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

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”.

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.

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.