Year In Review: Conservatives Predict Voter Backlash Following NJ Marriage Ruling
December 29, 2006
(AgapePress) - - Marriage traditionalists and pro-family leaders are predicting Wednesday's ruling in New Jersey requiring equal rights for same-sex couples will energize Christian conservatives in eight states where, in less than two weeks, voters will decide whether to amend their state constitutions to preserve traditional marriage.
The New Jersey Supreme Court high court ruled that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as married heterosexual couples, and gave state lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to include homosexual couples or else to create civil unions in the state. Matt Daniels is president of the Alliance for Marriage, a group that supports a federal amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He predicts an Election Day backlash -- in the form of an increased conservative turnout -- to the pro-homosexual ruling in New Jersey.
"It will drive people to the polls in states where marriage referenda are on the ballot," Daniels tells Associated Press. "To the extent that that spills over into races, it could have an impact on the outcome of elections." A constitutional marriage amendment is on the ballot in eight states on November 7 -- Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Daniels expects conservatives to propel those amendments to victory.
"When the people are given a chance to speak, they speak strongly in favor of the common-sense idea that marriage is a man and woman, that kids do best with a mom and a dad," Daniels tells Associated Press. "And so, you will see increased numbers at the polls in the other states in the wake of this decision in New Jersey."
A spokesman for a pro-marriage group in one of those states concurs. Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, says the court decision in New Jersey "highlights the urgency" for voters in his state to pass that state's marriage initiative, thus "insulat[ing] marriage policy in Idaho from activist judges."
"Our opponents have been saying all along that we don't need a marriage amendment because we already have a state law dealing with this issue," says Fischer. "Well, as Massachusetts and now New Jersey make clear, just having a state law is not enough to keep tyrannical judges from tampering with marriage." Passage of Idaho's marriage amendment, he says, will make sure that "what happened ... in New Jersey never happens here."
That is exactly what Dr. James Dobson hopes will happen in Idaho and the other seven states considering marriage amendments. He says the New Jersey ruling should convince voters what needs to be done to keep marriage "out of the hands of activist courts." "We only hope that the residents of the eight states who will vote on such amendments ... recognize that [like in Massachusetts and New Jersey] their state may be only one court ruling away from being forced to accept gay marriage," says the Focus on the Family founder.
Dobson is also convinced that a specific objective is lurking behind Wednesday's decision. "Nothing less than the future of the American family hangs in the balance if we allow one-man, one-woman marriage to be redefined out of existence," he says in a press release. "And make no mistake -- that is precisely the outcome the New Jersey Supreme Court is aiming for with this decision."
Like Dobson, the president of Concerned Women for America is accusing the NJ high court of attempting to "uproot" marriage by "imposing its own form of discrimination" by declaring that marriage can reside within a relationship involving two men or two women. But in doing so, says Wendy Wright, the court has now given citizens in the eight states "greater reason" to vote on November 7 to protect marriage. (Read how those votes turned out on Election Day 2006)
