Monday, November 03, 2008

'President Obama' could overturn marriage amendments


California, Arizona, and Florida have constitutional amendments on the ballot to ban homosexual "marriage." Liberty Counsel examines the Florida amendment as well as the repercussions of the federal election.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel tells OneNewsNow the stakes are high in Florida because passage of a constitutional amendment requires 60 percent of the vote. "Right now the polls show about 57 percent in favor of the amendment. The good news is only 34 percent oppose the amendment," he explains. "There is an undecided factor in there. I believe that factor will swing for us when they go to the polls."

However, he also points out the national election could affect all states in terms of homosexual marriage. If elected president, Barack Obama has promised to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which currently means states cannot be forced to recognize homosexual marriages that are legal in other states.

"Now if that happens, that will be like removing the dam and same-sex marriage will flood across the country, notwithstanding the fact that a state even has a constitutional amendment," he contends. "A state will be required to recognize either Massachusetts or California or some other state's same-sex marriage law. That means same-sex marriage will literally rush across the borders of all 50 states."

Staver urges people from every state to think carefully before they cast their votes on Tuesday.

1 comment:

John Howard said...

I think Staver is being dramatic, in order to generate demand for the FMA. States do not have to recognize another jurisdiction's declaration of marriage if it would be against their public policy. They don't need DOMA for that. They could easily say that it is void as soon as they step over the border. And interestingly, full faith and credit would mean that other states had to accept that state's voiding of another state's marriage.

I'm looking forward to the DOMA debate, because the demand to achieve federal recognition should create a negotiation space where we could achieve the protection of marriage, too. We could offer to give federal recognition to Civil unions but only if they are defined according to a federal standard definition, so as not to be "marriage in all but name", and if we prohibit using modified genes to conceive. If CU's were defined as marriage minus conception rights, the federal government would recognize them as if they were marriages.

We shouldn't lose this opportunity to protect marriage. In just a few months, Massachusetts could be switching over to CU's if we get together and push for the Egg and Sperm CU Compromise during the DOMA debate.