Marriage 20-0

| | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

As you may have noticed I've been too busy to blog very frequently the past week or so, thus I missed mentioning the success of the state Marriage Amendment in Alabama last week. Per the AP:

Perhaps demonstrating that the protection of the definition of marriage should not be a partisan issue, 81 percent of Alabama voters June 6 approved a state constitutional marriage amendment -- an amendment that was placed on the ballot by the legislature and sponsored by two Democrats.

The amendment won handily in every county, making Alabama the 20th state to adopt a constitutional marriage amendment. Those 20 amendments have been adopted with an average of 71 percent of the vote.

The Alabama amendment, like many of the 19 other amendments defending marriage, contains language preventing the establishment of any "union replicating marriage" or designed to approximate marriage. The Anti-Marriage Amendment crowd in Virginia is already ratcheting up their misinformation campaign built around the idea that somehow these straightforward amendments protecting the definition of marriage and preventing the creation of marriage under another name (i.e. Civil Unions) will shatter every citizen’s contract rights, Power of Attorney, 401k etc. It’ll be enjoyable to watch as another state enacts language similar to Virginia’s proposed amendment and the myths spouted by the amendment’s opponents again fail to materialize (and don't even get me started on the absurdity of any argument based on one overturned domestic abuse ruling in Ohio... even if 2 separate appeals courts hadn't overturned this singular ridiculous decision, it would still be meaningless to Virginia since Ohio domestic abuse law is unique in that the statute is linked to marriage while Virginia and most other states link their domestic violence laws to households.) It just goes to show that the American people refuse to be hoodwinked by some hollow fear-campaign.

Below is the Family Foundation’s Information Alert discussing the passage of Alabama’s amendment. If you haven’t done so already, please sign up to support the campaign for the Marriage Amendment (info at the bottom of the alert):

The Family Foundation Thursday, June 8, 2006

Information Alert: Marriage 20-0!!

As the U.S. Senate rejected the federal marriage protection amendment, yet another state added such a protection to their constitution.

On Tuesday, Alabama became the 20th state to pass a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. That amendment passed with an astounding 81 percent of the vote! State amendments are now 20-0 when put before the people.

Yet again, when this issue is given to the people to decide, traditional marriage wins in a landslide. Today, the Democrat controlled Pennsylvania House voted overwhelmingly for that state's marriage amendment. In November, at least 7 states, including Virginia, will have marriage amendments on the ballot.

This week's U.S. Senate vote simply makes clear the absolute necessity that the people of Virginia protect marriage through our state Constitution in November and thus join the wave of states that understand the importance of protecting the definition of marriage for future generations.

I hope you have already signed the Virginia marriage amendment statement of support on If not, I hope you do so today. We also need volunteers to help with this effort. It is so important that every pro-marriage Virginian take part in this effort so that victory will be guaranteed! For information on you can help call us at 804-343-0010 or email

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Marriage 20-0.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


stay puft marshmallow man said:

"It just goes to show that the American people refuse to be hoodwinked by some hollow fear-campaign."

fear campaign? That's just hilarious, considering your claims that if gays can get married, America's children will suffer (I'm still waiting for those peer-reviewed reports)

I remember how much conservatives hated Clinton for "following the polls." and now it's, "81% of people in the great state of Alabama don't like gay marriage, so let's amend the constitution!"

if 81% of the people don't like gay marriage, than that 81% can have heterosexual marriages! but NO, it's got to be all or nothing, no compromises, that's the way we do things in the USA, right. well, you can have Alabama. I'm sure they would have voted for a constitutional ban on "mixed-race marriages" 50 years ago, and FOR slavery 70 years before that. christ, their state flag is a cross between the confederate flag and a KKK banner. great, let's have Alabama lead the country into a bright new era.

And why do you feel the need cut-and-paste a picture from at the top of every anti-gay marriage post you write? is that an appeal to some emotional idea that, "yeah, that's the way GOD MEANT it to be"

why do you do it? do you think a man would loose the ability to give his pregnant wife a foot massage on a sunny afternoon in a world where gays were allowed to marry? Did you read something in the Weekly Standard that said that scandinavian wives have received fewer foot massages in the past 10 years?

