1
I
NTRODUCTION
Just as some prominent scholars of religion and politics had predicted prior to the 2004
election, the debate over same-sex marriage seemed to revitalize the Christian Right—at least insofar
as it was represented in the media. Eleven states were slated to vote on proposed constitutional
amendments that, if approved, would firmly entrench a heterosexual definition of marriage (Haga,
2004). When the dust surrounding the election had settled, all eleven amendments had passed, and,
according to exit polls, “moral values” was topping the list of factors that influenced voters in
casting their ballots (Seelye, 2004: P4). Ohio Issue 1, the constitutional amendment that sought to
define marriage as “a union between one man and one woman,” and to prevent the conferment of
any “legal status for relationships or unmarried couples that intends to approximate the design,
qualities, significance, or effect of marriage,” passed by nearly a two-to-one margin (Johnson, 2004b:
01A).
Many religiously affiliated groups came out in support of Issue 1, and quite a bit of media
coverage was generated surrounding the efforts of such organizations to promote the amendment’s
passage. Conservative organizations, such as the Cincinnati-based Ohio Campaign to Protect
Marriage, exercised a great deal of contact with clergy (Djupe et al. 2005) and appeared to out-
mobilize groups opposed to the amendment. Clergy were also heavily involved on both sides of
Issue 1. Bishops representing the Catholic Conference of Ohio announced their support of Issue 1,
while more than eighty clergy from the Cleveland area and ninety-five United Methodist leaders
from central Ohio publicly decried the amendment (Johnson and Mahoney, 2004: 01C). However,
mirroring the overall trend in media coverage, the coverage of clergy involvement with the
amendment seemed to focus on its most vocal advocates rather than its opponents. For example, a
great deal of attention was paid to the Reverend Rod Parsley of the megachurch World Harvest
Convention