The number of voters in 31 states who voiced their opinion to protect time-honored marriage far outweighs the number in just three states where voters approved same-sex marriage. And voter numbers supporting natural marriage also greatly exceed the number of individual judges who overturned the voters’ wishes with just their signature.
Nationwide, according to Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg, 3,360,580 voted for same-sex marriage in three states—Maine, Maryland and Washington State—compared to more than 41 million who have voted for marriage protection amendments or bans on same-sex marriage in 31 states—a ratio of more than 12 to 1. Yet, today, same-sex marriage is legal in 36 states and more than 70 percent of Americans live in these states, even though two-thirds of the American public live where the people have voted for a constitutional one-man-one-woman marriage definition.
The math just doesn’t add up, says the American Family Association (AFA, www.afa.net).
“Time and time again, the American people have spoken—41 million of them, in fact—and time and time again, their voices have been ignored,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “Whether through activist judges overturning existing law or the legislature ignoring the opinions of their constituents, the wishes of the American people on this issue are largely being rejected.”
The topic is especially timely as the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced it would hear the issue of same-sex marriage, which previously had been left up to each state. Their ruling, expected in June, could have blanket effects for the entire nation.
Sprigg wrote extensively about these numbers on the FRC.org blog, stating that same-sex marriage advocates use numbers like “70 percent live in states where same-sex marriage is legal,” but that does not mean that 70 percent favor gay marriage. The numbers are skewed, he says, because, for example, 37 million residents—or 12 percent of the U.S. population—live in California, where same-sex marriage is legal.
Sprigg continued, “One could, however, just as easily come up with other ways to statistically describe how widespread the acceptance of marriage’s redefinition has become—ways which would give quite a different impression. For example, in some states marriage was redefined (or its legal benefits redistributed) by judicial fiat, bypassing normal democratic processes of law-making altogether. Subtracting those would result in a lower percentage figure. In others, it was pushed through legislatures through heavy-handed lobbying, while the people were denied the opportunity to vote on the issue. Subtracting those would result in an even lower percentage. In either of these situations, the mere existence of same-sex ‘marriages’ should not be interpreted as public acceptance of them.”
“The reality is that millions of voters, acting through the democratic process, have upheld marriage in 31 states across the nation,” Wildmon continued. “At issue before the Supreme Court is not only marriage but also the validity of our nation’s laws and constitutionally established legislative systems. We sincerely hope the High Court upholds the rule of law rather than rejecting established democratic processes and placing our nation’s liberties at grave risk.”