The vote for traditional marriage

Just writing that title gave me a quick reality check, one of those moments outside of time, when you can’t believe we’re even in a pitched battle over values that have been basic to civilization for over 2,000 years. A battle in which “pro-lifer” has become not only a label, but a pejorative, a slur, an accusation for candidates to deny or take the nasty consequences from “pro-choicers” if they don’t.

Go over on the right and click on ‘abortion’ for all the posts on the rhetorical gamesmanship of that lie, the semantic gymnastics of a pro-choice movement that will do anything to prevent women from actually having a choice.

But anyway…..there were a number of states where a marriage amendment was on the ballot last week, and nearly all of them voted for a protection of traditional marriage, defined as the union of one man and one woman. That’s part of the reality check — that it has to be that explicit and go that far in federal and state govermnent. In all the analysis pouring out about the elections ever since they happened, plenty of it focuses on this issue.

Here’s one by Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, always a compelling social commentator.

The success of Amendment 43 establishes in Colorado’s Constitution the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. This is simple and sane. From the start, supporters stressed that Amendment 43 was not primarily a religious issue. Nor did it seek to discriminate against anyone.

For Catholics, marriage is a permanent, sacramental covenant. But the traditional definition of marriage has long roots in human experience. It precedes the advent of Christianity by many generations. Marriage exists primarily for the support and protection of the family — and especially for women and children. This is why Coloradans of every religious faith, and no religious faith, voted for Amendment 43. The traditional definition of marriage makes common sense. It continued to make sense even when opponents of Amendment 43 outspent supporters by tens of thousands of dollars. Coloradans also figured out that, in the current climate, state law would never give real protection for marriage. Only a state constitutional amendment offers an adequate degree of safety from shifting opinions in Colorado’s state Legislature and judiciary.

Same is true all over the country, whether it came up for this election or still lies ahead. Which is why we can benefit by Chaput’s commentary on the deception behind this campaign.

Referendum I posed a different problem. Nearly every benefit sought by Referendum I is already legally available to Coloradans. No one who opposed the measure had any desire to deny anyone his or her fundamental civil rights. In fact, “basic legal rights” were never the real campaign issue. As 2006 began, most Coloradans — including most Catholics and other religious believers — were quite open to considering “designated beneficiary” proposals that would benefit a variety of non-marital domestic arrangements, without creating marriage-like legal structures. Unfortunately, the drafters of Referendum I had larger goals.

The key flaw with Referendum I was that it sought — despite its own slogans — to create an alternative, parallel structure to marriage using explicitly spousal language. As Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan pointed out, Referendum I offered a “distinction without a difference.” It was essentially marriage under another name. And Coloradans understood and voted against that, despite the fact that Referendum I supporters spent more than four times the resources their opponents could muster.

One of the reasons Referendum I was sent to the November ballot, instead of being decided in the state Legislature, was that a referendum would allow Colorado voters to speak directly on the issue. They did. They said no.

Missouri and South Dakota lost ballot inititiatives by narrow margins because of exhorbitant campaigns of deception on values the folks in those states hold deeply, and it took deception to defeat legislation that would protect life. We’ve learned lessons the hard way in this. But those are always the ones learned best.

Control the message and you control thought. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and insist that the message be clear. “No” is as clear as it gets.