[1]McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)–On Nov. 8, Texans will go to the polls to decide the fate of Proposition 2, a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage in the Lone Star state as being exclusively between one man and one woman.
Those opposed to the amendment are determined, by hook or by crook, to make passage of the amendment as difficult as possible. One of the prime tactics being used by opponents is to insist that the language of the proposition is unclear and could be interpreted so as to invalidate natural, heterosexual marriages.
Homosexual activists and others opposed to Prop 2 are making millions of phone calls to Texans asserting that a vote for the amendment is a risky proposition.
In one call, recipients are read comments by Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht designed to leave the impression that the judge has reservations about Prop 2.
Hecht has said his comments were taken completely out of context and he issued a statement Nov. 2 denouncing the calls as deceptive and false. “As a judge, I cannot take a public position on any kind of amendment,” he said, “and I have not done so.”
Some calls include comments from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and imply that the amendment is poorly drafted and could interfere with heterosexual marriage.
[2]On Oct. 27, Abbott sent an official letter to the legislative sponsors of the amendment. In it he wrote, “The plain language of Proposition 2 does not reflect any intent to annul traditional marriage.” Additionally, he stated that the argument being peddled by opponents of the proposition is “nonsensical and frivolous as a matter of law.”
If one of your state’s Supreme Court justices has said your tactics are deceptive and false and the attorney general is calling your argument nonsensical and frivolous, you might want to reconsider your strategy.
However, if you are a homosexual activist or social liberal trying to force society to accept and celebrate an aberrant lifestyle, then the end justifies the means. And make no mistake about it, “gay marriage” is about establishing homosexuality as natural, normal and healthy.
Americans seem willing to tolerate homosexual behavior. Yet while Americans are willing to live-and-let-live on the choice of homosexual behavior, they continue to reject the normalization of homosexuality.
Every time voters have been asked to define marriage as being between one man and one woman within in state constitutions, they have adopted the amendments overwhelmingly. So far, 18 states have such amendments.
But homosexual activists are not satisfied with mere toleration, so they are willing to resort to almost any tactic to derail the validation of traditional marriage -– even deceptive phone calls.
And even when voters have spoken loud and clear, activists have sought to undermine the results.
In 2004, 57 percent of Oregon voters (a significant majority in what is arguably one of America’s most liberal and homosexuality friendly states) passed a constitutional amendment –- known as Measure 36 — stating clearly and simply that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Homosexual activists sued, saying the amendment is unconstitutional because it proposed more than one change, something the Oregon Constitution does not allow
A lawyer for Basic Rights Oregon, a homosexual advocacy group, contends that the measure should have been split up into two to four separate amendments and voted on separately.
Allow me to introduce you to the text of Measure 36: “It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.”
I know that lawyers are adept at finding loopholes, but you would have to parse the punctuation to see more than one change implied by Measure 36. Thankfully, a judge Nov. 4 upheld Measure 36, although an appeal is certain to come.
While some Texas voters will likely fall victim to the underhanded tactics of those seeking to mainstream homosexuality, I believe most are smart enough to see through the deception.
Expect Proposition 2 to pass. And then anticipate homosexual activists to challenge it in court. They are intent on forcing America to accept and celebrate their behavior. And they will employ most any tactic to achieve their goal, even deliberate deceit of the electorate.
–30–
Kelly Boggs is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Ore. His column appears each Friday in Baptist Press.
For more information about the national debate over “gay marriage,” visit www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage