Now, twenty-seven states have amended their constitutions to protect traditional marriage. Six others may join them. This fall, voters in Florida, California, Arizona and Indiana may have the chance to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Iowa and Pennsylvania are working toward a future vote.
The vice-president of policy for the Pennsylvania Family Institute said his state needs an amendment. Pressure comes when neighboring states cave in to the homosexual agenda. “We’re working with many grassroots organizations and churches and individuals in Pennsylvania to get our legislators to make it a priority issue,” he said.
In the Sunshine State, the Florida Family Policy Council is gathering petitions to put a marriage amendment on the ballot. “Despite the fact that we have a law on the books saying marriage is between a man and a woman, that law could be vulnerable to any activist judge coming along with his own agenda wanting to change that very vital institution.”
Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. Mona Passignano, state issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action said the first amendment was too complex. “This session, you’re going to see much simpler language for Arizona, and I think it’ll definitely help,” she said. “The polling numbers coming out of Arizona are very good on the simpler language.”
In 2006, an election year marked by victory for Democrats, seven of eight marriage amendments passed. The — 27 overall — demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation. Clearly, State Legislatures are eager to protect one-man, one-woman marriage from court-mandated same-sex marriage, as happened in Massachusetts (2004), or the equivalent of same-sex marriage, as was ordered by the State Supreme Court of New Jersey in October 2006.