In 2006 Arizona became the first state to try and fail to pass a marriage protection measure.
In the Arizona campaign, homosexual activists successfully demonized the measure and convinced many heterosexuals that the marriage protection amendment would adversely affect them.
They tried the same thing here in South Dakota to defeat Amendment C, our marriage protection amendment. Though it passed, it did so with a much slimmer margin than the usual 60-80% margin in most previous states.
I think they worked the "heterosexual vulnerability" angle harder in Arizona, scaring heterosexuals into thinking they would lose health care benefits, Social Security and so on.
They were also benefited by made-to-order poster-children: Al Breznay and Maxine Piatt, a heterosexual couple living together outside of marriage who were signed up on a unique "domestic partner registry" in Tucson that provided additional benefits to this unmarried couple.
From a 2006 Washington Post article on the scare tactics:
"They misled voters. They scared seniors into believing they would lose Social Security benefits," said Cathi Herrod, spokeswoman for the pro-107 campaign. "Our problem was we did not have funds to respond to the attacks."
The homosexual agenda is well funded through efforts such as the Gill Action Fund, and other supporters of homosexual legitimization. Pro-family efforts aren't nearly as well-heeled, with many pro-family people still largely asleep to the threat.
But according to a new article from the Christian Post, Arizona pro-marriage and pro-family efforts will once again bring the matter to the people for a vote in November.
A 16-4 vote by the state Senate on Friday night sends the gay marriage ban to the ballot. It had previously been approved by the House.
Arizona already has a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but with California's recent Supreme Court decision to force homosexual "marriage" on the people of California, the urgency of a constitutional amendment to prevent it's forced importation on the people of Arizona may suddenly become more urgent.
Arizonans may realize that, like California, they are at the mercy of activist judges without a constitutional amendment spelling out the definition of marriage.
Arizona may also be better prepared to deal with the demonization of the measure this time as well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment