Marriage: Fundamental component for families and society, now requires legal protection

Hedonism trumps reason in Republic’s editorial

Casting about for someone to blame for the for the high level of support for Proposition 102, the Marriage Amendment, the daily editorializes with fervor.

The newspaper has been reliably pro same-sex unions, with the intensity growing since Randy Lovely assumed the duties of Managing Editor and VP of News, as the only openly gay chief of a major U.S. newspaper. When he relocated to Phoenix with his “partner,” the news was heralded by the industry.

Today’s lone and rambling editorial calls the Marriage Amendment, “a needless distraction” that “voters should reject.”  It tears into Secretary of State Jan Brewer for the ballot wording and raises the canard about the divorce rate among heterosexuals, throwing in poverty and fathers who don’t parent, for good measure.

To further make its point against the amendment, the newspaper refers to “the clouds of prejudice and ignorance,” which they declare are being dispelled by personal relationships with homosexuals.

The Republic counsels its dwindling readership to “get beyond the acrimony,” yet neglects to mention the important, positive value of a married mother and father on children.

Proposition 102 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. Regardless of the AZ Republic’s protestations to the contrary, these few words are a necessary protection against a future liberal legislature or an activist judge, legislating from the bench. In states where the amendment has appeared on the ballot, the measure has passed by wide margins.

Seeing Red AZ has previously covered this subject.  We do so again in response to the disingenuous editorial and urge a YES vote on Proposition 102.

8 Responses to Marriage: Fundamental component for families and society, now requires legal protection

  1. Elizabeth says:

    I sincerely appreciate the information I get on this site. Thank you. I have directed several friends here.

  2. BOB HARAN says:

    Prop. 102 should be renamed, “The Very Necessary Marriage Amendment.”

    The Republic and the homosexual community, are up in arms over the Marriage Amendment, Prop. 102. Their argument against the amendment is, it’s unnecessary, that same sex-marriage is already prohibited in Arizona. If the marriage amendment is unnecessary and will do nothing, then why is the gay community so opposed to it? Why are they so upset? They should let it pass without opposition if it does nothing and is unnecessary.

    The truth is that the Marriage Amendment is necessary because the gay communities desire to legitimatize homosexual behavior, and activist liberal judges, who legislate from the bench, make it necessary to amend the constitution of Arizona to state what has been obvious to all civilized societies, “only a union of one man and one woman is a valid marriage.” Courts in other states have stricken down the same type of laws prohibiting same-sex marriage that Arizona currently has. The most important reason for passage of the Marriage Amendment however, is to protect the traditional family. The family is the basic unit of a society, destroy the family and you destroy the society.

    Say no to destroying the American family by saying YES to Prop. 102.

    BOB HARAN,
    LD 6

  3. Gimlet says:

    The Arizona Republic is promoting this as “anti-gay marriage,” It is more rightly called “pro-traditional marriage.” Marriage has been the societal glue of the family structure. No amount of wishful thinking by the same-sex proponents will change that.
    It is unions of men and women which produce families. Two women or two men are not naturally constructed to acheive that.

    I was surprised to read about their Editor-in-Chief. That explains a lot!

  4. West Washington Watcher says:

    When this issue was previously on the AZ ballot, it was also being voted on in several other states. Arizona was the ONLY state not to pass it. Thanks again, Nathan Sproul! This guy is the consultant extraordinaire — if you have a campaign you want to sink a ton of money into and watch it tank, Sproul’s your guy. Although he loses most of his campaigns, his billfold isn’t affected.

    Click on the link “Has Passed” in the next to last paragraph. Then scroll down to:
    “Efforts to define marriage by constitutional amendment.” There it is! Clear as day!!

  5. SherriAZ says:

    As a Christian, I am always interested in how the liberal left will fight tooth and nail for their point of view, but stop at nothing to deny Christians our same right to speak ours. I am heartened to hear that the initiatives in California and Arizona appear to be much ahead in the polls. Now if we can assure the defeat of Prop 202 and really stick it to Nathan Sproul, that will be sweet. Even sweeter will be a Trumanesque win for McCain-Palin on election night.

  6. Debi in Phx says:

    It is also interesting to note that one of the chief anti 102 campaign slogans is “keep politicians out of marriage” The ironic thing is that there are no politicians in leadership on the yes campaign but Representative Kyrsten Sinema is heading up the no campaign.

    Also, I sent in a pro 102 letter to the editor of the Republic about a week and a half ago right after the Connecticut Supreme Court legalized gay unions from the bench. I know other people sent in letters as well. I haven’t seen ONE of them. Have you??

  7. […] to Arizona’s Proposition 102, the Californian measure enshrines the traditional definition of marriage in the State […]

  8. […] obscuring the vote Within weeks after Arizona voters passed a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, the Phoenix City […]