Peter Sprigg

How many states have banned gay ‘marriage’?

Peter Sprigg
By Peter Sprigg
Image

May 24, 2012 (FRC.org) - In the wake of the passage of North Carolina’s marriage amendment on May 8, by an overwhelming 61%-39% margin, there have been a number of media reports on the state of marriage law in the fifty states, and how many states have taken action to prevent the issuances of marriage licenses to couples of the same sex. The numbers reported in these stories have sometimes been contradictory, and this may lead to some confusion. With this article, I will try to clarify where the states now stand on this issue.

First, let’s look at states that have amended their state constitutions in such a way as to prevent the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in those states. Including North Carolina, there are thirty (30) states in which the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has been directly enshrined in the state’s constitution in explicit language. In these thirty states, neither the legislature nor the state courts have the power to legalize same-sex “marriage” – at least, not unless and until the people of those states vote to amend their constitutions again to repeal the current provisions.

Opponents of the marriage amendment in North Carolina made much of the fact that the amendment on the ballot included not only language defining the word “marriage,” but also additional language intended to make certain that the state would not create some sort of quasi-marital status under another name (such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”) to give some or all of the traditional legal “benefits” of “marriage” to same-sex couples.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

This provision was described by opponents as though it was a radical and extreme provision unique to the North Carolina amendment. The truth is exactly the opposite–in fact, a clear majority of the states which have adopted amendments to define marriage (twenty of the thirty) have used what is sometimes called a “strong” or “two-sentence” amendment to prevent civil unions and domestic partnerships, as well as same-sex “marriage.” The North Carolina amendment represented the norm, not the exception.

The other ten states have simpler amendments sometimes described as “single-sentence,” or “definition-only” amendments, which address only the definition of civil marriage itself. (The pro-homosexual lobby “Human Rights Campaign,” which usually tracks state laws very closely, has inaccurately omitted Kansas from the list of states with “strong” marriage amendments.)

Some opponents of the North Carolina amendment argued that it could prevent even private companies from offering “domestic partner benefits,” or prevent same-sex partners from even entering into private contracts with one another. Similar charges have been made about two of the “strong” amendments already adopted, those in Michigan and Virginia. These charges are plainly false–the amendments are intended only to bind state and local governments, not private entities (Virginia’s amendment refers explicitly to “this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions”).  North Carolina’s amendment language closely resembles that of Idaho, and added language in the Michigan and Virginia amendments was intended to forestall any effort to evade the amendment’s intent, which was to ensure that same-sex relationships would not be treated as equivalent or comparable to opposite-sex marriages in any way under the law.

Although thirty states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, there are actually thirty-one states that have amended their constitutions in an effort to prevent same-sex “marriage.” The thirty-first (in this analysis) was actually one of the first chronologically. The prospect of legalizing same-sex “marriage” was not taken very seriously until the early 1990’s, when a court in Hawaii gave indications that it might be the first to order legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

The people responded by amending their constitution–but the Hawaii amendment did not actually place a definition of marriage in the text of the constitution. Instead, the Hawaii amendment reserved to the legislature the power to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman (which they did, by statute). So in Hawaii, like the other states with marriage amendments, state courts have no power to change the definition of marriage. However, unlike the other thirty states, Hawaii has left the legislature with the freedom to legalize same-sex “marriage,” if they should choose to do so. (In my writings, I have usually not counted Hawaii’s as a true marriage amendment because it did not fix the definition of marriage in the constitutional text. However, it certainly counted as a victory in the fight to prevent redefinition of marriage.)

That brings us to 31; but you may also have heard pro-family spokesmen declare that after North Carolina, “32 out of 32 states that have voted on the issue have voted to uphold the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” Where do they get 32?

In 2009, Maine’s legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex “marriage.” However, opponents of the bill were able to place it on the ballot, and before it ever took effect, the voters repealed it in a referendum sometimes referred to as a “people’s veto.” This was another victory for one-man-one-woman marriage, but it did not amend the state’s constitution—it merely removed the statutory language adopted by the legislature. (Because Maine does not have an actual marriage amendment, advocates of same-sex “marriage” there–apparently believing that public opinion has shifted in their favor since 2009–have been pushing for another referendum to restore same-sex “marriage.”)

To further confuse things–while the pro-family claims of a 32-state winning spree at the ballot box are accurate, this does not mean that traditional marriage has won every time marriage has been on the ballot. There is one state, Arizona, which has voted on marriage amendments twice. The first time, in 2006, voters weighed in on a proposed “strong” or “two-sentence” amendment which would have prevented the state from establishing “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” as well as same-sex “marriage.” This amendment was defeated–ironically, because opponents drew attention to its potential impact on opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. (Social Security imposes an unfortunate marriage penalty upon widowed recipients of survivor benefits if they choose to marry again. This has provided an incentive for some seniors–a significant population in the popular retirement state of Arizona–to cohabit rather than re-marry, and some states and localities have taken this into account by creating “domestic partnerships” for same-sex couples and opposite-sex seniors.) In 2008, however, voters adopted a revised, one-sentence, definition-of-marriage-only amendment, thus placing Arizona ultimately in the victory column.

There is one additional state-wide referendum that could be counted as a 33rd victory at the polls for the man-woman definition of marriage–even though the word “marriage” did not appear on the ballot. I refer to the 2010 judicial retention election in Iowa, in which three of the state Supreme Court justices who had voted to impose same-sex “marriage” on that state in 2009 were removed from office. This was unprecedented in the history of the state, and few observers doubt that the marriage case was the reason for it.

The 30—or 31—states with some form of “marriage amendment” should not be considered the only ones that have acted to protect the definition of marriage, however. Only six states (plus the District of Columbia) currently grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, so the number of states which define marriage as the union of a man and a woman is currently 44, not just 30.

In two of those states (Washington and Maryland), the legislatures this year voted to legalize same-sex “marriage,” but those laws have not taken effect, and pro-family forces in both states are attempting to place the issue on this November’s ballot in hope of achieving a “people’s veto” like the one that occurred in Maine. Even with Washington and Maryland excluded based on a pending change in their laws, the number of states that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman is 42, not just 30.

We in the pro-family movement do not consider the social institution of marriage to be inherently stronger in states which have defined it as the union of a man and a woman in the constitution than in states which have such a definition by statutory or common law. Marriage is not stronger there–merely safer, in that an amendment has the political and legal effect of making a redefinition of marriage more difficult and thus less likely in that state in the future. Researchers wanting to compare states on the issue of same-sex “marriage” should compare the 42 (or, for the time being, 44) states without it to the six states which have it–rather than comparing the thirty (or 31) states with amendments to the 19 or 20 without them.

So in conclusion, let’s walk through the numbers again:

Number of states in which the state constitution prevents legal recognition of same-sex “marriages,” “civil unions,” or “domestic partnerships”:    20

They are:

Alabama       2006

Arkansas       2004

Florida         2008

Georgia         2004

Idaho           2006

Kansas         2005

Kentucky       2004

Louisiana       2004

Michigan       2004

Nebraska       2000

North Carolina 2012

North Dakota   2004

Ohio           2004

Oklahoma     2004

South Carolina 2006

South Dakota   2006

Texas           2005

Utah           2004

Virginia       2006

Wisconsin       2006

Number of states in which the state constitution defines civil “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman:        30

To those above, add:

Alaska         1998

Arizona         2008

California       2008

Colorado       2006

Mississippi     2004

Missouri       2004

Montana       2004

Nevada         2002

Oregon         2004

Tennessee     2006

Number of states which have amended their state constitutions to prevent legalization of same-sex “marriage”:  31

To the states above, add Hawaii amendment (1998) reserving the definition of marriage to the legislature

