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.  
 
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. 
 
“Can you stand up for gay marriage?” a young man in downtown Manhattan asked me. In my best attempt to avoid confrontation, I replied, “No, thank you.” He protested: “I’m fighting for my civil rights.”  
 
I don’t wish that young man any ill — quite the contrary. But the truth is: The majority of voters don’t see it as he does. And with good reasons that get to the heart of human sexuality and the foundations of a healthy society. Folks — including me! — may not want to get into a confrontation about it on the street, but we don’t think there is a civil right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.

Furthermore, we do know what the Constitution protects. And yet in Maine, Donald Mendell, a counselor at Nokomis Regional High School, faces an ethics complaint that threatens his license for his public support of the marriage referendum. The complaint against him included the accusation that he has a “long history of being unsupportive of GLBTQ issues.” (“Questioning,” by the way, is the answer to the question of what “Q” stands for.) And what, pray tell, is wrong with that? Jordan Lorence, of the Alliance Defense Fund, says: “The complaint points to nothing that Mr. Mendell has done or not done on the job as the alleged violation of the professional ethical standards. The complaint in essence argues that a social worker who exercises his First Amendment rights to participate in a political campaign should lose his professional license. This is absurd and chilling and intimidating. This is a political gang-tackle against an ideological opponent.”  
 
But Mendell isn’t the first and won’t be the last to be intimidated by the self-proclaimed guardians of “tolerance,” those who advocate the mainstream acceptance of the rejection of natural law. Tom Messner of the Heritage Foundation has a report out on “The Price of Prop 8,” chronicling the acts of vandalism and harassment that opponents of gay marriage in California have been subjected to. Churches have been threatened and desecrated. Business owners have been targeted, and their businesses have suffered. If you’re not simply pulling a lever in the privacy of a voting booth, it takes remarkable courage to oppose gay marriage.  
 
You can almost understand why even many conservatives have given up on protecting the institution of marriage as one between a man and a woman. Most of us know and love people who have same-sex feelings and have, perhaps, adopted a homosexual lifestyle, perhaps even while eschewing political activism. On this, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the new Catholic prelate in New York, was recently interviewed by New York magazine. In discussing the issues of gay marriage and the gay lifestyle, he explained: “The church — this hopeless romantic that she is — holds that sexual love is so exalted that it is the very mirror of the passion and the intimate excitement that God has for us and our relationship. We actually believe that when a man and a woman say ‘I do’ forever, that our love will be faithful, forever freeing, liberating, life-giving. We believe they mean it and they can do it! That’s exciting, that’s enriching, that’s ennobling. That’s a big, fat yes — yes!” It’s a “yes,” though, not to a sentimental, relativistic romanticism, but to an institution grounded in natural law. It’s a “yes” that voters appear to be acknowledging. It’s a “yes” that children, who social science and human experience tell us do best with a loving mother and a loving father, committed in marriage, deserve as the standard.  
 
The success of conjugal marriage at the ballot box in the blue states of California and Maine may be a momentum shifter, Professor George says. “It gives the lie to what was, perhaps, the most compelling argument advanced by the forces favoring the redefinition of marriage, namely, the idea that the redefinition of marriage is inevitable — nothing can be done to prevent it.”  
 
Motivated by a desire to preserve something good — and not, as critics charge, a bigoted desire to exclude people — Maggie Gallagher is a winner today, and not just politically.  
 
© 2009, Kathryn Jean Lopez. Distributed by Newspaper Enterprise Assn. Note: This is an expanded version of the original syndicated column.