Same-sex "marriage" advocates have taken a drubbing in court this summer. Their bid to redefine marriage has been rejected in 20 states by constitutional amendments passed by overwhelming margins. Not surprisingly, their camp is desperate to score at least one victory – and soon – by defeating one of the eight additional state marriage amendments on the ballot this November.
These special-interest activists have a dilemma, though. Their best efforts to appeal to the courts and the public with claims for "marriage equality" have failed; most Americans just don’t believe that society will benefit from the government's promotion of relationships between two men or two women – at least, in the same way or to the same degree that society benefits from encouraging men and women to marry.
In other words, most Americans are still convinced that political special interests shouldn’t trump what’s in the best interest of families and children.
So what's a desperate marriage re-definer to do? Hand out 3-D glasses to the voters, and hope that Distraction, Distortion, and Disinformation will blur the issue.
Distraction: One of the principal tactics employed by opponents of this November's marriage amendments is the publicizing of how these amendments will allegedly harm heterosexual couples who choose not to marry. In Arizona, for instance, marriage opponents are targeting loving retired couples who cohabitate but don't marry, because marrying would mean the loss of valuable economic benefits tied to their status as a single widow or widower. (Funny: these morally preachy groups have few qualms about encouraging seniors to defraud their dead spouses' employers.)
By emphasizing this line of argument (and similar scare tactics touting "unintended consequences" to unmarried opposite-sex couples), marriage opponents clearly hope to distract voters from the reality that redefining marriage is a campaign driven by the radical homosexual agenda. Put a "straight" face on the supposed ill effects of the amendment, and more heterosexuals might reject it out of self-interest. (Which raises the question: how it is in anyone's self interest to undermine the fundamental building block of ordered democratic society?)