Number of states in which voters have upheld the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman in a statewide referendum:  32

To the states above, add Maine’s “people’s veto” (2009) of same-sex “marriage” legislation

Number of states where voters have, either explicitly or implicitly, rejected the legalization of same-sex “marriage”:  33

To the states above, add Iowa’s judicial retention election (2010), removing state Supreme Court judges who voted to impose same-sex “marriage”

Number of states where marriage remains the union of a man and a woman under state law:  42

Number of states which currently (May 2012) grant marriage licenses only for unions of one man and one woman:  44

Includes Washington and Maryland, where same-sex “marriage” legislation has been enacted but not yet taken effect.

Reprinted with permission from FRCblog.com

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Scott Walker rebukes media claiming he thinks forced ultrasounds are ‘cool’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – They say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker begs to differ. The Republican presidential hopeful found himself on the receiving end of a media feeding frenzy this week, as several leading mainstream media outlets misquoted him and implied that he thought forcing women to undergo an invasive transvaginal ultrasound was “a cool thing.”

Last week, Walker defended his pro-life record in a conversation with Dana Loesch, a talk show host with 97.1 FM in St. Louis. “Most people I talk to, whether they're pro-life or not, I find people all the time will get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grandkids' ultrasound and how excited they are. That's a lovely thing,” he said. “My sons are 19 and 20. We still have their ultrasound picture – it's a cool thing out there.”

On Tuesday, Right-Wing Watch posted a story with the headline: “Scott Walker: Ultrasounds Should Be Mandatory Since They're 'A Cool Thing.'” The website, which frequently cherry-picks quotations for maximum outrage, is a project of People for the American Way, a liberal group dedicated to fighting conservative Christians.

Politico, regarded as an authoritative website for campaign issues, picked up the remarks the following day with the headline: “Scott Walker on mandatory ultrasounds: ‘It’s just a cool thing out there.'”

The new account of Walker's remarks soon went viral in both the mainstream media and the left-wing blogosphere. Salon, Mother Jones, The Week, and Blue Nation Review among other outlets reported that Walker had said forcing women to have a transvaginal ultrasound was “cool.”

The meme had been a major part of the Democrats' “War on Women” in 2012 and 2013, as the abortion industry likened mandatory ultrasounds to rape. In fact, transvaginal ultrasounds are standard care before abortions.

Nonetheless, Planned Parenthood tweeted this week:

An outraged Loesch posted the full quotation, as well as audio of the full segment, on her website. (Walker's remarks on ultrasounds begin at 15:49.)

Ironically, his comments came as part of a complaint that the media had distorted his record on abortion.

“Anyone with the reading comprehension of a dolphin knows that Walker was specifically describing ultrasound images, not the legislation itself,” Loesch said.

But Think Progress, a project of the George Soros-funded Campaign for American Progress, dismissed this as “a narrow distinction.”

Politico eventually relented and changed the headline to “Scott Walker defends mandatory ultrasounds.”

The governor, who regularly polls near the top of the 2016 Republican presidential field, came out swinging Thursday.

“I said ultrasounds are pretty cool,” Scott Walker clarified, praising “the wonders of that technology.”

The constant repetition of a media distortion, he said, was “more than biased; it’s just lazy.”

Despite efforts to set the record straight, prestige media outlets continued to churn out headlines misconstruing his remarks, with new stories appearing in New York Magazine and the New York Daily News as the week drew to a close.

“They can’t win on the Left on an issue, [so] they exaggerate things,” he said. “They make things, and they take them out of context.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Planned Parenthood has misrepresented political stories numerous times before. It tweeted out a picture that falsely implied that no women took part in a religious freedom hearing before the House of Representatives. In fact, two pro-life women participated.

The Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationally, Roe v. Wade, hinged upon a lie that Norma McCorvey had been raped. McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of the decision, now hopes the decision is overturned.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Many parents and families are ill-equipped to respond when faced with such circumstances, leaving them frightened and uncertain how to act.
Lianne Laurence

What to do when your own child is a sex abuser

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

May 29, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the wake of revelations that Josh Duggar allegedly sexually molested five minor girls – four of them his younger sisters – when in his early teens, many familiar with the evangelical Christian Duggar family and their ten-season-long TLC hit reality show “19 Kids and Counting” are inevitably putting themselves in Jim Bob and Michelle’s shoes and asking: What would I do if faced with a similar situation? What should I do?

Many parents and families are ill-equipped to respond when faced with such circumstances, leaving them frightened and uncertain about their responsibilities both to the victims, as well as as to the perpetrator of the abuse. 

What, then, are parents’ moral and legal obligations, and how can they most compassionately and effectively respond to both offender and victims? These are the essential questions.

Moral obligations

“Clearly, this is the last thing that a parent wants to hear,” says Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the program in medical ethics at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine, speaking of parents who discover that their child has been involved in abusive behavior. But “we should take anything like this very seriously.”

In a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews, Kheriaty said parents have two moral obligations that might seem contradictory.

The first is to protect their and other people’s children from “any form of sexual abuse.” “All of us in society have a responsibility for protecting all children from any form of abuse, including of course, sexual abuse.”

The second and equally important “is to help one’s own child who may have been the perpetrator of the abuse. And the way to help them is not to try to manage the situation on one’s own.”

Parents must “bring their child to a licensed mental health practitioner” such as a child psychologist or child psychiatrist “for an evaluation to look at what’s going on with the child’s sexual development.” There is a possibility the perpetrator has himself suffered from abuse, or is “entangled in the use of pornography.”

While parents may shrink from “the hard realities of what this is going to entail,” they lack the necessary professional knowledge to deal with the situation, or if they do have such knowledge, their “emotional attachment to their own child would cloud their judgment,” noted Kheriaty, a father of five sons and author of The Catholic Guide to Depression.

And while certainly not necessarily the case in every instance, “there’s going to be a much higher probability that there’s serious family dysfunction” if such incidents are occurring in the home.

Legal obligations

Parents also meet their legal obligations when they take their child to a licensed mental health practitioner, Kheriaty explained. All states have mandatory reporting laws, which require the mental health practitioner inform parents that he or she must report the incidents to Child Protective Services (CPS), which will then investigate.

“What would happen legally really depends on the nature of the case and the age of the child as well,” he said. A 13-year-old may be considered too young to be legally or morally culpable. But the CPS would monitor the situation and take steps to ensure the abuser can’t “continue this abusive behavior” and “to reduce his access to younger children.” This might mean removing him from the home for a period of time.

“Obviously that whole process is going to be extremely trying and painful for any parents, but not only is it the best thing for potential victims, to protect them, it would also be the best thing for the perpetrator,” Kheriaty told LifeSiteNews. “In general, the earlier you catch this behavior, probably the more amenable it is to treatment.”

The inclination to sexually use a minor “tends to be difficult, if not impossible, to change or to eradicate” in an adult. But “in a younger child, where they’re still going through a process of ongoing sexual development, there may be things that can be done to put them on a better track and diminish, if not completely eradicate, those tendencies.”

If a youthful offender doesn’t get the help he needs, he could be “doomed to a life in prison or a situation where he’s done tremendous damage or harm to others,” Kheriaty observed. “It’s a situation in which the most loving thing may be very, very difficult and very, very tough, and yet still the best thing for the child who is perpetrating this behavior.”

While Christian parents might worry about what influences their child will encounter in a secular treatment center, Kheriaty countered that “no behavior could be more contrary to living a Christian life” than sexual abuse. He contended that the benefits of a treatment center far outweigh any perceived dangers, and the danger of not getting treatment.

