Distortion: Another favorite technique of marriage amendment opponents is to distort the language of proposed amendments through crafty paraphrasing. Opponents of these marriage amendments tell the public that these initiatives will "prohibit domestic partners from receiving benefits."
In fact, that would only be true for public entities that are too stingy (or too worried about making a politically-correct "statement") to provide benefits to adult dependents who are not the sex partners of their unmarried employees.
Opponents assert that such amendments will prevent a person from designating their unmarried, cohabitating, sexual partner as the beneficiary of a government benefit. In truth, what these amendments do is require the government to provide benefits on a broader basis, rather than favor one particularly vocal special interest group over another – in this case: unmarried people over other unmarried people with equally or more compelling needs for dependent benefits.
Instead of weakening the institution of marriage by producing a legal status that treats cohabitating sexual partners like the spouses of married persons, governments can allow benefits to be assigned on a fairer, more neutral basis. For instance: a policy could be created to allow someone entitled to a benefit (say, an employee with health insurance) to extend that benefit to a financially interdependent adult living in the same household – i.e., a disabled adult sibling, or an elderly parent living in the employee's home.
Disinformation: Perhaps the boldest – and most insulting – tool in the marriage amendment opposition's kit is the lie that assumes the public is too ignorant to know any better: "We don't need a constitutional amendment because same-sex marriage is already prohibited by statute in this state."
Anyone who has been through an eighth grade civics class should know that constitutions trump statutes, and that a court can invalidate a statute if it decides that statute violates a constitutional provision. This line of disinformation, then, is a Trojan horse smuggling a SWAT team of attorneys for Lambda Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU.
When opponents of marriage amendments say there’s “no need” for a constitutional amendment, what they’re really thinking is, "Please don't figure out that only a marriage amendment can prevent activist judges from discovering a ‘right’ to same-sex ‘marriage’ in the state constitution and striking down that pesky statute as unconstitutional."
It is roughly one month until Election Day, when the voters in eight more states will have the opportunity to protect and preserve our most important social institution, marriage, from those who want to redefine it in the courts and legislatures, and from those who want to undermine its unique status as the best legal protection for children and society.
Here's hoping that voters do away with the 3-D glasses, and open their eyes to how important these amendments are for America.