Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

AZ Ballot Will Describe Prop 102 With Legally Accurate Language

Jim Burroway

August 27th, 2008

A headline like that should be a given, but — this being Arizona — one cannot always take such things for granted.

Thanks to a deal between Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard, the November ballot describing Prop 102, Arizona’s latest anti-marriage amendment, will remind voters that Arizona law already bans same-sex marriage. This clarification is especially important this year with all the attention being given to California, where same-sex marriage is currently available. Not only is there intense national attention on California, but a large portion of Arizonans live in California media markets.

Similar language was placed on the ballot for a previous anti-marriage amendment in 2006. That amendment was defeated by nearly 3.6%, making Arizona the only state in the union to have turned back an attempt to further ban same-sex marriage in the constitution.

Prop 102 supporters have filed suit against Brewer and Goddard, demanding that any reference to state law be stripped from the ballot descriptions. The lawsuit, however, may be too late. The final go-ahead was given Tuesday night to start printing the publicity pamphlets, which will be sent to the home of every registered voter. The pamphlets, like the ballots themselves, will have the agreed-upon description.

Arizona has had a law banning same-sex marriage since 1996. That law also bans recognizing same-sex marriages conducted in other states. On October 8, 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the Arizona Defense of Marriage law against a challenge brought by two men who were denied a marriage license by a court clerk. The Arizona Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal on May 25, 2004.

Supporters of Prop 102 have out-fundraised opponents by more than 150:1. Please support our campaign to defeat Prop 102 again.

Arizona - Vote No On Proposition 102 - Again!



September 22nd, 2008 | LINK

Detractors of Prop 102 argue that there are existant laws on the books in Arizona and that a constitutional amendment is not necessary.

They are incorrect in that assertion. The events that have occurred in California have illustrated vividly how needed the constitutional amendment. The California Supreme Court narrowly decided (4-3) that it is unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex marriages and struck down all such laws in the state.

This is an egregious example of “legislating from the bench”. Morever, it flies in the face of voter approved prohibition.

By amending the Arizona constitution, Arizona judges will not be afforded the same opportunity to legislate from the bench.

Please join me in voting Yes on Prop 102.

Jason D
September 22nd, 2008 | LINK

“This is an egregious example of “legislating from the bench”. Morever, it flies in the face of voter approved prohibition.”

No such animal. If you can clearly, accurately describe their job, and note how they violated their job, you might have a case. Otherwise you’re spinning the buzz-phrase “legislating from the bench” which has no teeth.

“By amending the Arizona constitution, Arizona judges will not be afforded the same opportunity to legislate from the bench.

Please join me in voting Yes on Prop 102.”

Sorry, I don’t believe that civil rights should be up for a vote. If you disagree, why don’t we start with yours? I’m sure, being human, there’s something you do that other people don’t agree with. Let’s vote that away.

Timothy Kincaid
September 23rd, 2008 | LINK

MGM is either startlingly unaware of the facts or is not interested in the truth.

In California the legislature voted twice to remove the boundaries to marriage for same-sex couples. In both instances the Governor responded by vetoing the legislation accompanied by a statement that he was waiting for the court decision. With the State Senate and the Assembly both favoring marriage equality and the Governor looking to the courts, it cannot be said that this court “legislated from the bench”.

Jim Burroway
September 23rd, 2008 | LINK

MGM is also startlingly unaware of Arizona law or not interested in the truth.

In 2003, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the Arizona statute defining marriage as being between a man and a woman was constitional. In 2004, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. Unlike in California, this is now established law in Arizona.

Arizona law and Arizona’s constitution is fundamentally different from California’s. And by the way — our judges are elected

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.