Montana adds referendum on marriage to its ballot

Montana became the eighth state to add a constitutional marriage referendum to its ballot this year.

Supporters of traditional marriage turned in more than 70,000 signatures in June — 46,095 were needed — the Montana secretary of state confirmed Thursday.

If adopted by voters, the Montana constitution would add a section saying that “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

“It’s too bad that we need to restate the obvious — that marriage is between a man and a woman — but if the obvious needs to be restated, I believe voters will do it by an overwhelming majority in November,” said state Rep. Jeff Laszloffy, who authored the amendment and is the president of the Montana Family Foundation.

But Karl Olson of Montanans for Families and Fairness, an advocacy group that opposes the amendment, said history is on their side.

“It’s one thing to gather petitions but it’s another to gather the necessary votes to pass,” Mr. Olson said.

Lawmakers in seven states already put constitutional marriage amendments on their ballots this year. These include Missouri, which has a public vote Aug. 3; Louisiana, which has a vote Sept. 18; and Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah, all of which have Nov. 2 votes.

Five other states have petition drives to put marriage amendments on their November ballots. Marriage supporters in Arkansas, Oregon and Michigan turned in signatures in early July and are waiting for them to be validated. North Dakota and Ohio have petition deadlines in early August.

All the amendments would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The tactic is intended to trump courts who might otherwise authorize homosexual “marriages.”

In other state same-sex “marriage” news this month:

• In Massachusetts, a Superior Court judge heard testimony about a 1913 residency law that Gov. Mitt Romney says prevents out-of-state homosexual couples from “marrying” in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts began legally “marrying” same-sex couples in May. A 1913 law, however, says nonresident couples can’t marry in Massachusetts if it would be considered void in their home states. Mr. Romney says that because no other states allow same-sex “marriage,” nonresident homosexual couples may not “marry” in Massachusetts.

Several homosexual couples, represented by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and the American Civil Liberties Union, have sued to block enforcement of the 1913 law.

• In Oregon, a state court of appeals upheld a ruling by Circuit Court Judge Frank Bearden and ordered the state to begin registering the 3,022 homosexual “marriages” conducted by Multnomah County officials in March and April.

Homosexual-rights groups cheered the ruling as a step toward full recognition of their unions. But Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers noted that Judge Bearden’s ruling also said the registrations “are not valid” until the Oregon Supreme Court rules on whether same-sex “marriage” is legal.

• This article is based on part on wire service reports.