Marriage Amendment: Round two

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.

Advertisements

11 Responses to Marriage Amendment: Round two

  1. Stanford says:

    Good rule of thumb: Keep Sproul away from anything that needs to engender public support. This guy has become a pariah. Whether it is a candidate or a ballot measure, Sproul is the kiss of death. His tactics are based on his anything goes mentality. Most of us are more principled.

  2. Clark says:

    Good for the Alliance Defense Fund! I sincerely wish them well in this endeavor.

  3. Night Owl says:

    Leave it to Philly to be on the wrong side of an issue. Who would have guessed?

  4. NoProp200 says:

    Make sure you vote no on Prop 200! Tell the payday lenders that hardworking Arizonans deserve a chance at financial stability and their 400% interest rates aren’t welcome.

    They shelled out over $11 million to promote a lie to voters, but the truth is their type of lending only hurts people by dragging them to debt.

    We need a healthy economy – Nov. 4th – No on Prop 200!

  5. BOB HARAN says:

    Marriage is between a man and a women, period. It always was and always will be. If two men or two women want to play house, let them play house inside their own house, not in the public square. Government should never recognize gay marriage as anything but foolishness. If people want to give power of attorney to each other, that’s fine, but the state should only recognize a marriage between one man and one women.

    BOB HARAN,
    Phoenix

  6. nightcrawler says:

    So Bob,

    Do you consider two gay parents with adopted children a family ?

    How about a man and woman with kids who have never married ?

  7. SherriAZ says:

    What about a polygamous family with three wives, one husband and several children all spread amongst three homes? Many see nothing wrong with polygamy- including Muslims.

    What about a man who wants to marry a 15 year old boy in a state where the age of consent is 15? What about two men who want to marry that same 15 year old boy? Pedophiles would love this.

    See the slippery slope? We need to stop greasing it and stop the social experiments that hurt the social framework of family as it has been defined for thousands of years. There’s a reason that the family unit has survived and that is because it works.

  8. nightcrawler says:

    Sherri,

    Yes but who gets to draw the line and where ? Under 18 is a no brainer, but the rest is a judgement call. See Utah.

  9. […] of Arizona’s  Marriage Amendment will keep activist judges from altering our laws as has just occurred in […]

  10. […] Red AZ has previously covered this subject.  We do so again in response to the disingenuous editorial and urge a YES vote on […]

  11. […] lapsed into her real agenda of the day: Berating the voters for approving Proposition 102.  The Marriage Amendment passed easily by a 56.2 – 43.8  margin. That’s 1,135,604 votes to 884,597, […]