In my fantasy world, the happy couple in that picture live next door to a happily married gay couple, and everyone's cool with that because people are able to mind their own business, and they agree to live and let live. but then, what kind of message would
that send to the children?

now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put on a suit of armor and stare at myself in the mirror like the narcissistic liberal elitist that I'm sure you think I'm sounding like right now. good day sir!

Sophrosyne said:

Stay Puft-

Let me ask you two simple questions that may help us rationally examine our different views on this issue. In your view: How do you define marriage and why does the government license marriage?

stay puft marshmallow man said:

I'm assuming you define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and that the gov. is involved in an attempt to create an environment that's good for children. Is this correct?

I, on the other hand, believe that marriage is too personal a thing for the gov. to define. It'd be like legislating the meaning of life. And I doubt that the government became involved in marriage as a way of promoting stable families. Historically, marriage was a means of forming alliances between royal families, and I'd bet that THAT is the real origin of this state-marriage connection.

So, I don't believe that gays harm the children. You seem to think that two people (m&f) might decide not to get married because they no longer believe in marriage after gays are allowed to marry. But even if gays are able to marry, a stable family environment would still be the best thing for children, and if two people fail to create such an environment for their children, it's their fault as parents. It seems a bit absurd to blame the gay community.

I say that if people's beliefs in marriage are that fickle nowadays, it's not because of gay marriage, or the "threat" of gay marriage. (I for one stopped believing in the value of marriage after seeing Cinderella; if people from two completely different social strata are allowed to marry, what's the point?) So that's why I don't understand how you believe that the best way to encourage stable families is to ban gays from marrying. Gays can't get married now, anyway, so if there's any problems with families these days, gay marriage couldn't possible be the cause. If your concern is really with families, than it seems like there are more direct ways of dealing with the issue of family stability than a ban on gay marriage.

furthermore, there is a large gay population in my community, and I see no evidence of if having an impact on the areas children. I hear parents complain more often about Game Cubes than the gay couple next door. So what I'd like to know is, where did you get this idea that gay marriage harms families? You've offered one article from the weekly standard which makes a somewhat dubious claim of a causal relation between gay marriage and children out of wedlock, and claim to know about several other, "peer-reviewed studies"

I would be very interested in seeing these studies. I would also be interested in seeing what the founding father-types had to say about the reasons for state involvement in marriage. I have access so plenty of scholarly articles, so I guess I could search for this stuff easily enough myself. But I'm interested in seeing the info you're basing your opinions on.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

I am also still interested in understanding how you can accuse 'the other side' of waging a campaign of fear given your basic premise. ie, how is arguing that gay marriage will destroy families not a scare tactic?

Sophrosyne said:

To your last comment: Because we have REAL EXAMPLES of what happens when same-sex "marriage" is instituted. I can tell you don't like the example but in Scandinavia the results are pretty clear. Many more children are born outside of wedlock than ever before as a direct result of the radical redefinition of what constitutes marriage and the corresponding change in perception. Also we can look to Massachusetts and see religious organizations (in this case Catholic Charities) are being run out of the adoption business because they won’t abandon their religious views and consequently their religious liberty.

Can you cite any REAL examples of what the other side is promising (collapse of all contract rights between any unmarried individuals, etc)?

That, my friend, is the difference between a “scare tactic” (i.e. not grounded in empirical reality) and proven consequences.

As to your earlier post, I will be posting a new article soon (in a day or so) that should touch on many of your points so I won’t respond here (this thread is already drifting down on our blog and I want our dialogue to be easily seen by all). More soon.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

but you have no emperical proof that one caused the other. You've still only presented ONE article from the Weekly Standard (of all things). All you have, emperically, is a rise in chilren out of wedlock and a change in the marriage law. Even if the two are related, there's no way to prove (without more information) that one caused the other.

Also, I don't know anything about a "collapse of all contract rights between any unmarried individuals" I see this as an issue of an individuals freedom to make their own decisions and to take responsibiliby for their own actions. (ie, if peope have children out of wedlock, that's their fault, not the fault of gays) I don't understand how this isn't a conservative point of view.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Recent Comments

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here