“Any decent program is going to have the same aims that the parents have,” Kheriaty said, and its goals therefore will be “consistent with the goals of living a Christian life.”

Strong families, open communication about sex/porn

Kheriaty and fellow Christian psychiatrist Richard Fitzgibbons emphasized that parents need to educate their children on sexuality and to be particularly vigilant about the pervasiveness of pornography.

“How to raise psychologically and morally healthy children: that is the million dollar question for all of us as Christians,” Kheriaty noted.

“Parents need to wake up and dial in and be clued in to what’s happening with their children and technology, and whom their children are communicating with on the Internet.” They also need to teach their kids about sexuality in an “age appropriate way” but in this culture, “that will probably happen earlier than parents are comfortable with.”

In terms of protecting one’s child against being a victim of sexual abuse, “the best thing is to maintain strong, healthy, intact families,” he told LifeSiteNews.

A father of three daughters, Fitzgibbons, the director of the Institute of Marital Healing outside Philadelphia and an expert on sexual issues, said that “parents should closely monitor any youngster who has few friends and who isolates himself” and “try to support and encourage close friendships in their children, particularly with those of the same sex. They should inquire as to how friendships are going and support having friends over and going to friends’ homes.”

He too urged parents to instruct their children about “what God’s plan is for human sexuality.” He advised this take place “certainly by 6th grade given the pornography epidemic. Youth need to be taught that pornography is the use of another person as a sexual object.”

“Fathers should ask their sons about how they are dealing with sexual temptations.  Mothers should have similar discussions with their daughters,” he suggested. “Psychologically, it is important to encourage male friendships in their sons, build their confidence in their God-given gifts and provide comforting love and praise by each parent.”

For Catholic parents, he recommended the teachings of St. John Paul II, which “can also be valuable in helping to prevent such tragedies in families and in healing the wounds inflicted by sibling betrayals.” He recommends summaries of “Love and Responsibility,” “The Theology of the Body,” “The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World,” and the “outstanding” 1996 document by the Pontifical Council for the Family, “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality.”

Obligations to the victims

Fitzgibbons echoed Kheriaty in pointing out that the parents of the offender have a moral obligation to the victims. No type of sexual abuse can ever be termed minor, he noted. “Our experience is that if parents become aware of such behaviors that they act promptly.”

But he noted that “many older female patients” have stated that their parents denied their “reports of sexual molestation by an older male family member, such as a cousin, uncle or grandparent,” which “further weakened the trust of the victim.”

Forgiveness is essential in healing the effects of abuse, Fitzgibbons said, but forgiveness does not necessarily mean trust.

“Parents need to pursue in their own lives the hard work of forgiving one child who may have sexually abused another child. They also need to insist that the abuser ask for forgiveness and in that process identify the emotional or spiritual conflicts that made them vulnerable.”

“Parents need to also encourage a victim child to work on the process of forgiveness so that he/she does not become, in the words of St. John Paul II, ‘a prisoner of one’s past’ because of the failure to forgive.”

It’s also essential that victims be protected from further abuse. “Hopefully, if the offender worked for a long time on his/her weakness, in some cases it might be possible to build a degree of trust, but in other cases this is not possible.”

If the trauma suffered is severe, the victims must be protected “from people, places and things that remind one of the trauma” in order to recover. And if abuse occurred within the extended family, “the usual response is to end the relationship with the abuser indefinitely and with his/her parents… The nature of the abuse often indicates the time necessary.”

Lasting damage to the victim will “depend upon the nature of the abuse, its frequency, length and the abuser,” Fitzgibbons pointed out. “If the abuser is a very angry person, it will instill more fear and mistrust that could seriously damage a person’s ability to trust and to give oneself fully later in life.”

Spiritual response

Fitzgibbons adds that in addition to counseling, the response of a Christian family to adolescent abuse should also include “a discussion of the youngster’s spiritual life.”

“When someone uses others in one’s family, he/she has serious psychological and, often, spiritual conflicts,” pointed out Fitzgibbons. In the case of repeat offenders, “the child really needs some moral help.”

For Catholic children, this means “particularly the use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This Sacrament can help in mastery over strong sexual temptations.”

Fitzgibbons, who has extensive experience treating Catholic priests for homosexual attraction and ephebophilia says it’s also absolutely crucial to get to the root of the behavior through therapy.

“You can repent and say God has forgiven me, and I believe the Lord does forgive us, but you want to know specifically what caused it. … The burning question we always have is, what is the cause?”

In his clinical experience, men with youthful offenses involving some form of sexual abuse had “serious weakness in confidence and social anxiety” on a psychological level. “Often, they did not have close male friends and were highly anxious with adolescent females.”

“If I had a 13-year-old son who did that, I would want to look very carefully: Is there some weakness he has that would predispose him to do that? Is he overly selfish? Is he very insecure in his masculinity, doesn’t have enough friends? Is he a very lonely person? Does he need more comforting female love than he’s getting?”

“These are hard questions but they have to be looked at.”

While Fitzgibbons emphasized that “this type of behavior in youth is not an indication that there are serious problems in the family,” he also observed “I’d want family therapy” in order to ascertain if there is “there some conflict the child has that he would seek comfort like that. … One would have to look with complete honesty at everyone.”

It is possible that “the cause may not be anything psychological. It could be the allurement of sin,” Fitzgibbons noted. “But the devil often works through a weakness we have within us.”

Fitzgibbons added it is critical that those who have been involved in such behavior understand and resolve the reasons for their adolescent actions. “There are numerous studies that demonstrate that 70 to 80 percent of people’s adult psychological problems are the result of unresolved child or adolescent traumas,” he said. “It’s a huge problem, for example, in married life.”

In the case of Josh Duggar, he pointed out that Josh had voluntarily confessed his adolescent crimes to his wife and her family two years before they were engaged, something he said was "very important."

Advertisement
Featured Image
The well-funded propaganda blitz in full swing.
Mass Resistance

,

What really happened in Ireland’s gay ‘marriage’ referendum

Mass Resistance
By
Image
The "big lie" techniques were alive and well in Ireland.
Image
This issue is very powerful -- and frightening -- over in Europe.
Image
Across the country the "No" side was much more creative.
Image
This militant movement is just getting started.

May 29, 2015 (MassResistance.org) -- Last Friday’s 62% vote in Ireland to legalize “gay marriage” has been hailed as a triumph of progressive thinking by the mainstream media and the political establishment. The outcome shocked many in the pro-family movement. But what the mainstream press isn’t reporting is even more shocking.

There is no question that the secularization of Ireland, the weakness of the Catholic Church and refusal of the Pope to intervene, the corrupt political class, and the relentless pro-gay media were all contributing factors to the “gay marriage” vote.

But the “Yes” vote would still have most likely failed if it had been a normal Irish election. Those same general conditions existed in many places here in the U.S. from California to Maine where “gay marriage” failed to win a popular vote.

This “culture war” election was conducted under extraordinary conditions that have never been seen anywhere before in the West. As we described in our pre-election article virtually all of the effort to pass “gay marriage” in Ireland came from massive funding from the United States – primarily a billion-dollar pro-gay foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies –  in a sophisticated campaign spanning over a decade.

Background: Years of referendum losses by the LGBT movement

To understand how this Irish election was won, a bit of history from the U.S. is in order.

Most of us forget that for over 20 years, the idea of a “gay marriage” referendum passing anywhere seemed next to impossible. From 1998 to 2009, there were 31 statewide votes to completely ban “gay marriage.” All of them won. Some won by majorities as high as 80%. Even in Massachusetts, the LGBT lobby fought furiously to keep a “gay marriage” ban from coming to a vote. Their own leaders had come to believe that the only way they would make any “progress” in the U.S. was through the courts.

