No doubt, the news from New York on same-sex marriage is disappointing. But I disagree with my conservative colleagues who portray a doom-and-gloom scenario for the cause of traditional marriage in the United States. I don’t see it.
Consider the numbers. Thirty states have amended their constitutions to protect marriage. With the exception of New England, those states encompass every region of the country — the Pacific and mountain west, the Midwest, and the south.
By my count, at least two more states will have amendments on the ballot in 2012 — Minnesota and (likely) North Carolina. If both pass, that would take the total to 32 states, or nearly two-thirds of those in the union. (Indiana might pass one in 2014).
Excluding one failed vote in Arizona, voters have approved a marriage amendment every time one has appeared on the ballot. Even in Arizona, a second try at an amendment was successful.
Compare that to the track record of same-sex marriage. Three states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa — redefined marriage through judicial fiat. Only New Hampshire, Vermont, and now New York have done so through legislative process.
Aside from the Iowa anomaly, no states outside liberal-drenched New England have OK’ed same-sex marriage.
That’s hardly a seismic political shift. Polling does suggest a gradual shift in public opinion on the issue, but since when do conservatives make core ideological decisions based on polls? If marriage is a principle worthy of protection — and I believe it is, for society’s good — we should work to defend it regardless.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.