11/4/2008 8:37:00 PM
Voters endorse ban on gay marriage
| |
|
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- A new strategy -- and more money -- apparently has given supporters of a ban on gay marriage the victory that eluded them in 2006.
Preliminary results show the measure has the backing of more than 56 percent of voters. Strong support in Maricopa County - and most of the rest of the state -- overcame the narrow vote against Proposition 102 in Pima County. That lead exists even with Pima County voting narrowly against it.
Two years ago the measure backers placed on the ballot sought not only to outlaw same-sex marriage but also to bar any law that recognized civil unions. That proposal also would have banned governments from providing benefits like health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees.
It was narrowly defeated.
This year the proponents of Proposition 102 decided to narrow their focus, sticking simply to the issue of who can marry.
"The goal was to make the proposal really clear,' said Kelly Molique, a spokeswoman for the pro-102 campaign.
She said that, in turn, led to the other key difference between the 2006 and 2008 races: Money.
In 2006, foes outspent proponents. This year backers have built a war chest in excess of $7.6 million, relying heavily on contributions of $10,000 or more from individual families.
The two committees opposing the measure have collected less than 10 percent of that.
And the Center for Arizona Policy, which bills itself as promoting "family values,' has its own "get out the vote' effort aimed at getting those in support of the measure to the polls.
State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said all that spending by proponents could not help but affect the outcome.
"I think if there had been an even match of money it would have been a no-brainer,' she said.
Sinema said one thing that put foes at a fiscal disadvantage is the ballot fight in California where a similar constitutional amendment is going to voters.
The big difference is that gay marriage is legal there -- or, at least, has been since earlier this year when that state's Supreme Court overturned the statutory ban. National gay rights groups have funneled much of their money into the campaign against Proposition 8 in hopes of preserving a right that exists.
By contrast, gay marriage already is illegal in Arizona by virtue of state law, a law the state Court of Appeals upheld in a ruling the state Supreme Court declined to review.
As of early this morning, the vote in California was still too close to call.
Sinema said what money didn't go to California went to electing Barack Obama.
"I gotta tell you, I don't regret that choice for a moment,' she said.
That California court decision -- along with a more recent one in Connecticut -- might have been a factor in another way in the outcome of the election here.
"It shows Arizonans that statutory law can be changed at any time,' Molique said, meaning that a court could choose to interpret the state constitution to conclude that gays do, in fact, have a right to wed.
Proponents of Proposition 102 used the news reports of both rulings to hammer away at the ability of judges to overrule state law. That, they argued, is exactly why the definition of marriage, while already in statute, needs to be enshrined in the constitution.
Sinema, however, said she doubted that voters were affected by the California or Connecticut rulings.
The fight also took on religious overtones, with Sinema claiming that the whole effort to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman was really a public relations effort of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
She said officials of the Mormon church, as it is more commonly known, have become embarrassed by the publicity surrounding the offshoot Fundamentalist Church of Latter-day Saints which believes in polygamy, and whose leader, Warren Jeffs, faces charges in connection with arranging the marriage of underage girls to older men.
But Rep. Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, who is a member of the mainstream Mormon church, said that argument holds no water because his religion specifically disavowed polygamy in 1890.
Support for the measure has been broader than the LDS church, including several evangelical groups as well as the Arizona Catholic Conference which lobbies on behalf of the state's two Catholic bishops.
One other difference between now and 2006 also helped supporters of Proposition 102.
Two years ago, they had to gather signatures to put the measure on the ballot, hiring paid circulators. This year backers cobbled together enough votes at the Legislature to have the proposal referred directly, saving the time and cost of petition gathering.
