legislators earlier this year. If passed, the referendum would effectively expand marriage to include homosexual couples.
Maryland is also set to vote on same-sex marriage in November due to an interesting legislative strategy to expand marriage to include same-sex couples despite legislative and grassroots opposition. In March, Maryland became the eighth state to approve marriage expansion by passing the Civil Marriage Protection Act. Rather than becoming effective immediately, the bill was amended so that it would not take effect until 2013, allowing for a possible voter referendum in November. Recent grassroots efforts will likely force the referendum. Among the major political groups pitted on each side of these referendums are the privately funded Washington, DC-based National Organization for Marriage, which was involved in ballot measures that overturned same-sex marriage in California and Maine, and Marriage Equality, part of the federally funded Human Rights Campaign, which is "the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans," according to its website.
What is happening in Maine and Washington is being analyzed by activists in other states wishing to expand marriage. For example, Oregon is one of 32 states that have already democratically integrated a state constitutional marriage amendment. However, that has not kept innovators from considering how to amend the state's constitution again. A strategy to overturn Oregon's marriage amendment would follow an ambitious two-pronged approach that first requires a state-wide vote to remove the current constitutional amendment, and then a national initiative to have Congress or federal courts act to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
During the 2012 election season, scholars and political pundits will be interested to observe whether legislatures can lead their constituents to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Prior to this year, all referendum votes have been democratically endorsing marriage without expansion by fairly wide margins [PDF]. The upcoming November 2012 elections regarding marriage will be the feature attraction, second only to the vote for the presidency. The last presidential determination electing Obama suggested a connection between Californians who voted for his candidacy and those in favor of marriage and Proposition 8 [PDF]. Without counting the California vote, Americans have been a part of 32 decisions in 32 state referendums that have affirmed marriage without expansion. The 2012 democratic process promises to be exceptionally interesting.

Reprinted from JURIST.org, at http://jurist.org/forum/2012/06/lynne-kohm-marriage-referendum.php

California's Prop 8 Case Looks Bad for Maneuvering Lawyers but Good for Marriage

Following the appeal in the Proposition 8 Marriage cases has been challenging, as the national media has virtually ignored the hearings this week.  Two organizations that this blog follows, however, have been actively monitoring the arguments.

 

The National Organization for Marriage provides a detailed update of the case below, along with the Ruth Institute's Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse who was in the courtroom for the hearings.  Their reports are carried below... notice how lawyerly maneuvering to present the best case for your plaintiffs does not impress a judge as much as justice for the matter at hand.  Here, thanks to justice, marriage has a good chance of restoration in California, and therefore throughout the rest of the country. 

