Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

Prop. 102 will provide constitutional guarantee

Published/Last Modified on Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 - 05:18:57 am MST

Font Size

To the Editor:

This summer, activist judges overturned the voice of the people in California by ruling 4-3 that the state constitution includes a previously overlooked right to marry.

Proposition 102 is designed to ensure this does not happen in Arizona. Prop. 102 is not about sexual orientation. We never have, and never will, ask two people who request a marriage license to state, let alone prove, their sexual orientation.

Today in California, two heterosexual same-gender individuals can marry for whatever reason. If gay and lesbian activists have their way, these relationships also will be recognized at the federal level. For example, two heterosexual men will be able to marry for immigration benefits, or two widows so they can share community property. We don’t hear about these possibilities because heterosexual relationships are not part of the narrow gay and lesbian “agenda.” They are included in the policy that gay and lesbian activists want to force on society.

Today, heterosexual same-gender marriage is a legal option in California. Before long, it will become a socially acceptable option. Then it will become a perceived necessity for individuals who previously had not considered it. No laws can be passed to stop it, and no court cases can be brought to curtail it.

Ironically, two lesbian women who are raising children together cannot marry in California if they happen to be a mother and daughter or sisters. So much for tolerance, equality and equal protection. Handicapped people who can’t find anyone to marry other than a family member also are denied this newfound “constitutional right.” Isn’t it hateful to discriminate against handicapped people and children who are being raised by their mother and grandmother? Shouldn’t a woman be able to adopt her grandchildren without their single mother, her daughter, giving up parental rights?

Clearly there is no constitutional right to marry in California. If such a right existed, any two adults would be allowed to marry. Marriage is a social policy, not a right.

Proposition 102 is simple and clear. Passing it will make it more difficult for judges in Arizona to dictate social policy from the bench as their California counterparts have done.

William L. Hanson

Sierra Vista

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 29, 2008 10:17 PM:

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

What a show wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:46 AM:

" All these people talking about everything that follows from THEIR definition of marriage, as man+woman, but never admitting that their whole argument is religious. They want to make the Old Testament into our laws. Phooey. Don't let them make the argument about what part of the O.T. should be law. Make them show why any part of the O.T. should be law. Sure some social change is upsetting to some people, but that doesn't mean they get to stop it. "

Baffled wrote on Oct 24, 2008 4:59 AM:

" Well, guess we better outlaw "straight" marriage too... you know, just in case they decide to marry for immigration benefits or community property. Your argument doesn't even make sense. "

hereford wrote on Oct 23, 2008 8:17 PM:

" Calif residents are bringing in their laws and pay off people here to get what they want. A marriage is between a man and woman. Example Calif people think country living should be without horse trailers on your property or RV's on your property. And are raising our taxes because they are paying the high prices of land. Our taxes go up and up. I want people from Calif to stay our and leave us alone. "

YES on 102 wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:55 PM:

" WELL SAID! Proposition 102 is simple and clear. Passing it will make it more difficult for judges in Arizona to dictate social policy from the bench as their California counterparts have done. YES on 102!! "

For William wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:26 PM:

" Government sanctioned marriages, as opposed to religious marriages, assign certain rights: including property rights, survival custody of persons, places and things, and tax advantages to married individuals. The government creates communities which include community property with the right of survivorship, community custody, community income and community retirement and further establishes a legal dependency relationship of one person to the other. If you created a method for equally establishing the same thing for anyone, even singles, the need for legal marriages goes away and you will be left with religious marriages only. Each standard to their own ways. "

Skeptical wrote on Oct 23, 2008 9:58 AM:

" Pauly, better go back and read Hanson's letter. It went over your head on first reading. "

Bad show wrote on Oct 23, 2008 7:47 AM:

" Hanson's letter says "it's not about sexual orientation," then talks only about that. The letter opposes a gay marriage law because it doesn't allow incest; is Hanson trying for a joke? The letter opposes a "gay agenda" that wouldn't affect any of Hanson's own decisions at all; it would just give other people the same freedom that Hanson has in his life. In short, Hanson doesn't like gays, and would keep them 2d-class citizens, without giving a good reason. What did gays ever do to Hanson to get his shorts in a knot? "

Pauly wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:54 AM:

" Enough with your California liberal bird droppings. Marriage in this state is between a man and a woman. Can't make it any clearer than that. VOTE YES on 102. Go back to San Fran if you don't like it. "