Family Research Council

Opposing view: 'The battle has just begun'

Heterosexual marriage is society's foundation and must be protected.

By Timothy Dailey

At first glance, homosexual activists and their supporters have won the day by persuading a narrow majority of four California Supreme Court judges to jettison thousands of years of human wisdom regarding the institution of marriage. But the battle has just begun: The definition of marriage is on track to be once again brought before the citizens of California in a November ballot amendment to the California constitution.

The activists have reason to fear letting the people -- as opposed to unelected judges -- define marriage. In 2000, the people of California voted overwhelmingly to approve Proposition 22, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Gay activists, however, have as their all-consuming goal the overturning of the institution of marriage and replacing it with some nebulous "all-inclusive" entity that would "include" virtually any combination of sexes.

Laws instituting "civil unions" are a half-way measure unsatisfactory to all sides in the debate. Those who defend marriage reject efforts to grant the rights and privileges of marriage to relationships which are radically different from marriage.

Many gay activists also reject civil unions as "separate and unequal." As one activist put it: "The cockamamie contraption simply doesn't work. If civil unions were a person, they would be arrested for fraud."

For gay activists, civil unions are an expedient detour on the road to homosexual marriage -- but what appears to be smooth sailing could come to a halt this November. The political climate is much different this time around, and polls show decreased support for a pro-marriage amendment.

A poll by the Field Research Corp. soon before the vote on Proposition 22 predicted it would win 52%-39%. But it passed 61%-39%.

Before the 2000 vote, a Field poll director observed: "It's a rather simple concept to grasp. It's the kind of issue voters can instinctively react to." We can hope that once again, the people of the great state of California will see through the bombastic rhetoric maligning the defenders of marriage as "bigoted extremists," and follow their instincts by voting to protect the institution of heterosexual marriage as the foundation of society.

Timothy Dailey is senior fellow for policy at the Family Research Council, a conservative organization based in Washington,D.C.

This article was published in the USA Today on June 30, 2008.