Amendment C: Protecting Marriage Redux

The Alliance Defense Fund blog "Constitutionally Correct" has an excellent post today regarding Arizona's effort to protect marriage. As is common with many things, the obfuscation and misinformation there mirrors what is going in on South Dakota:

Opponents of Proposition 107 realize they are unlikely to win in Arizona if they argue in favor of marriage redefinition, so their primary tactic has been to argue that the Proposition would restrict benefits to various classes of unmarried people in the state. The text of the amendment doesn't restrict benefits. It merely restricts creation or recognition of a legal status similar to marriage. States and localities remain free to grant benefits so long as it is not done by recognizing a legal status similar to marriage.

As I and others have long said, this business of homosexual "marriage" under another name such as "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," or whatever the flavor of the day is, is simply calling it something by another name:

If the NJ legislature doesn't redefine marriage, but grants increased domestic partner benefits watch for same sex "marriage" advocates to immediately file another lawsuit. If that happens, the NJ Supreme Court will then need to decide whether there is any rational reason to distinguish between "marriage" and domestic partnerships now that the only distinction under state law is in name only. Any predictions regarding the outcome of that suit given the propensities of the NJ Supreme Court court? If the people of NJ hope to save marriage from redefinition they need to speak up loudly and clearly to urge the adoption of a marriage amendment.

The NJ case demonstrates that recognition of domestic partnerships, as a legal status, does endanger state marriage laws. Advocates of Arizona's Proposition 107 realize the danger that domestic partnerships, as a legal status, pose to marriage. Hence, the prohibition on any legal status that is similar to marriage. Informed pro-family forces have long realized and same sex "marriage" advocates have argued that civil unions and domestic partnerships are a trojan horse designed to conquer marriage.

Do homosexual activists really think we're that stupid? The voters of South Dakota will show them on Nov. 7 that they weren't born yesterday.