01:46 PM EST on Wednesday, November 3, 2004

By JOE BIESK / Associated Press Writer

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Social conservatives scored a lopsided victory Tuesday, as Kentuckians overwhelmingly voted in favor of a proposed amendment outlawing same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Opponents were unable to withstand the momentum gained by the amendment’s supporters, who had help from religious organizations, churches and even the governor.

“It’s God’s law that woman was made for man and man for woman—not man for man and woman for woman,” Harold Auxier, a 59-year-old retired coal miner from Van Lear who voted Tuesday for the amendment. “That’s why marriage should only be recognized between a man and woman.”

State law already prohibited same-sex marriages. But the amendment’s supporters have argued a constitutional change was necessary to close the door on any possibility of a future court ruling that would allow same-sex marriages in Kentucky.

With 52 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment had 621,142 votes for it, or 70 percent, and 261,195 votes against it, or 30 percent.

Some voters said the amendment went too far.

Maurice Stepteau, 36, of Louisville, said he voted against the amendment because he felt it stretched the government’s bounds.

“You’re still dealing with a human being who has the same needs as any other human being, gay or whatever,” Stepteau said.

Beth Wilson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said Kentuckians who voted for the amendment would eventually regret their decision.

“That certainly is disappointing news that that many Kentucky voters would think that it’s appropriate to write discrimination into our constitution,” Wilson said. “People get harmed when their relationships are not respected, and this means that relationships won’t be respected.”

But Kent Ostrander, executive director of the Lexington-based Family Foundation, said the large margin of victory simply showed Kentuckians do not approve of same-sex marriages.

“Everybody who had any rights, benefits or protections yesterday have those same rights, benefits and protections today,” Ostrander said. “And I would say, this is about a false right to redefine marriage for everybody else.”

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)