Could history repeat itself?

From Phil Burress, Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage

Is it possible that the May 15, 2008 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to force same-sex marriage on the people of that state might have sealed the fate of Senator Obama?

It was four years ago on May 17, 2004 that same-sex marriage began in Massachusetts, thanks to a similar decision by that state's high court. The following day, May 18, we began the effort to place on the Ohio ballot a state constitutional amendment to protect Ohio from such judicial activism.

In 1996 Senator John Kerry declared his support for same-sex marriage by being one of only 14 Senators who voted against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That vote eight years prior proved to be Senator Kerry's undoing in Ohio in 2004. Most of the mainstream media as well as political pundits have stated that President Bush won in Ohio because of the Marriage Amendment.

In the 11 states where marriage amendments were on the ballot in 2004, 94 percent of the major newspapers opposed the measures. But the people of those states voted by nearly a 70 percent margin in favor of traditional marriage - showing that voters will not be swayed by the media when it comes to marriage!

In 2004 Ohio's marriage amendment passed by a 62 percent margin. According to a poll conducted by a homosexual activist organization, the number of Ohioans who oppose same-sex marriage actually has risen dramatically since. In 2004 we conducted our own poll to determine the impact that the marriage amendment would have on Ohio voters. Market Strategies, the independent firm conducting the poll, concluded that the marriage amendment would assist President Bush by 3-5 percentage points, would swing undecided voters toward Bush by a 6 to 1 margin, and would double African-American votes for Bush. Their predictions proved correct on all three counts.

When exit polls showed Senator Kerry winning in five out of six major Ohio cities (Cleveland, Dayton, Akron/Canton, Toledo and Columbus), no one who understood Ohio politics thought that Bush could win. Never in the history of Ohio elections had anyone lost in all those major markets and won a statewide race. I was in Columbus that night, and the "experts" there were declaring Kerry the victor. But Bush won - by 118,599 votes, a two percent margin.

What the "experts" did not anticipate was the turnout of conservative voters in rural Ohio, where folks came out to vote for the marriage amendment. Eight-seven of Ohio's 88 counties voted against same-sex marriage. Even 469,000 Kerry voters voted against same-sex marriage.

All of which makes one question: If Ohio's marriage amendment swung Ohio for President Bush against what many considered insurmountable odds, what effect might the issue of same-sex marriage have on the 2008 Presidential Election?

On the issue of same-sex marriage, the difference between Senators McCain and Obama (or Clinton, should she prevail) is even more distinct that the Bush/Kerry divide. In 2004, President Bush did not actively campaign in favor of that year's statewide marriage amendments. At a March 7, 2008 meeting in New Orleans, I directly asked Senator McCain in the presence of 1,000 attendees if he would "openly campaign for the marriage amendment already on the ballot in Florida and the ones likely to be on ballots in Arizona and California." His immediate response was an emphatic "Yes!"

Senators Obama and Clinton may be on the record as being in favor of traditional marriage with support for domestic partnerships, but their voting records, their campaign rhetoric, and their response to the recent California decision clearly place them in the same mold as Senator Kerry, who opposed same-sex marriage with a wink. Will the issue of protecting traditional marriage have an impact on the Election of 2008 similar to its impact in 2004?

The answer to that question depends on Senator McCain. We know that the mainstream media still stands in support of same-sex marriage. And we know that the majority of the American voters still stand opposed. Senator McCain needs to force this issue into the election equation. He needs to make it very clear that he is opposed to same-sex marriage and back up his talk with action by supporting the Marriage Amendments in Florida, Arizona and California. Without a doubt Senator Obama (or Clinton) will try to keep endorsement of same-sex marriage low-key. They both know that history might well repeat itself.

Phil Burress, Chairman, Citizens for Community Values Action

Chairman, Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage