Twenty words clarify marriage protections
For the second time in two years, Arizonans will be asked to modify the state Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Political insiders and a significant margin of the voting public regarded the measure as a solid winner when the ballot initiative was presented to voters in 2006. Twenty states had already approved similar measures and seven others joined them on election day. But nationally, Arizona alone failed to pass the measure.
In 2006, the proponents had Nathan Sproul directing the effort. His track record on “sure things” is not one to write home about.
A citizen’s initiative on the upcoming ballot, it clarifies marriage as between one man and one woman. Last time around with too much thrown into the mix, the measure worried a large number of heterosexual couples living together without benefit of marriage. Many were senior citizens, fearful of losing health and insurance benefits.
This proposition contains only 20 words, easily understood and classic in its simplicity. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. These few words are a necessary protection against a future liberal legislature or an activist judge, legislating from the bench.
Sonoran News provides a good analysis of the proposition. Read the comments of Mayor Phil Gordon and the few elected officials who oppose the measure. They join the ACLU, NOW, Arizona Transsexual Alliance, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats, Planned Parenthood, Arizona Human Rights Campaign and AFLCIO of Arizona.
We urge a Yes vote on Proposition 102.