Arizona Proposition 107

[TuckandStuiesMom]

There is a particularly mean-spirited proposition that appears likely to make it onto the Arizona November ballot. It had been facing a legal challenge on state constitutional grounds but the inital court decision was not to block. Are these vile things popping up all over the country or are we in Arizona, just "special"? I, for one, am going to do all I can to stop it.

PROP 107: PROTECT MARRIAGE ARIZONA

Initiative Objective: "This proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution preserves “marriage” as only consisting of the union of one man and one woman, and prohibits creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that of marriage."
Sponsor: Protect Marriage Arizona
The Money: This measure is supported by a group of right wing idelogues, think tanks, and purported 'Christian' groups and churches. Major donors include the Center for Arizona Policy ($70K), United Families International ($50K), and Christian Family Care Agency ($20K).
Status: Pending Verification of Signatures
Website: http://www.protectmarriageaz.com
Full Text: Initiative text at sponsor's website
Editorial: A misguided attack on civil unions and non-marital partner benefits under the guise of an anti-homosexual bit of hate-mongering. Beyond insipid, and probably contrary to the federal constitution (for now).
from http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/07/arizona_ballot_.html
--------
from http://www.outlookaz.com/
Wingspan will host a public forum to discuss how amendments like Proposition 107 result in increased violence against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, Tuesday, Aug. 15, 6:30 to 8:30 pm, at Wingspan, 425 E 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ. Other consequences of the proposed amendment, including how it will affect heterosexual couples, also will be discussed.

 

[Viki]

At least they're exposing their true agenda, not the "preservation" of marriage, but the complete disallowment of any legal rights (and responsbilities) extended to same-sex couples. That's what makes it dehumanizing.

 

[ChrizJen]

No, sadly this is not just in Arizona.
It's the entire nation. Just about every state has either passed similar legislation, or is in the process of doing so.

It began back in 1996 as part of a federal initiative to "preserve the sanctitiy of marriage". It essentially gives states the right to ammend their constitutions to deny same-sex couples the same rights and priveledges of marriage that heterosexuals enjoy. And our federal government is now quietly working on ammending the United States Constitution in the same way. Here's a little info about it:


The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, is a federal law of the United States passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The law provides:

First, it allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to deny Constitutional marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state.
Second, for purposes of federal law, it defines marriage as "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Congressional proponents assert authority to enact the law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution with the purpose to normalize heterosexual marriage on a federal level and permit each state to decide for itself whether to recognize "same-sex unions" if other states did recognize same-sex unions. Forty states have enacted laws denying the recognition of same-sex marriages, which is more than the needed number of states required to amend the United States Constitution. Six states currently have established laws recognizing some form of same-sex unions, and twelve states ban any recognition of same-sex unions including civil unions.

There's more to it than that. But just in a nutshell, that's the sad situation we face. If it makes you angry , PLEASE do speak out and maybe we can educate enough people to make a difference!
Thanks for posting this!
-Christal

 

[MrVisible]

I'm here in Arizona, and this is affecting my partner and I already.

He's in the process of deciding between three job offers. The most tempting one is at the local university, and it's mostly tempting because, if he gets hired, my tuition as his domestic partner will be significantly reduced.

Unless this bill passes.

He has to decide within a week.

I can't even express how angry it makes me.

 

[Rence]

We have a very similar ballot measure in Wisconsin this November. However there are a lot of folks who think that there is a good chance that it will be defeated. Polls right now show the measure at 50/50.

Voting FOR a constitutional amendment like that has more to do with feelings than logic. There are no logical arguements that support it, it comes down to "I don't like gay marriage" type feelings. So it is felt that few folks who are saying No now would flop to Yes. However there are a lot of logical arguements against it so there is a feeling that folks may flop from yes to no.

The wording is really bad and there are groups argueing that it could invalidate private agreements, not just between same sex couples but between any couple. A number of Senior Citizens live together rather than get married because of Social Security benefits. They may have living wills etc. and the wording is such that it is not clear whether or not those would still be valid. The state AG has to supply an explanation of the proposed amendment to be included at the polling places and her description says that it is vague and will need to be decided by the courts if passed. This has a lot of folks scared and rightly so.

A local conservative talk show host wrote a column in the local paper. He doesn't come out one way or the other on the amendment but he does agree that it is poorly worded. He said an amendment that just said Marriage is between a man and a woman would have been a slam dunk but that the Republicans probably screwed themselves with language about no rights similar to marriage.

The column went on to point out that the timing of the amendment was designed to energize the conservative base to get out and vote in the hopes of defeating our Democratic govenor. However, polls show that it is backfiring. The Conservatives in Wisconsin really don't care that much and the liberals are hot as hell about this. Right now it looks like it will generate a lot more votes from the left, than the right which could mean that it will ensure the Govenor's re-election. Opponents to the amendment have raised over a million dollars, proponents have raised $10,000.

I have my fingers crossed.

 

[Psychometrika]

Both my former state of Florida and my current hate state of Ohio have passed similar laws. It is disgusting. It places back into our constitutions what the end of slavery removed. The christian right continues to win in this country above equality, reason and justice - but someday, perhaps in my lifetime, we might overcome.

It is a shame that america must look to Canada, Britain and even catholic Spain for examples of what freedom looks like. McCarthy was defeated. We will defeat Bush too, if he doesn't defeat himself.

Isn't it amazing how foolish this country has become. Hundreds of thousands of innocents around the world dying for oil, guns, food, HIV/AIDS, etc. and the only thing the christian right of Arizona can do is put hate legislation on the ballot.

 

[ChrizJen]

Rence,
I'm so glad that they are addressing that issue! Vague wording and confusing language are EXACTLY the reasons that this has actually passed in many states! Here in Missouri, there have been polls that show that if the wording had been more clear, many would have voted NO!! Can you imagine?? Such an important aspect of so many peoples' lives, and it all came down to some tricky verbage!!
Hopefully more states will catch this now before it makes the ballot.
-Christal