EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is available exclusively through United Media. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact Carmen Puello at cpuello@unitedmedia.com.

  
Opposing gay marriage is a loser of a position. That, at least, is what everyone seems to say, all along the political spectrum. Everyone, that is, except voters.  
 
Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, has been my personal political hero for the last few election cycles for her tireless work in defense of the institution of marriage. It’s a bit of a thankless task. Those who adamantly disagree with Maggie are angry and hurting, and they frequently lash out. Those who agree frequently just want to leave the issue to Maggie and not think about it. But, in various iterations, she has been at it for decades now. And she does it eminently well — that is, with reason, and compassion, and knowledge. And she knows it’s about more than simply disagreeing with the gay activists. It’s about rebuilding an institution that has been neglected, abused, and underappreciated. It’s about re-teaching what a precious gift true marriage is. And it’s about settling and codifying a definition that is at the core of human civilization and the very lives of children.  
 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Gallagher woke up the morning after last week’s elections as a winner. It wasn’t the first time and, because of this win, probably won’t be the last. This time, the fight was in Maine. And Question 1, the referendum to repeal a state law legalizing same-sex marriage, won 53 to 47 percent. Once again, Gallagher had reminded people of why they actually do know this fight is an essential one.  
 
That was a bigger margin than last year, when Gallagher was a pivotal leader in defeating gay marriage in California. And it was a bigger margin despite the fact that more money was spent by the proponents of same-sex marriage, who presumably had learned lessons from the previous defeat(s).

Robert P. George, a professor of politics at Princeton and founder of the American Principles Project, observes: “Maine is a northeastern liberal state with a significant student population. There are few blacks and very few Mormons. There is not a large Evangelical Christian population. The forces working in the state for the abolition of the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of husband and wife had the strong support not only of the media, but also of the state’s governor and other leading political figures. They had a significant funding advantage. On Election Day, they got the large turnout that they believed would assure them of victory. Yet, when the votes were counted, the people of Maine came down solidly in favor of restoring the conjugal conception of marriage that the state’s legislature and governor attempted to abolish.”  
 
“I think people may not understand the magnitude of what we were up against,” emphasizes Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage. “They had four years to build an effective grassroots organization and claimed 8,000 volunteers in a state with a population of only 1.3 million. Still they lost — and by a larger margin than in California.” He asks where proponents of same-sex marriage go from here, “how they convince their base to fund another campaign. At this point they are 0 for 31.” The “31” refers to the number of states where there has been a ballot initiative concerning gay marriage. 
 
Why has gay marriage consistently lost when put in the hands of voters? Because what’s true is true. “Most people know in their own heart that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Brown says.