The big LGBT turnaround in 2012

Then, after the their 2009 “gay marriage” referendum defeat in Maine, the homosexual movement decided to craft an entirely new approach toward elections.

They brought together groups of political strategists, psychologists, pollsters, organizing experts, and various “think tank” types. They meticulously studied the data and their election experiences and designed a new set of strategies and tactics to win against their “right wing” adversaries.

They created a sophisticated propaganda campaign. They shipped thousands of activists into key voting areas to canvass door to door. In order to soften the average people toward homosexuality and create an animus against traditional religious values, they resurrected many of the “big lie” techniques used by the 20th century totalitarian movements. For example, people were told over and over that not allowing “gay marriage” was bad for the economy and that only backward, ignorant, and superstitious people still were against it. Homosexuality was said to be the next phase of the Civil Rights movement. A key talking point was that by supporting “gay marriage” you are “on the right side of history” – a Marxist concept (later used by the Third Reich).

Fundraising became a major part of the strategy. For earlier elections they had casually raised about the same amount (or less) than the pro-family side. But now, they would tap the “gay” moneymen for very large sums of money.

And it all worked. In November 2012 they won all four statewide “gay marriage” referendum votes: Maine (a re-vote), Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. In those races they spent between five and ten times as much as the pro-family side. Their propaganda was shrewd – for instance, putting forward friendly faces of “gay” couples who seemed just liked everyone else. Their winning margins were not large (between 51% and 53%), but they won.

Shortly after the 2012 wins, the LGBT movement published an article in a Maine newspaper describing much of their “turnaround” process. And since then, they’ve been virtually unstoppable.

Laying the groundwork in Ireland over a decade earlier

Funded primarily by Atlantic Philanthropies, the Irish LGBT lobby groups started laying the groundwork over a decade in advance. Their ambitions multi-year plan (which they later outlined HERE) included a very sophisticated and aggressive lobbying effort targeting Ireland’s key politicians, which resulted in a long string of “incremental” parliamentary successes for the LGBT movement.

The National Catholic Register recently published a very good article chronicling this.  Also, the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has compiled a complete list of the major anti-family political actions over the past decades that helped bring Ireland to the state it’s in.

However, from the beginning the main goal from all of this for both the Irish LGBT groups and their American funders was to soften up the Irish citizenry to eventually win a nationwide “gay marriage” vote, which for constitutional reasons had to be done by a nationwide referendum. The referendum finally took place on May 22, 2015.

Ramping up for a nationwide “gay marriage” vote in Ireland

It’s one thing to get a country’s parliament to chip away at the moral underpinnings through legislation. But it’s a much different challenge to get a country with a thousand-year Catholic culture to accept “gay marriage” through a nationwide vote.

So to take on the Irish election, the LGBT movement ramped up their effort tremendously over what they did for the elections back in the U.S.

The total LGBT funding to achieve “gay marriage” in Ireland has been estimated at between $17 and $25 million – roughly 50 times what was raised and spent by the pro-family side. Their execution was planned and focused rather than scattered and haphazard as our side’s tended to be.

The campaign with lengthy and intense (and expensive) nationwide propaganda using psychological manipulation techniques to pound the entire country. The average person could barely grasp the force that was coming at him. And that was just the beginning.

The arguments were not rational or truthful, but completely emotional.

People were told over and over that those opposed to “gay marriage”:

  • Are opposed to democracy
  • Will damage lives
  • Are against human rights
  • Will hurt Ireland’s international reputation
  • Will hurt Ireland’s economy
  • Are in favor of discrimination
  • Are against love
  • Are hateful and bigoted
  • Are stupid and backwards

This all had a horrible effect on our side while galvanizing their supporters. It got to a point where people who persisted in holding these “backward” beliefs were considered inferior humans by the supporters. One could literally lose his job over it. A particularly nasty venom was directed at religious believers and the Catholic Church. Many of our people became frightened and confused, while the other side became bolder and more vicious.

