2008 Woodie Awards
Gay Marriage Banned
Eleven states passed measures defining marriage, thus banning gay marriage in the most recent elections.
Jake Kohlman
Issue date: 11/12/04 Section: News
- Page 1 of 1
While the Presidential race owned the headlines on November 2 there were other things up for grabs on election night. Voters in Mississippi, Oregon, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and Montana had measures on their ballots that would define marriage as only being between a man and a woman. In all eleven states the measures passed, by large margins.
The measures on the ballots were to either amend the individual state constitutions or to enact new laws. The bans varied in language and strictness, leaving some critics to believe that there are legal ambiguities that leave the bans open for interpretation and legal challenges. The Mississippi ban passed with 87 percent of the vote, the largest margin, while the measure in Oregon passed with 57 percent in agreement, the closest.
These eleven measures came on the heels of a summer in which a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress that would have banned gay marriage and clearly stated that marriage is to be defined as between a man and a woman. The desire to push for such a ban was primarily motivated by the Massachusetts Supreme Courts' decision to overturn a gay marriage ban, as well as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses against the state government's wishes.
Both gay-rights advocates and opponents of gay marriage agreed that the Massachusetts's Supreme Court decision to overturn that state's ban on gay marriage led to the increased interest in passing these measures. Gay-rights advocates tried to put a positive spin behind the setback, saying they anticipated that this would be a long struggle. Supporters of the bans felt that the American public showed they do not want gay marriage to become a reality in the United States.
A state constitutional ban of gay marriage could go before voters in the state that started it all, Massachusetts, in 2006. Several of the newly elected Republicans elected to the U.S. Senate campaigned on their support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and with Republican's increasing their control over the House and Senate the issue of such an amendment could come to a head in the near future.
The measures on the ballots were to either amend the individual state constitutions or to enact new laws. The bans varied in language and strictness, leaving some critics to believe that there are legal ambiguities that leave the bans open for interpretation and legal challenges. The Mississippi ban passed with 87 percent of the vote, the largest margin, while the measure in Oregon passed with 57 percent in agreement, the closest.
These eleven measures came on the heels of a summer in which a constitutional amendment was proposed in Congress that would have banned gay marriage and clearly stated that marriage is to be defined as between a man and a woman. The desire to push for such a ban was primarily motivated by the Massachusetts Supreme Courts' decision to overturn a gay marriage ban, as well as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses against the state government's wishes.
Both gay-rights advocates and opponents of gay marriage agreed that the Massachusetts's Supreme Court decision to overturn that state's ban on gay marriage led to the increased interest in passing these measures. Gay-rights advocates tried to put a positive spin behind the setback, saying they anticipated that this would be a long struggle. Supporters of the bans felt that the American public showed they do not want gay marriage to become a reality in the United States.
A state constitutional ban of gay marriage could go before voters in the state that started it all, Massachusetts, in 2006. Several of the newly elected Republicans elected to the U.S. Senate campaigned on their support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and with Republican's increasing their control over the House and Senate the issue of such an amendment could come to a head in the near future.