... David Boise and Ted Olson, super-lawyers with an unbeatable case ... fought hard to prevent any higher court from reviewing their own or Judge Walker's work. ... Maggie Gallagher ... raise[d] that point in her syndicated column this week, "The Vindication of Chuck Cooper": The most amusing moment was watching appellate judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Hawkins get Boies to confess that he and Olson have actively engineered this case to try to prevent judicial oversight by either the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court. It was Boies and Olson who asked Judge Walker to issue an injunction against only Alameda and Los Angeles county clerks -- to keep the Imperial County and other clerks from having standing to challenge the law. No other defendant has standing, Boies claimed. Judge Hawkins nailed Boies on this point: "And the makeup of all the defendants was chosen by plaintiff's counsel, and you chose to name only Alameda and Los Angeles clerks? ... And that was a knowing tactical choice -- it's not that you forgot to name the other 50 or so clerks?" Yes, Boies had to admit. A bit later Judge Reinhardt chimed in, telling Boise: "It's hard to believe you deliberately only wanted to get a judgment in Alameda and Los Angeles and didn't want to get a judgment that this judge's ruling applied throughout this state." Then he applied a little shaming humor: "It's hard for me to believe that a lawyer of your ability, and fame and whatever else you have -- even if you lost to Mr. Olson (loud guffaws). Nevertheless it's hard for me to believe that." At the very end of the oral arguments Judge Reinhardt returned to the theme that Boies and Olson were deliberately trying to manipulate the process so that review of the decision would be harder, as Maggie pointed out: Judge Reinhardt suggested that Boies could serve the other clerks with notice of the injunction. "That would help us clear up the case," Judge Reinhardt said with a pointed laugh. And Boies, like a boy with his hand caught in the cookie jar, grinned sheepishly, paused and then said, "I have to decline that, your Honor." Olson and Boies, superlawyers and media heroes, who claim to be crushing Cooper in court with arguments that no one can possibly reply to, don't want any appellate judge reviewing their work. As Maggie concludes, "Somewhere, Chuck Cooper is quietly chuckling." Brian Brown of NOM continues his report: I read Maggie's column on Real Clear Politics yesterday. But this morning I noticed that Maggie isn't literally the ONLY one to notice this exchange. Cornell Law Prof. Michael Dorf, who is pro-gay-marriage, noted the same thing in a note posted on Thursday: "For me the most tantalizing moment during the discussion of the procedural issues came when Judge Reinhardt almost asked the following question: Why didn't the plaintiffs sue all of the county clerks? Boies acknowledged that this was an option. Reinhardt said that in light of the high level of competence of Boies and Olson, this could not have been an inadvertent oversight." Then Prof. Dorf makes a fascinating analogy to a famous case David Boies lost, Bush v. Gore, in which the Supreme Court intervened to prevent the Florida Supreme Court from cherry-picking counties in which to recount votes: "In attempting to cherry-pick counties for recounting, the Gore team--including Boies--ceded much of the moral high ground. They could no longer argue credibly that they simply wanted an accurate count. ...Fast forward to the Boies/Olson strategy of only suing two county Clerks. Could this have been a similar tactical choice right from the beginning, aimed at engineering precisely the situation we now have, in which a district court ruling of nominally limited scope ends up being both effective statewide and unreviewable on the merits? If so, I've got to say that this strikes me as too clever by half." He concludes with this observation: "in apparently manipulating the procedural doctrines for advantage, they sacrifice at least some of that moral high ground, making themselves look no less the cautious schemers than the organizations whose warnings they ignored in filing suit when and how they did." "Cautious schemers" Boies and Olson may be playing well in the press, but the serious lawyers have serious qualms about their performance. Now I know many who watched are frustrated that the full case for marriage was not presented in oral arguments. That's for two reasons. First, because oral arguments are controlled by judges--in this case two very liberal judges--and focus on the arguments which interest the judges. But it's also partly because at this point Chuck Cooper really has an audience of one: Justice Anthony Kennedy. It's all about adding the fifth vote at the Supreme Court to the four solid conservative justices. Because Olson and Boies are fighting so hard to prevent review, legal analysts are now saying it may be a long slog to the Supreme Court. (BTW, people who are inclined to gloat--not saying that's me!--might take a perverse delight in hearing that, in an unrelated case, a sanctions motions charging "egregious misconduct" has been filed against Boies's law firm. You can read more here.). If you were watching with us that day you might have noticed Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse there in the courtroom, wearing a rainbow scarf! "Yes, I wore a rainbow-colored scarf," she writes in the Ruth Institute newsletter. "I intend to reclaim the rainbow!" After all, "the rainbow is a Biblical symbol of God's covenant with the entire human race, placed in the heavens after the Great Flood in Noah's time. The rainbow is a symbol of God's promise never to destroy the entire earth again, regardless of human infidelity and sinfulness." After the trial ended she headed over to Vallejo, where an African-American church is organizing local parents to defeat the ACLU's efforts to prevent parents from opting out of a curriculum that includes "That's a Family!", a film designed to teach people that marriage doesn't really matter, and it certainly doesn't matter whether children have a mom and a dad, because all family forms are the same. She noticed something I hadn't: "It was Prop 8 that brought these people together." And speaking of all the colors of the rainbow, she says, that was the real rainbow crowd: "I attended a meeting at an African-American church up here in the Bay Area last evening. This group of parents included people of many races and Christian denominations." As I read about their courageous fight to control their own kids' education, Mayor Gavin Newsom's famous last words were ringing in my ears. "Whether you like it or not"--that's the mantra of the gay marriage movement. .. More good news from New York: After all the votes were counted in a close race, it looks like pro-gay-marriage incumbent Craig Johnson lost, meaning control of the state Senate will turn from Democrats to Republicans. Along with the abject failure of gay rights groups to defeat pro-marriage Democrats like Sen. Ruben Diaz, it looks like the possibility for a renewed gay marriage fight in New York just went down. We are monitoring that question closely. On the less good news front, the Washington Post is reporting that a push to pass gay marriage in Maryland is "likely" next year. Stay tuned. In Iowa, Gov. Terry Branstad sharply criticized Democratic leaders for saying they intend to block a vote on a marriage amendment next year. He said the state's top Democrat, Sen. Mike Gronstal, is being "dictatorial" for singlehandedly blocking the voters' will, according to a Dec. 7 Iowa City Press-Citizen story. Gov. Branstad affirmed what Iowans know but the mainstream press has ignored: Democrats "had already paid a price for opposing efforts to let the public vote on a gay marriage ban." How did Sen. Robert Dvorsky, D-Coralville respond to Branstad's charge that Gronstal is behaving dictatorially--a one-man roadblock opposing the people's will? He said, "Shut up and do what Gronstal says." Okay, he didn't say that exactly. What he said was: "Sen. Gronstal said we're not going to bring it up." He added, "I'm not sure what the governor-elect is trying to do other than score political points."

Brian S. Brown President National Organization for Marriage 2029 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC  20006 bbrown@nationformarriage.org

NOM Featured Article "The Vindication of Chuck Cooper" Maggie Gallagher December 7, 2010 For Charles Cooper, chief litigator for Proposition 8, the ultimate vindication will come when five U.S. Supreme Court justices overturn U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's decision. Judge Walker is the San Francisco judge who took it upon himself to rule that 7 million Californians had no right to vote for Prop 8 -- gay marriage, he ruled, is required by the U.S. Constitution.

©2010 National Organization for Marriage.