Objections are routine when standing for the Truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  Below is a list of common objections often made in opposition to a marriage protection amendment (MPA).  Following the objections are answers you might make in gracious response to those objections. 

Question:  Is same-sex “marriage” really going to come to West Virginia? 

Answer:  Yes.  The greatest obstacle to passing a MPA in West Virginia may just be because there is such great support for marriage in West Virginia.  While West Virginians clearly want to define marriage for themselves, there is a very determined and vocal minority financed by national activists who are intent on redefining marriage in every state.  Combine the determination with the apathy of those who support marriage, and the result will be a great surprise on the many West Virginians who support marriage as between one man and one woman. 

Courts in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have fabricated same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court of Iowa is considering the same right now.  Legislatures in Wyoming, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, North Carolina, Maine, and the District of Columbia are considering legislation that would redefine marriage.  The West Virginia legislature is considering several bills that have been used as the basis for fabricating same-sex "marriage" by courts in other states.

In short, it is not a matter of "if" same-sex "marriage" will come to West Virginia; it is a matter of "when."

Question:  Should the state spend money on a special election effort to defend marriage?

Answer:  Yes.  While a special election will require a significant investment of taxpayer dollars, in the long run it is the most inexpensive option.  Unless the voters of West Virginia define marriage within the State constitution, a legal battle over the definition of marriage will result.  The legal fees of the West Virginia Attorney General’s office alone will be in the multiple millions.  Regardless of the result of any lawsuit, the legislature would be forced to consider a MPA anyway, costing the West Virginia taxpayer additional millions before allowing West Virginians to vote on the matter.  

If West Virginians do not shut the door on same-sex “marriage” now, to do so in the future becomes a much more expensive prospect.   A MPA during a 2009 special election is the quickest, easiest, least-expensive method of defending marriage.

Objection:  West Virginia has a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Is an amendment really necessary?

Answer:  Yes. Voters in California, Connecticut, and several other states thought so too.  Unfortunately, just a handful of judges on their state supreme courts invalidated those laws and made same-sex “marriage” a reality in their states.  In West Virginia, just three judges on the Supreme Court of Appeals could invalidate our DOMA.  If the U.S. Congress overturns the Federal DOMA (and many expect that it will), the WV DOMA would be ineffective.  

Moreover, the WV DOMA merely prevents the recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage.  There is no binding definition of marriage within West Virginia law.  The only way to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman is to define it within the Constitution of the State of West Virginia. 

Objection:  Is the threat so immediate that we have to vote in 2009 or can it just wait until the general election of 2010? 

Answer:  Yes.  Opponents of marriage get stronger with each passing year, as does the public acceptance of same-sex lifestyles.  The acceptance of same-sex “marriage” just 15 years ago was not even half of what it is today. With an endless supply of money to test refine their rhetoric and disseminate their propaganda, opponents of marriage think they can “wait out” any obstacle to their success.  Moreover, the public acceptance of same-sex “marriage” will reach an even greater height with the coming of age of millions of young voters in the next two election cycles.

In addition, the political leadership in West Virginia has been reluctant to allow this issue to be placed on a general election ballot for fear of the loss of some seats of power.  While this is an unfounded fear, it is a popular excuse that is not easily overcome.  Unless the MPA is placed on the ballot in 2009, it is unlikely that it will have another opportunity until 2013.  By then, it will likely be too late.

Question:  Is the proposed MPA just about marriage?

Answer:  Yes.  The proposed MPA is 19 simple words and is supported by nearly 3/4's of West Virginians.  This simple amendment reads:

Only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in West Virginia.

The threat is real.  Same-sex “marriage” is a closer reality in West Virginia than many think.  It would be easy and inexpensive for opponents of marriage to launch West Virginia into a legal chaos as they attempt to redefine marriage.  Five judges in Charleston should not be allowed to alter the Biblical definition of marriage for all of West Virginia.  West Virginians want to define marriage for themselves.  They do not want a government setting a policy - or courts imposing a system - that knowingly deprives children of a mom and a dad. 

In short, the people of West Virginia should define marriage.  Not judges or legislators.