Activists See NJ Ruling a Possible Plus for Marriage Amendments
by Jody Brown and Jeff Johnson
October 31, 2006
(AgapePress) - - Despite polls showing the public generally is highly in favor of marriage protection amendments, pro-family advocates are concerned about voter apathy and confusion in some states where those amendments are on next Tuesday's ballot. Some of those activists, however, are convinced a recent ruling by New Jersey's highest court spells good news for the amendments.
Colorado is one of eight states that, on November 7, will be considering state constitutional amendments enshrining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Two years ago, similar measures were on 11 state ballots -- and each was approved by a considerable margin. Mona Passignano, an analyst for Focus on the Family Action in Colorado Springs, cautions about marriage supporters buying into the popular perception that another clean sweep is a given this time around.
"We've got five very strong states [Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia], but we've got three -- Colorado, Arizona, and Wisconsin -- that are polling very close to the 50-percent margin, and in some cases, even less," she says.
Passignano's group and another in the same state, Colorado Family Action, are hopeful that a recent marriage ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court is reason enough for anti-amendment newspapers in the Rocky Mountain State to reverse their editorial position on Amendment 43 -- and thereby influence voters to support it. One newspaper, the Grand Junction Sentinel, has done so already and has been applauded for doing so.
"Nobody likes to admit that they were wrong, especially a newspaper editorial board," says Carrie Gordon Earll with Focus on the Family Action. "But the Sentinel's editors did what they are supposed to do as an advocate for their readers: they considered all the facts and arrived at the only conclusion that will ensure the protection of marriage."
The Sentinel reacted to the New Jersey decision, saying that in light of that ruling -- which essentially ordered lawmakers in that state to either legalize same-sex "marriage" or create civil unions for homosexual couples -- "clear language in the Colorado Constitution that cannot be so easily overturned by judicial fiat as state law is a virtual necessity to ensure that marriage in Colorado remains a union between one man and one woman."
Jim Pfaff, a spokesman for Colorado Family Action, is challenging every newspaper in his state that has come out against Amendment 43 to follow the Sentinel's example. The New Jersey situation, he says, shows what can happen when a state does not have marriage protections in place.
"Any editorial board that is truly interested in giving its readers sound direction on how to cast their ballots on November 7 must now re-evaluate its position ...," says Pfaff. "Anything less is irresponsible."
Marriage proponents in Idaho also believe the New Jersey ruling will have a detectable influence on the proposed amendment to Idaho's constitution, saying it expects an "upward bounce" in support for HJR2. The group Idaho Values Alliance points to poll conducted before the New Jersey ruling that indicated 59 percent of likely voters support the measure. Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Alliance, believes that support is actually higher.
Fischer says that because the decision in New Jersey demonstrated the "threat" that activist judges pose to the institution of marriage, voters in his state "realize that this issue is either going to be decided by the courts or by the people -- and they believe it should be decided by the people."
He also notes that historically, pre-election polls have under-estimated support for marriage amendments by as much as 15 percent. That is because citizens may feel pressure to respond with a "politically correct" answer when asked by a pollster, he says, but feel free to vote their conscience when inside a polling booth.
Regardless, the Idaho Values Coalition is taking no chances. Fischer says the group has mailed out more than 120,000 pieces of pro-amendment literature, and plans to distribute thousands more door to door prior to Election Day.
Promoting Confusion
Meanwhile, a spokeswoman with the Palmetto Family Council in South Carolina -- a state where the marriage amendment is expected to do well -- contends pro-homosexual activists are trying to confuse the voters.
"They have signs up all over the place that say 'Vote No -- Fairness for All Families -- on Amendment 1,'" says Marie Connelly. "So a lot of the citizens who do not support gay marriage may be confused about how to vote on this amendment." The result, she says, is that some voters may vote against the amendment because they have been led to believe a vote for the amendment is a vote for homosexual marriage.
In fact, a "yes" vote on South Carolina's Amendment 1 would support traditional marriage, she explains, whereas a "no" vote would leave judges the option to interpret marriage to mean whatever they choose -- regardless of the will of the state's legislature or voters. Connelly says current polling shows 70 to 80 percent support for the amendment, but she fears voter confusion may make the final vote closer.
