WASHINGTON November 8, 2004 (By Debra Rosenberg And Karen Breslau, Newsweek) - For weeks, gay-rights activists had been bracing for the worst. Pre-election polls told them that contentious anti-gay-marriage initiatives, on the ballot in 11 states, would likely pass in all but Oregon. One by one on Election Day, those predictions came true. And then some. In the end, it was a clean sweep—even libertarian-leaning Oregon eventually voted to outlaw same-sex marriage by 56 percent, despite a $2.8 million push by gay groups. In eight states, including Ohio, Michigan and Utah, the measures went even further. They curtailed rights granted under civil unions and domestic partnerships, which could affect unmarried straight couples, too—a position to the right of President Bush and other Republicans. Ohio's Republican governor opposed his state's initiative. It still passed with 62 percent of the vote.

Religious groups vowed that gay marriage would send evangelicals flocking to the voting booth. Exit polls showed that 22 percent of voters named "moral values" as the most important issue to them—ranking it higher than the economy and the Iraq war. Of them, 79 percent voted for President Bush. In Ohio, 24 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as "white evangelical/born-again Christians."

Gay marriage was a key part of Karl Rove's turnout strategy, and stood out as one of the cultural fault lines dividing the two Americas. Overwhelmingly, Americans say they oppose same-sex marriage, yet favor civil unions and other rights for gay couples. But the issue became a catchall for the concerns of Christian conservatives, who were already fed up with the many restrictions "activist" judges had imposed on them: rulings protecting abortion, banning school prayer and limiting religious displays in public buildings. The biggest concern: that judges in their states would follow the Massachusetts Supreme Court and force gay marriage on them. "It was a target," says Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. "It was a very clear focus of where to channel their frustration, their aggravation at what the courts have done."

But the measures, intended to bypass the courts, will inevitably wind up in the dock. Gay-activist groups are already planning lawsuits to challenge the new provisions. "Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," says Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. A judge in Louisiana, which passed a similar anti-gay-marriage amendment earlier this year, already overturned the measure on a technicality: the ballot initiative put two issues before voters—gay marriage and civil unions—at once, a violation of state law. The Lambda Legal Defense Fund is planning to use the same tactic to challenge Georgia's just-passed amendment. Other activists will argue that the amendments violate equal-protection rights.

The one question that looms over all of these state battles: what will Bush do? Appealing to evangelicals during the campaign, the president repeatedly said he'd push for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriages. But Bush has shown no real enthusiasm for the issue. Christian leaders had to lean on him to back it, and even then he was slow to embrace it. Even some gay activists are hopeful that the amendment push will fade from sight in a second Bush term. "Now that he doesn't have to run for re-election," says Foreman, "hopefully he can call off the dogs."