Homosexual Activist Wayne Besen Makes a Strong
Case for State and Federal Marriage Protection Amendments
"(T)he California Supreme Court may...come out in favor of same-sex marriage as early as May 23. ...If same-sex marriage becomes a reality in America's largest and most influential state -- and is not overturned by a Constitutional Amendment -- it will be the biggest earthquake to hit in years. The sheer number of couples who will marry (and divorce, it is California, after all) will forever change this debate. It will cause a legal mess, as many of these married couples -- often with children -- migrate to states that still discriminate. The consequences of such relocations will force the entire country to grapple with this issue. No longer will the debate be theoretical, but will focus on the discrimination endured by families whose married status vanishes the moment they cross state lines."
If this scenario put forth by this hopeful homosexual activist (Wayne Besen) is accurate, it will be exactly what many of our nation's founders feared, one large state dictating the public policy of the others.
This battle will be well worth watching. Even in the liberal state of California, a public question was passed overwhelmingly in which voters said that marriage should be only between one man and one woman. (Prop 22) In November, California voters may also be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage and the importance of both genders to the cornerstone of the family. This is important since, as Besen observes (and hopes), a California court may ignore the will of the people claerly expressed through Prop 22.
In so doing, a liberal judge may well define marriage down to merely the bringing together of two or more people rather than being what it always has been, the bringing together of the two sexes for a vital societal unit.
Ignored by much of the media, however, is the fact that over one million signatures in support of a marriage amendment have already been gathered, far more than is needed to put the measure on the ballot. The impact that effort will have, and the impact of a judge's agenda, is something both sides of this debate will be closely watching.
Until then, it is a painful lesson to observe for the remaining minority of states like Indiana which have not passed Marriage Protection Amendments. Because of the obstructionism of legislators like Speaker of the House Patrick Bauer and Rules Committee Chairman Scott Pelath, whenever other state courts lurch leftward to redefine the family, Indiana's statutes seem woefully unprotected. . . but maybe that's exactly what Indiana House leadership wanted.