Originally Posted by forester814

Thanks again for your opposition to this discriminatory measure, fx.

As you may know, a number of other states have written amendments that preclude civil unions for gays, along with the marriage ban. (All of them, except for the one in Arizona in 2006, were approved by the voters.)

I have a theory as to why they are being written this way.

I believe the language of this amendment, specifically the exclusion of all unions "like" marriage, was chosen by the neo-conservative authors NOT to make sure it passes, but specifically to make sure it eventually gets rejected as unconstitutional and thrown out (after a few election cycles with it in the spotlight).

Why? Doesn't that seem self-defeating?
Not at all.

That way, they can draft a newly worded amendment and start the process all over again, using the issue over a couple more election cycles as a way to flog the all-important massive block of "moral values" voters into turning out on election day.

Much like the abortion issue, Republicans don't want this issue settled... ever.

If these two issues were ever settled, what polarizing wedge issue would they be able to use in order to turn out those "moral values" voters with?

How could they possibly win without a wedge?
Certainly not by running on their records.