Wildmon: State Marriage Amendments No Guarantee Against Judicial Activism

by Jody Brown, Allie Martin, and Rusty Pugh
November 2, 2004

(AgapePress) - Voters in 11 states are voting Tuesday on measures to amend their constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The founder of one pro-family group says he expects strong support across the board -- just as there has been in five other states where voters have chosen to defend traditional marriage and ban homosexual "marriage."

Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah are having a say in whether they or the courts will define marriage. Polls in late October indicated that pro-marriage constitutional amendments in all of those states are likely to pass. The Washington Times reported support ranging from 77 percent in Arkansas to 52 percent in North Dakota.

All of the constitutional amendments up for a vote define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. All of them but one -- Montana -- also state that other "marriage-like" unions, such as civil unions of same-gender couples, will not be recognized. But will support or opposition to the amendments have any bearing on the outcome of the presidential election?

Dr. Don Wildmon, chairman and founder of the American Family Association, notes that the debate over traditional marriage has become a major issue in the presidential campaign. "It's certainly causing some problems for John Kerry among the black community," he says.

Dr. Don Wildmon

"It has been predicted that President Bush will get 17 percent of the black vote, which is twice the [percentage] he got in 2000 -- and the primary reason for that is his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment banning homosexual marriage."

While Wildmon says he is encouraged that voters in 11 states will decide the fate of the constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, he is still convinced a similar amendment to the U.S. Constitution is necessary. Activist judges, he says, will try and strike down the will of the voters without a Federal Marriage Amendment.

"Not only can federal judges come in, but without a Federal Marriage Amendment -- and you can write it down and go to the bank with it -- they will come in," the AFA founder states. "Some federal judge will rule all marriage laws in all 50 states illegal if we do not have a Federal Marriage Amendment. That is the only thing that will protect us against the judicial system."

A Washington Times report bears out Wildmon's ominous warning. Homosexual activists have been urging their supporters to turn out in great numbers against the amendments -- but apparently they are not optimistic about their chances. Even in Oregon, which homosexual activists have singled out as their best possible chance to avoid a complete shutout in the 11 states, polls have shown growing support for the amendment. But the courts offer pro-homosexual groups an avenue for challenge.

"Just because stuff passes on November 2 doesn't mean it's the end of the day," said Andy Thayer in an October 28 Times article. Thayer, leader of a group opposing the amendments, points to Louisiana as an example. Seventy-eight percent of the voters in that state approved a constitutional marriage amendment on September 18. But less than three weeks later, one state judge overturned the will of the more than 600,000 voters who passed the measure. That judge's ruling is currently being appealed.

Negative Ads in Ohio
One pro-family activist in Ohio can attest to court challenges by homosexual groups against a marriage amendment. But now that that hurdle has been overcome, he is worried that a misleading campaign by homosexual activists could influence the result of today's vote in the Buckeye State.

Ohio's amendment to the state constitution would simply define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Advocates of same-sex marriage in the state attempted to deny residents a chance to vote on the issue by using the courts. That attempt to use judicial activism did not work, and the measure was allowed on the ballot.

But Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values says the opposition resorted to a last act of desperation: a campaign of lies. And he admits he is not sure what the effect will be.

"The other side has gone up with very negative, despicable scare tactic ads on TV saying that older people are going to lose their pensions, unmarried people can't own property together or can't write wills or have power of attorney," Burress explains. "It's absolutely despicable -- so we need the prayers of the people that this horrible campaign will not resonate with too many people."

But it could be a re-hash of the Louisiana scenario. If the amendment passes in Ohio -- even by a large majority -- Burress expects the usual challenges by supporters of homosexual marriage, who he says will attempt to use liberal judges to overturn the will of the people.