Voters in 11 States Reject Gay Marriage
 |
James Joyner | Wednesday, November 3, 2004 |
Voters in 11 States Reject Gay Marriage (AP)
Gay rights activists received a rebuke from the Deep South to North Dakota as voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage in a clean sweep for proponents of traditional one-man, one-woman unions. “The results just go to show that the citizens … clearly understand the value of natural marriage,” said Christina Rondeau, director of the North Dakota Family Alliance, a group that supported the amendment.
The margin Tuesday in North Dakota was 3-1 in favor - the same as in Georgia and Kentucky as the proposal passed in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. The margin was 6-1 in Mississippi, while the amendment was also approved in Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah. The issue was put on the ballot in six states through petition drives waged by conservative, church-backed citizens groups. But support of the amendment appeared widespread; in Ohio, it received equal support from men and women, blacks and whites.
These measures, presumably, helped decide some close Senate races as well, in that they likely helped increase conservative turnout.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Obama Shafts Progressives, Campaign Loyalists
- Not the Great Depression (Updated)
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Sarah Palin in Demand
- Actors Going on Strike
- Jonesing For An Apology
- Geither at Treasury, Richardson at Commerce
- Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State
- Terrorism Going Away?
- James Jones as National Security Advisor?
- Diggers Realm linked with Voters Say No To Gay Marriage In Eleven States
Or we could say that they likely helped increase the turnout of homophobic regressives.
Unless you're quite comfortable identifying yourself with that crowd.
Sour grapes much, Ross?
I'm not buying it. I still think the primary motivating factor in this election was, indeed, national security and terrorism. I think a majority of Americans see the parallel between terrorism and Iraq. Just like the Australian media tried to pass off John Howard's win on the Economy issue, the US media and pundits are trying to pass the US election off on "moral" issues.
This allows the Left to continue to ignore that which threatens our security the most, and provide an elitist backhand on an issue in which they believe our "ignorance" played the primary role. Darn if we just don't get how un-Progressive we are...perhaps we will learn.
Cheers...
First, I'm a Canadian residing in the US, so I guess my opinion counts for little. Unless you're talking about tax $$ paid, in which case my opinion should count for a lot.
I am feeling pretty disillusioned. Real security stems from two things: A solid economy and a respected, admired place in the world society. Bush is well on his way to destroying the finances of the federal government, and he's pretty effectively demolished the positive image America had in the world (incredibly, he did this in only three years, since 9/11, when the entire world was pro-America).
There are no quantitative indicators of successful policies during the first four years of Bush's presidency. I mean that quite literally. If you know of any, help me out with a reference.
"Elitism" is a tired charge, and an excuse for innumeracy.
Enjoy the afterglow. Don't be surprised if I smirk when you call yourselves conservatives; you're nothing of the sort. You're pro-nation building, pro-war, and pro-big government. At least, that's what your leaders are. And you voted for them.
Comments are Closed
