Posted on 07/16/2004 8:57:47 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper
HELENA - A move to change the Montana Constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman qualified for the November ballot Thursday, just one day after the U.S. Senate declined to pursue a similar effort to change the U.S. Constitution.
Constitutional Initiative 96, proposed by Rep. Jeff Laszloffy, R-Laurel, will ask Montana voters to change the state constitution to specifically ban same-sex marriage and define the union as existing only between one man and one woman.
The initiative also states that only marriages between one man and one woman will be recognized in Montana, a stipulation that effectively forbids same-sex couples in Montana from obtaining legal marriages in states that do offer same-sex marriage, such as Massachusetts.
To qualify the measure for the November ballot, backers for CI-96 had to get signatures of support from 41,020 registered voters and those voters had to represent 10 percent of all voters in the state, including 10 percent in half the state's 56 counties.
The marriage initiative qualified with 46,095 signatures from 38 counties, the secretary of state's office said Thursday.
Today is the last day to qualify measures for the ballot.
Is there any reason to doubt its passage? I mean, Montana is still Montana isn't it?
I have no doubt it will pass. That's not the point. The point is, let the states decide.
As long as liberal federal judges don't try to subvert the will of the people.
I agree. Montana is one of 12 states in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit needs an enema.
Homosexual Agenda ping - Look for good news from Montana! I can't imagine that Montanans will succumb to homosexual promoters.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
ping
The 9th Circuit will probably step in sometime and say that it's unconstitutional. The Montana Supremes are sane compared to the bunch sitting on the 9th Circuit.
And its a point that I wholeheartedly agree with. I was legitimately wondering about its chances. I mean, I would be shocked if it didn't pass, but I was just wanting to make sure that there hasn't been some monumental shift in Montana in the last 4 years.
Might affect the Guvna's race? How's that looking, anyway? I think we'll hold it.
Just wait. They'll have their say. Or more likely, they'll indulge their king-complex and try and impose gay marriage on the entire nation. But with Montana being part of the 9th circuit it may be imposed quicker there seeing as how of all the circuits its that insane one that is most likely to issue a ruling that imposes gay marriage on the states in its jurisdiction.
The only potential problem with passing Montana's referendum I see is the same that exists in Idaho ... where a general feeling of "live and let live" tends to turn other-wise straight-voting-Republican conservatives into social-issue liberals.
Up here, fortunately (or unfortuntely, for constitutional ammendment purposes), there's not alot of "flaming-activist" homos so people don't immediately accept the studies showing homo-molester and homo-disease studies right away.
Right now the Democratic candidate is holding a comfortable lead in the race for Montana Governor.
I'd be shocked too if it didn't pass. This issue boils down to a central issue called "morality".
The homosexual community is banking on the "live and let live" effect actually taking place in November. There's probably a mindset of people out there that believe "Bah, it won't effect me, so what's the harm?". These people may not feel like it effects them, but it does. If it doesn't raise their taxes, they'd probably vote for it. I hope that's not the case, but there are truly uneducated people out there that will vote with an uneducated conscience. That, is my biggest fear.
Well, maybe people who do know the truth about homosexuality and its connection to disease, wild promiscuity, child molestation and so on can get information from FR and start writing letters to the editor, circulating info at churches, clubs, among friends, co workers, and so on.
Hey I'm all for the people and the states taking this matter into their own hands with state DOMA's and Marriage Amendments.
And yes the 9th circuit does have the distinction as being the most overturned, but I can't be so confident about this Supreme Court which is erroneously labeled as a conservative one when its clearly not on social issues. Assuming that Justice Kennedy sided with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist (and that's not a sure thing), then the definition of marriage would rest with Justice O'Connor. That doesn't inspire confidence in me. She was the one who decided that 'achieving diversity' justifies discrimination in the public sector.
I'd bet that this court would vote 5-4 or 6-3 to impose gay marriage on the entire nation. Its a tough situation to remedy too, because assuming Bush wins reelection he will need several vacancies to try and fix the problem. You have to consider who is most likely to retire. On the left of this issue you have the older liberal (Stevens is it???), O'Connor and Ginsburgh possibly retiring within the next few yrs. On the right you have the Chief Justice Rehnquist probably looking to retire sooner rather than later. So the likely vacancies does favor an opportunity to move the court towards the right (and simply towards the majority of Americans on this issue), but there are no sure things even if Bush is around to do the nominating. Afterall, his father's decision to put David Souter on the bench was the biggest mistake of his Presidency.
Check my post above. Time to get on the stick with spreading the truth about homosexuality! All the information you need is here on FR.
EdReform usually puts up all kinds of information and links, but he has been away or busy lately. Do a search and find Scripter's profile page, he's got everything. I should learn better how to do links.
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.