Ireland gets a lesson in ‘election mechanics’

As the election neared, the polls showed a 78% “Yes” vote coming up. But the homosexual movement knew they still weren’t safe.

Their brain trust realized early on that a great many people would simply “go underground” with their views and would vote their conscience on election day, but would respond to pollsters in a “politically correct” manner. They also knew that the bulk of hardcore “gay marriage” supporters were young people who had a terrible record of voting or even being registered.

They could still lose if those they really needed (those responding emotionally) didn’t register or vote. So months before the election – with the help of the country’s police force – they set up pro-gay marriage voter registration areas at college campuses. According to eyewitness reports, these booths illegally skipped required steps in the registration in order to process more people.  Over 50,000 college students were registered in this manner, and others already registered were identified. In addition, according to reports, they also had paid canvassers make sure that their likely supporters in the cities were registered to vote.

Then on election day, using sophisticated social media and other techniques, they had the most massive “get-out-the-vote” effort ever seen in Ireland. As a result, over 90% of  known pro-gay marriage supporters voted, and 95% of registered college voters, according to one report. On the other hand, many pro-family people, we were told, feeling overwhelmed and beaten down by the psychological techniques used against them and with no overall get-out-the-vote organization, never made it to the polls.

Nobody in Ireland had ever seen anything like this. There is no question that if the election had been conducted on an even playing field from the beginning (or even with just a 2-1 funding advantage) the “Yes” side would not have prevailed. As one Irish voter observed, "If usual voing patterns had prevailed this would have been easily defeated."

The pro-family Irish opposition – a valiant stand

Given the odds against them and the terrible psychological battle focused against religious believers, the Irish pro-family people stepped up quite admirably. But they were on their own. "These groups received their funding from personal donations by private individuals. There was no big financial backing coming from anyone," we were told by one of the Irish pro-family people.

They put up as many signs as possible, even though a great many were vandalized. They passed out many thousands of leaflets in cities and also went door to door in rural areas. one organization distributed over 91,000 pamphlets. A group of 12 Baptist churches put some ads in newspapers.

We were told that the Catholic Church was very weak on this issue and did not officially call for a "No" vote. According to the Catholic Action League, at least 15 priests publicly endorsed the "Yes" campaign and at least one bishop criticized the pro-family "efforts. Nevertheless, many individual Catholic priests were outstanding in their outrcy for a "No" vote.

Lacking sophisticated planning, there was no unified message. “Every child needs a mother and father” was the common refrain, which has a much stronger meaning in Europe because of outrage over the child trafficking. Others used MassResistance information on what “gay marriage” brings to the schools and other social institutions. A few focused on the dangers of homosexual behavior.

Can this be stopped in the future?

There is talk about Italy being their next “gay marriage” target. They are also eying some of the African countries that have been holding out on “LGBT rights”. 

Can this juggernaut be stopped? Of course it can – with proper resources. Everything the other side does can be picked apart and be countered. Plus, working with the truth normally has a big natural advantage. Their lies, irrationality, and thuggish tactics only work because there’s no effective opposition.

Their biggest triumph has been the LGBT movement’s ability to cut off the  money supply to frontline groups. The millionaires and billionaires ostensibly on our side could easily donate many times the money necessary to fight this effectively. But they have virtually all become emasculated by fear of the “gay mafia”. It’s quite pathetic to see, and it has had terrible consequences. So we need to create new methods of funding. Average people are more becoming more important than ever.

Also, many people in the  pro-family movement (and many donors) still do not see this as a “war” to subvert society, but as a kind of religious/secular disagreement among individuals. This often causes our tactics to be skewed and usually only marginally effective. So even when we have the money, it often gets squandered on dumb things.

Let’s hope that we can all learn something from what happened in Ireland on May 22.

Reprinted with permission from MassResistance.org.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook