In various ballot issues in last month's mid-term elections, voters in seven of eight states approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and an increase in the minimum wage was adopted in all six states where that was under consideration.
However, it also reflected the first time a measure affirming traditional marriage was rejected by voters (Arizona). Also, voters in South Dakota rejected what would have been the nation's tightest abortion ban. And in Missouri, voters passed an initiative supporting stem cell research, including controversial embryonic stem cell research.
The vote tally percentage for each state which supported constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, was as follows:
Colorado
55.7% For 44.3% Against
Idaho
63% For 37% Against
South Carolina
74% For 26% Against
South Dakota
52% For 48% Against
Tennessee
81.3% For 18.7% Against
Virginia
57% For 43 % Against
Wisconsin
59.4% For 40.6% Against
Also, a proposed domestic partnership law on the ballot in Colorado was rejected (53.2% to 46.8%).
In Arizona, the marriage amendment was rejected by a margin of less than three percent (51.4% to 48.6%)
Prior to the November elections, 20 states had on the books, constitutional amendments that define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Massachusetts remains the only state where gay marriage has been legalized.
In commenting on the vote, Alliance for Marriage President and Founder, Matt Daniels, said, "Americans overwhelmingly demonstrated once again at the ballot box that the future of marriage transcends political party and partisan politics.
Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society. Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future.
Given the ongoing attack on marriage in courts across the country, AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment (federal) is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws."
Sally Mikesell, state director of Concerned Women for America of Arizona, said, she did not feel that defeat of the measure was a victory for the "homosexual agenda."
"Our state law recognizes marriage as only between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, we will continue to educate our fellow citizens on the fact that judicial actions, such as in Massachusetts, can happen here in Arizona, if the sanctity of marriage is not protected in our state constitution," Mikesell said.
The measure's defeat in Arizona was hailed by homosexual rights activists.
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, noted that bans against same-sex marriage were approved last month by lower margins than in previous elections. "It's clear that fear-mongering around same-sex marriage by the GOP and the extreme Christian right is fizzling out. It doesn't have the juice it had just two years ago–people are getting sick of it," Foreman said.
Religious progressives were pleased to see proposals adopted to raise the minimum wage in each of the six states where they were on the ballot. The amount of the increase varied among the states of Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio. The federal minimum wage has been fixed at $5.15 an hour since 1997.
Rev. Paul Sherry is national coordinator of the "Let Justice Roll Campaign," whose previous efforts saw minimum wage increases approved in Michigan, North Carolina, West Virginia and Arkansas.
"It's an issue that brings people together across all lines. We're a non-partisan body and we found out that as we focused on the minimum wage as an issue in support of low-wage workers and families, that this brought together people; liberals, conservatives, those in the middle, all of whom saw the need to raise the minimum wage.
We believe, and people responded to this, that a job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it.
If one were to take all the pages out of Scripture that deal with economic justice, you would have a shredded Bible. I think as we make that case, we help people see the need to translate their deep faith convictions into living reality," Sherry said.
A sweeping ban on abortions that would have outlawed the procedure unless it was necessary to save a mother's life, was rejected by South Dakota voters by a margin of 55% to 44 %. The ban was approved earlier this year by the state legislature and signed by Republican Governor Mike Rounds. The statute was scheduled to take effect on July 1st, but enough signatures were gathered to put the issue before voters.
American Life League President, Judie Brown, called the successful push to turn down the South Dakota measure, a "short-lived victory."
"The pro-life leaders of South Dakota have made it their goal to see this law become part of the legal framework that defines the state of South Dakota as a safe place to live. The proponents of death poured millions of dollars into the state; decried the pro-life law as being callous toward women and did all they could to convince the electorate that abortion is a good rather than an evil.
The same spirit that led South Dakotans can also lead pro-lifers in other states to see that a victory for the babies, while difficult, is not impossible. The fact that we came so close should tell naysayers that there is indeed hope that such a ban will be enacted one day soon," Brown said.
Likewise, Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, a think tank for Concerned Women for America, was disappointed by the outcome, but not entirely discouraged.
"I think South Dakota is not a true reflection of people's points of view on abortion and the depth of their feeling. There was so much misinformation broadcast in advertising, both in print and in radio and television. For instance, all of that media coverage said that there were no exceptions for the mother's health, or for rape or incest or any of those typical kinds of exceptions, and that simply was not the case in this bill," Crouse said.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, hailed the measure's rejection.
"South Dakotans reaffirmed that the right to choose should be between a woman, her doctor, her family and her God–not legislators or Gov. Mike Rounds. This is a triumph for the fundamental values of freedom and privacy over divisive attacks against a woman's right to choose. This is a wake-up call to lawmakers in other states that America's pro-choice majority will not allow an assault on Roe v. Wade to go unanswered," Keenan stated.
Rev. Carlton Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said that the people of South Dakota "said no to the politics of fear and negativity, and yes to women and families living in dignity."
Veazey added, "The national movement to criminalize abortion has suffered a severe blow in one of the most conservative states in the nation. The vote shows, we have the power and ability to stand up for what is right. We are grateful for the tremendous outpouring of support from our partners in religious communities and organizations and our supporters throughout the nation."
The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, which includes controversial embryonic stem cell research, was approved by a margin of 51% to 49%.
Proponents of the measure, like the Rev. B.T. Rice of New Horizons Christian Church in St. Louis, said, "This could be the greatest medical breakthrough in our lifetime."
That view is not shared by Gr. Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Association.
"It disappoints me to see any kind of initiative in which we will not protect any age, any size of human life, and we say we want the stem cells so much that we will go and kill early human life development to get them."
Rudd added, the wording of the initiative may have been confusing.
"When they voted to say that we're going to go ahead with this initiative, that we're going to do somatic cell nuclear transfer, did they really understand that they were voting for cloning, cloning that requires the formation of an early human life, and then the killing of that life; because the ban basically says, we're going to create these early embryos, but we're not going to allow them live? Did people really understand that, or were people less educated, and maybe more persuaded by a celebrity who thought this or that,?" Rudd asked.
Opinions varied on the outcome of the specific issues, as well as on the elections in general.
Jim Wallis, executive director of Sojourners, said of last month's election, "Both the Religious Right and secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard. Many Americans this year voted all of their values."
Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins, summed it up this way: "The values voters of 2004 could be called the integrity voters of 2006. The message is that values are not just something that you talk about at election time; values should guide public policies and personal conduct. This should be a clear message to both Parties that values voters vote values, not party. Their focus is not on party politics, but rather, on government guided by core values."
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]