|
Posted: Sunday, November 09, 2008
Article comment by:
E. D. Broker
DPG: I do not subscribe to the violent side of "several, some," in the homosexual community. I am not an activist, I do not fight for some so-called "homosexual agenda" any more than you, I assume, advocate the violence of the KKK or white supremacist groups and others who really do burn down churches, lynch and murder. There are many peace loving Christian gays. Don't forget King James I, of Bible fame, was gay. I am an orthodox, Bible-based Christian who sees the denied sins of the REST of the human community, of which heterosexuals are the vast majority, and I feel alone in the hypocrisy I see among them. Jesus Himself railed against such hypocrites, and certainly still does. Imagine the riots among heterosexuals if a proposition passed amending the Constitution banning divorce, passing laws making divorce a misdemeanor, and a felony if children are involved. Of course, with the heterosexual community in this vast majority, that would never happen. But God still hates divorce and "has abandoned us", calling divorce treachery, demanding that parents raise Godly children (Mal. 2:14-16). If you ever watch "Lockup" on tv, you always hear about the violence, abandonment, drugs and abuse in the childhoods of these violent criminals. But pride is the culprit. People—parents— cannot see their own sins. People just can't admit their own faults, protecting their egos in what psychologists call "projection"—condemning and blaming others while repressing one's own unacceptable shortcomings. Pride is the deadliest of sins. If you love such pride, then you are not on God's side!
Suggested readings:
ch. 6 "The Kingdom of the Cults", Dr. Walter Martin;
ch. 9 "Bringing up Boys", Dr. James Dobson
Posted: Friday, November 07, 2008
Article comment by:
DPG
The only stench of hypocrisy I smell is the liberal community's own brand of intolerance and bigotry. For example:
In a reaction to the passage of state constitutional marriage protection amendments in California, Arizona and Florida, several self identified homosexuals on a number of homosexual blogs are advocating violence against Christians and other supporters of traditional marriage. Additionally, some homosexuals are calling for church burnings in response to yesterday’s three state referenda in defense of natural marriage.
In a blog entry titled “You’ll Want to Punch them” on Queerty.com, poster “BillyBob Thornton” wrote, “… I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our Equal Rights, But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one.” “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.” “Angelo Ventura,” said, “… hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil!
BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM!” And, “Jonathan,” warned, “I'm going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done.”
Meanwhile, over at JoeMyGod.blogspot.com, “World O Jeff,” said, “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” While, “Tread,” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.” “Joe,” stated, “I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
And on the Americablog.com Web site, “scottinsf” posted, “Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics ... I warn them to watch their backs.”
It is amazing that the homosexual community is always calling for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and playing the role of victim. They claim to deplore violence and ‘hate.’ Here we have homosexuals inciting, and directly threatening, violence against Christians. Imagine if Christian Web sites were advocating such violence against homosexuals.
Posted: Thursday, November 06, 2008
Article comment by:
Savataba
So how can prop 102 be constitutional in Arizona? According to our constitution:
No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations. (Article 2, Section 13)
Do we have to wait for someone to legally challenge this Prop?
Also another view on this prop:
Marriage is now between one man and one woman. When someone remarries does it become invalid under this prop? Example: Man marries woman. They divorce. Woman marries different man. For the woman would that be a marriage of her and two men?
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Article comment by:
Hypocrisy at its best
It is amazing that this country can elect its first black president leading many people to believe that we are open minded and ready for change, yet the prospect of same sex married couples scares the you know what out of people. As a society were not so open minded.
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Article comment by:
Prop. 102 Opponent
Thanks, Mr. Broker. Your comments are always articulate. Of course, Prop. 102 is hypocritical.
Posted: Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Article comment by:
E. D. Broker
Yay!, 102 Passes. Now what?
This measure carries "...no immediate practical impact since same-sex marriage already is banned under a 1996 Arizona law" (A.P.) So now what? The civil rights movement had its losses too. But we just got back up and continued the march. The day ain't over yet. Meanwhile, straight married couples must earn respect. Stay married! You fight for exclusivity yet flippantly discard your "sacred" marriage rights with each divorce. God is not impressed (Mal. 2:14-16) ! It's also interesting to notice that the 2006 version also included unmarried heterosexual couples. "...Besides banning [same sex] unions, the 2006 measure would have barred government entities — such as the state, cities, counties, universities and school districts — from recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships. That meant it would even have applied to men and women living together but not married. ...the proposal before voters this year was stripped down to 20 words: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” (Nov. 4, 2008 Associated Press) No small wonder it was voted down in '06. Do you also smell a strong stench of hypocrisy?
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
