Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Suprise, Surprise, Ohio Activist: Same-Sex 'Marriage' Advocates Don't Want Voters Deciding
Agape Press ^ | October 7, 2004 | Rusty Pugh

Posted on 10/07/2004 12:08:48 PM PDT by apmp71

The numbers on the "for" side from recent referendums protecting traditional marriage are telling: Hawaii (69.2 percent), Alaska (68.1 percent), Nebraska (70.1 percent), Nevada (67.1 percent), Missouri (70.7 percent), and Louisiana (77.8 percent). Next month, Ohio will be among as many as 11 states allowing voters to cast a ballot on an amendment to their state constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: agapepress; antigay; bush; edwards; family; gay; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; kerry; marriage; perversion; pervertedmarriage; politics; profamily; protect; school; sodomites
 
Ohio Activist: Same-Sex 'Marriage' Advocates Don't Want Voters Deciding

By Rusty Pugh
October 7, 2004

(AgapePress) - An Ohio family advocate says supporters of homosexual "marriage" know that when voters are allowed to decide, traditional marriage will always be upheld.

The numbers on the "for" side from recent referendums protecting traditional marriage are telling: Hawaii (69.2 percent), Alaska (68.1 percent), Nebraska (70.1 percent), Nevada (67.1 percent), Missouri (70.7 percent), and Louisiana (77.8 percent). Next month, Ohio will be among as many as 11 states allowing voters to cast a ballot on an amendment to their state constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. The latest attempt by pro-homosexual activists to stop the vote in Ohio -- by using the courts -- has failed.

Phil Burress of the Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values says homosexual marriage proponents know that the courts are their only chance to further their agenda -- because the people will not.

"When we started circulating these petitions [to get the measure on the state ballot], the other side hired several attorneys and activists to keep us off the ballot, to deny the people the right to vote on [whether] marriage should be between one man and one woman or [between] homosexuals or multiple partners," Burress says. "Then, as soon as they possibly could, they launched legal battles in 42 different counties."

And while the glut of legal battles may have seemed overwhelming, Burress and others like him did not retreat from the challenge.

"Thanks to Alliance Defense Fund and some of the other [pro-family, pro bono] attorneys out there, we had lawyers in every courtroom facing these people -- and we won in every situation, even up to appeals court," he says. "We are so dead-center right on this thing that even judicial activists can't rule against us."

Marriage traditionalists in Louisiana were not so fortunate, however. A district judge in Baton Rouge ruled earlier this week that the marriage protection amendment approved by 78 percent of Louisiana voters on September 18 is unconstitutional, thereby invalidating the peoples' mandate -- for now. Pro-family groups are hopeful that that judge's opinion will be overturned upon appeal.

© 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved.



printer friendly versionPrinter-Friendly Version

Read all of our current headlines

 

 

Eqqu.com the Free email service that it pays to use.
 
 
 

StopLiberalJudges.com - Support the Religious Liberties Restoration Act
http://www.stopliberaljudges.com

  • S. 1558 is a legislative statute which would nullify the authority of federal courts to make judgments regarding the public display of the Ten Commandments, the National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. 

1 posted on 10/07/2004 12:08:52 PM PDT by apmp71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: apmp71
California passed one too, overwhelmingly. Guess what happened?

Arnold has signed legislation giving gays marriage in everything but name.

2 posted on 10/07/2004 12:12:29 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apmp71

Yep, in Missouri they expected the ban to pass with about 55 percent and it passed with over 70 percent.

I think this Amendment on the ballot can only help Bush win Ohio.


3 posted on 10/07/2004 12:13:33 PM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Arnold has signed legislation giving gays marriage in everything but name.

Too many people think that civil unions are different from homosexual marriage but they are the same thing. Changing the name doesn't change the reality.

4 posted on 10/07/2004 12:20:24 PM PDT by An American In Dairyland (Have you forgotten?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: apmp71

The ACLU has said previously that there are certain issues which the majority can't be allowed to decide.
And the complete destruction of our civilization and its founding institutions are those issues.


5 posted on 10/07/2004 12:22:52 PM PDT by treowth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

If you believe the Kansas media (only fools do), Kansans do not even want to vote on a marriage amendment. The newspapers tell me we are against the amendment anyway. All we care about is education and AIDS.


6 posted on 10/07/2004 12:23:07 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dawn53

There is one problem. Both of the state's US Senators (Dewine and Voinovich)came out against the amendment today on the basis that it will allegedly harm the state's economy. The amendment will pass, I believe, but the party is not united in favor of it.


7 posted on 10/07/2004 12:24:22 PM PDT by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dawn53

Some polls show it may give Bush as much as a 5-point bump. No wonder they don't want people to vote on it.


8 posted on 10/07/2004 12:27:33 PM PDT by lazlohollyfeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: apmp71; scripter; little jeremiah

BTTT


9 posted on 10/07/2004 1:05:34 PM PDT by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform

BTTT as well.

I have only contempt, disgust, and anger for the ACLU and its minions and henchmen.


10 posted on 10/07/2004 4:29:20 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Marriage is the bedrock of human civilization. Destroy marriage, destroy human civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: apmp71

"An Ohio family advocate says supporters of homosexual "marriage" know that when voters are allowed to decide, traditional marriage will always be upheld."

And why shouldn't a "tradition" of hetero marriage be decided by the majority of hetero people. Let the queers create their OWN civil union tradition and stop trying to ingratiate themselves into hetero traditions which they insult and discredit anyway. More schizo ideology from the 10% scatter brained.


11 posted on 10/07/2004 4:33:13 PM PDT by SunnySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: treowth

"The ACLU has said previously that there are certain issues which the majority can't be allowed to decide."

And exactly what issues are off limits to the ACLU Lords? F*** the ACLU, they don't run America. They think they do but they don't!


12 posted on 10/07/2004 4:34:52 PM PDT by SunnySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson