Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

Marriage is already defined

Published/Last Modified on Monday, Oct 06, 2008 - 05:17:26 am MST

Font Size

Among the eight Propositions on the ballot this November is Prop 102. Its intent is to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

It’s a distinction that is already spelled out in state laws. And Arizona law already prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex in the same way it does marriage between close relatives (parents and children, brother and sister, etc.). It also voids any such marriages entered into in another state or country.

Despite state law and court appellate rulings, it was brought to the ballot by state senators as their session was winding down this spring.

To quote our District 25 state Sen. Marsha Arzberger, “I was disappointed on the last night of the Legislature to find that an extremist group managed to get 16 senators to vote to put this issue on the ballot and in the Constitution. However, during my years in public service I have also learned that things happen in election years and votes are made not for the betterment of our state, but only because people think that vote will win them an election.”

Supporters of the proposition say they want to strictly define marriage by codifying it in the state’s constitution. They also say our constitution should reflect the moral position of marriage as between a man and a woman.

We disagree.

We’re quite comfortable with how Arizonans understand marriage. We see no reason to codify this into our constitution.

We believe, like Arzberger, that the proposition even making it out of the Senate was more politically motivated than for the good of all Arizona citizens.

Amending the constitution on this issue is unnecessary.

We urge a “no” vote on Proposition 102.

More information

If you are interested in seeing the arguments for and against this proposition, here are two Web sites:

• Yes on Prop. 102: www.YesForMarriage.com

• No on Prop. 102: www.votenoprop102.com/

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

SVH EDITOR wrote on Oct 31, 2008 1:40 PM:

" EDITOR'S NOTE: Per previously stated elections policy, comments are now closed "

Fightingformyright2 wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:01 PM:

" What If Prop. 102 does not pass? http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713 In Massachusetts, a child came from kindergarten with a book that promoted the acceptance of gay marriages. The parents confronted The public school administration who in an aggressive manner responded: Same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, this is NOT a parent notification issue, the father was later sent to jail denying his parental rights. No matter what lifestyle you choose, as a mother of five IT IS my right, my responsibility and my duty to teach and protect my children and I will vote Nov 4 "

Steve Johnson wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:36 PM:

" I think that a vote no on 102 will have a influx of gays into our state to get married and bring down the high moral integrity of my home town. If I wanted to see men kissing in the streets, I would go to California. It seems to me that the only people that want this prop to pass is gays. "

YES on 102 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:29 PM:

" Activist judges will twist the INTENT of WE THE PEOPLE and so we must make it clear: YES on 102! "

Eddie89 wrote on Oct 19, 2008 7:42 PM:

" I'm voting "NO" on Prop. 102! The Constitution is no place to be adding something that takes away or limits rights on the people. We already have a State law against same-sex marriage and it has been upheld by the AZ Supreme Court. Legislators should be spending their time fixing "REAL" problems in Arizona like health care, immigration, energy policy and the economy! Hello! We have a $3 Billion dollar deficit and the country has a $10 Trillion dollar deficit! Vote "NO" on Prop. 102! "

To Dilbert wrote on Oct 17, 2008 3:24 PM:

" It sure doesn't, but then again we don't need a law like that, because it's already on the books. Just like gay marriage law is. So why make another one? I actually think ALL partnerships should be considered a legal union by the government and marriage should only be reconized by the church. That would eliminate god from any supreme court judgements about this matter. "

Dilbert wrote on Oct 14, 2008 9:39 PM:

" Does this stop Cletus from marrying his 12 year old cousin? "

MAG wrote on Oct 14, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Tom is right, God does not hate homosexuals He loves them as any other person, He just does not like the act. Repentance is what is called for, and as for my previous statement, the country that accepts and promotes actions that are out of God's will are in trouble. "

Tom wrote on Oct 13, 2008 8:29 PM:

" to Tom, as for conflicting stories, why not just read a few brief articles on that subject?:
http://www.christiancourier.com/search?q=bible+discrepancies&sa=Search
You asked, "Are you going to go out and stone gays yourself ...?" I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Just as Jesus did with the adulterous woman, I pointed out that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible along with many other sins. So of course I would NOT. I do not want a state-run religion. But I do want freedom OF religion for every one. "

sierravistan wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:32 AM:

" I will vote YES on 102. Not for religious reasons but for common sense. There has to be an end somewhere to this "anything goes" downhill slide we're on. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is not between two men and three women, not between one woman, one man and goat, etc. No one is stopping two men or two women or any combination of men and women who want to form a partnership. But that is not nor should it ever be called a marriage. "

to Tom wrote on Oct 13, 2008 8:07 AM:

" So you're living your life by a book written thousands of years ago by MANY different authors with conflicting stories and multipul versions of the same events? Are you going to go out and stone gays yourself over a book that can't even agree with itself? In this country, we have a wonderful thing called the seperation of church and state. Stop fighting against it. Come up with an argument based on reason instead of hiding behind your little book. "

Tom wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:59 PM:

" Tano, in the Old Testament they would stone to death people who were homosexuals or adulterers. But Christians are not under the Old Testament.For example, in John chapter 8 Christ did not stone the adulterous woman. Instead, he said, "Go and sin no more." So under both the Old and New Testaments homosexuality (and other sins) are condemned.
see http://www.thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=81&cat=9
"As anyone who repents of a sin, the homosexual can be forgiven. He can experience the same freedom and joy that any other sinner knows when he becomes a Christian." "

Tom wrote on Oct 12, 2008 8:22 PM:

" 1 Corinthians 6:9 says "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Tano, we as Christians are to love even our enemies. "

Tano wrote on Oct 12, 2008 11:06 AM:

" One, I would love to see where God actually says Homosexuality is wrong. Please, someone quote some references please. As far as I know, it is people all putting words in God's mouth. No one can judge you but God. Who are we to question God's creation in the first place? Did not God say "Love thy Neighbor" in one of the ten commandments? For a country with the quote, "Land of the 'Free'," this country is not so free. "

MAG wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Nations that go against God's commands always ended up being passed over in his blessings. We as a nation need to promote God's work and we will be blessed, if we continue down these progressive paths we will be doomed. Read the bible and find out for yourselves. "

Tom wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:29 AM:

" When the STATE of Massachusetts made same sex marriage LEGAL, it then could indoctrinate our children because the STATE says same sex marriage is just as good and wholesome as traditional marriage. In fact, the rights of parents are secondary to the rights of the STATE. This is what they do in Communist countries: China forces parents to have only child; during the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960s the children were taught to worship "Chairman Mao" as if he were GOD.Protect your rights as a parent: Vote YES on 102. "

Tom wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:15 AM:

" Case in point: Massachusetts now promotes the LGBT agenda in KINDERGARTEN. Parents can complain that they were not notified of this teaching but to deaf ears. In fact, one father was ARRESTED for trying to protect his KINDERGARTNER from the intrusion of the STATE on his rights as a parent. See the video here http://www.fortifyyourfaith.org/posts/26-emergency-broadcast-assault-on-families or visit frc.org and look for marriage in CA. (CA voters were overturned by activist judges on this issue.)Bottom line: Activist judges will twist the INTENT of WE THE PEOPLE and so we must make it clear: YES on 102! "

Pauly wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:11 AM:

" Vote yes because it's necessary. "

Tom wrote on Oct 7, 2008 6:02 AM:

" YES on 102! The idea that friends can't visit you in the hospital, or that you can't have a legally binding relationship for financial and other reasons is a smoke screen. The REAL INTENT of promoting the "Gay Death-style" is to do away with the family as we know it: A man and a woman and their children whether born to them or adopted. The LGBT agenda actually promotes persecution of the family and of parental rights and replaces them with the rights of THE STATE. "

Baffled wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:57 AM:

" First of all, to say that heterosexuals do not come down with AIDS is the most ignorant thing I think I've ever heard. WOMEN, for your information, are the fastest growing AIDS population. And what does that have to do with any of this anyway? Bottom line is, the Bible-bangers need to stay out of the Constitution. Pretty soon you will be running "modesty patrols" and making sure our ankles aren't showing. "

Pride wrote on Oct 6, 2008 10:26 PM:

" Concerned Citizen's comment about AIDS is really off base. AIDS spreads due to promiscuity. It has been greatly reduced in the gay community due to a new spirit of monogamy. Civil unions and marriage involve more responsibilities than rights and to deny those responsibilities to LGBT people goes against morality. The Yes on 102 people, including Tim Bee, are effectively promoting promiscuity and that makes no sense at all. "

Dogbert wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:14 PM:

" So you are saying Gays, or for that matter anyone, will not have sex without marriage? "

Ray wrote on Oct 6, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Please tell us all...what would it hurt if it's "codified" in the state constitution? You are acting like you are pro-gay marriage? "

Seriously wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:40 PM:

" Anyone who believes in the "pledge of allegiance" must vote "no" on this proposition. "With liberty and justice for all..." becomes meaningless when we start to narrowly define who actually gets the liberty and justice. This exact issue is a good example of why religion was not to be involved with government. "

Non-smoker wrote on Oct 6, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Concerned citizen...your argument is nonsensical. But if you're so concerned about your taxes, how about you stopping all the behaviors that affect me. Do you smoke? Ride a motorcycle without a helmet? Drive stupidly in general? Drink? Heck, let's ban everything that might cost someone anything. Oh, you say, those are different? You're entitled? Yeah, right. "

Adam wrote on Oct 6, 2008 11:22 AM:

" Concerned citizen, please check your facts. While homosexual contact is the largest contribution to AIDS cases it still represents about 50% of cases, so heterosexuals make up around 50% of AIDS cases. Info found here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm "

Skeptical wrote on Oct 6, 2008 8:24 AM:

" Are you absolutely certain current State laws address one man-one woman as the condition for a legal union (marriage)? So thought other states whose progressives managed to overturn convention and State laws. I can sympathize with those who wrote the proposition--they sense a trend, to be ultimately supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, that would supersede State laws, just as that Court trampled on the sacrosanct Constitutional concept of eminent domain a couple years ago. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Oct 6, 2008 6:33 AM:

" Anything that helps maintain that marriage is for a man and woman gets a yes in my book. When you let gays and lesbians get married it affects our healthcare system in a very negative way. Hetrosexuals do not generally come down with aids. Treating aids with MY tax dollars is just plain wrong. "