1. Local

Discuss in my forum

Judy Hedding

Arizona Proposition 102 - Marriage

By August 26, 2008

Follow me on:

In November 2008 voters in Arizona will address Proposition 102, sponsored by the Arizona Legislature. That measure would amend the Arizona constitution by adding the following wording to the existing section on marriage:

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.

Click on "Read more" to see a synopsis of the pros and cons and find more information about this ballot measure.

Will you vote in favor of Proposition 102?

1) Yes, I think it should be part of Arizona's Constitution.
2) No, marriage is already defined in Arizona as one man, one woman and the voters already rejected this once.

View Poll Results

Arizona law currently prohibits same-sex marriage, and Arizona courts have upheld that ban. Arizona is the only state whose voters rejected a same-sex marriage ban.

Advocates of Proposition 102 say that the Constitution must be amended in order to prevent future court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage.

Opponents of Proposition 102 say that it is a waste of taxpayer money, and that the purpose is to fuel anti-GLBT sentiment.

UPDATE: Proposition 102 passed with 56% of the voters voting yes.

You Might Also Be Interested In....

Comments

September 2, 2008 at 8:34 pm
(1) John says:

Are you kidding? The only choices in your survey are
“1) Yes, I think it should be part of Arizona’s Constitution.
2) No, marriage is already defined in Arizona as one man, one woman and the voters already rejected this once.”
How about
3) I don’t believe that the state of Arizona should use the law to discriminate against anyone that does not conform to their views of “normal”.

I wouldn’t read too much into the results of a survey that only asks how you support their point of view!

September 3, 2008 at 12:37 am
(2) Judy Hedding says:

Hi John,

I’m not understanding your point. When you go to the polls and vote, you’ll get a choice of yes or no. That’s it. A yes vote means you are voting for the proposition. A no vote means you are not.

September 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm
(3) Kiel says:

This amendment is essential. This is not an issue of “tolerance” or “normal.” Those in favor of this amendment need not sanction discrimination or sub-human treatment of homosexuals in any way.

However, respecting the rights of homosexuals does not require altering the definition of the world’s most important social union-marriage.

Unfortunately, some groups attempt to force their views of “tolerance” on others by labeling those who attempt to legitimately speak their mind by branding them as “close-minded” or “homophobic.” Such labels are not accurate. This amendment must pass.

September 8, 2008 at 10:56 am
(4) AZtraveler says:

Yes, I think it should be part of Arizona’s Constitution.

I completely agree with you Kiel and hope this passes in Arizona.

Make sure to vote so your voice is heard.

September 8, 2008 at 8:23 pm
(5) John says:

I will strongly vote YES!

Don’t let what happened in California happen here. A few Judges on power trips felt to legislate from the bench and overturn the overwelming will of the people. Not in our state!

September 9, 2008 at 9:25 pm
(6) ~Support Love~ says:

I strongly vote no, and I think that marriage should be between two people who actually love each other!

Why do straight couples who usually end up with divorce have more right to marry, than a same sex couple who loves each other and may stay together till death??!

September 10, 2008 at 1:13 am
(7) Steve says:

Prop 102 is 20 simple and clear words that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Join me in keeping traditional values alive and well in Arizona by voting yes on Proposition 102 this November.

September 10, 2008 at 1:32 am
(8) Don says:

When did Proposition 102 get named the, “Marriage Protection Ammendment?” Judy – showing a LOT of bias here with the title of the pos alone!

If we really need to “protect” marriage, then why aren’t we making it (1) harder to get married, and (2) harder to get divorced?

September 10, 2008 at 11:25 am
(9) Judy Hedding says:

Hi Don,

All my Ballot Measure titles come directly from the listing at the Arizona Secretary of State. I do not change any of them; that is what the item was named when I wrote this. I see they have now changed it to “Marriage” so I will change this title as well.

If you do a search online, you’ll see that there are many references to the Marriage Protection Amendment, since that was the submitted name. Thanks for pointing out the update. I will change the blog.

September 11, 2008 at 9:35 am
(10) Scott says:

Hi Steve,

“… join me in keeping traditional values alive …”

I must assume that traditional values means that over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. I keep hearing “traditional values” or “family values”, if these values were so important, then why can’t the heterosexuals honor their vows, or are they just convenient words that have little meaning? Sounds like to me that marriage is a “family value”, until the going gets tough, then all bets are off; now, that is not what I would consider to be traditional or family values, especially divorces with children involved.

September 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm
(11) Ryan says:

Vote yes on 102! This must pass in order to keep groups from undermining our state constitution by using judges who legislate from the bench.

September 12, 2008 at 8:38 pm
(12) Jason Hosler says:

I can’t believe all the shortsighted comments here.

You want to ascribe in the constitution of our state the denial of civil rights to a group of people who have no control over who they are? If we follow the line of reasoning, we might as well keep interracial marriages from happening too.

The science shows that sexual orientation is not an arbitrary choice, rather a combination of many factors including genetics and hormones present in the womb. Would you want to be denied rights simply because you were born different?

Just because you value a social institution, does not mean the tyranny of the majority should be used to discriminate against those you disagree with or dont understand.

September 13, 2008 at 1:14 am
(13) Steve says:

Hey Scott,

I agree with you that divorce is way too common and accepted in America, but it didn’t used to be this way. Back in the late 1970s when I was 10 years old, my parents got divorced. Even back then it was much more taboo than it is today. In my opinion, it is because of the social downfall of our country that I think started in the 1960s. Sure I was not alive when that began, but I think part of this started with the sexual “revolution.” I also resent and blame lawyers who advertise on Television their divorce and bankruptcy specialties for increased divorce rates.

I could go on to explain and support my views on this, but that would get WAY off topic.

Steve

September 15, 2008 at 11:47 pm
(14) Stephen says:

Judy, I believe that John #1′s point is that your poll can be paraphrased in the following way:

“Yes, I support a Constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage or any other form of marriage that is not between one man and one woman.

No, I am against any form of marriage that is not between one man and one woman, but our state laws have covered the subject well enough.”

John is stating that your “no” should be more ambiguous (“No, I am against changing the language of the Arizona State Constitution to include this amendment for any reason.”) or that you should include an option for those who oppose the amendment because of matters of conscience or conviction.

An analogous argument would be to say that someone who is against banning handguns in the state Constitution is against that ban solely because of a belief that current laws are strong enough without acknowledging the viewpoint that there should be no handgun regulation.

John #1 and I both wish that there were options provided in polls such as this one that would not force responders to claim an opinion that is not their own.

September 16, 2008 at 12:07 am
(15) Judy Hedding says:

Hi Stephen. Thanks for your feedback.

Your wording, of course, assumes that everyone, whether voting yes or no, is opposed to any form of marriage that isn’t between a man and a woman. That isn’t the case, and it isn’t the point.

I word these polls to try to make it clear to people what it means when they are voting yes or voting no. Some ballot propositions can be very confusing, stating terms in the negative or being otherwise unclear. On every poll I establish on every proposition (some haven’t been released yet this year) is to try, as simply as I can, to state objectively what a yes vote means and what a no vote means, based on the wording of the proposition and my understanding of the most basic pros and cons written on the issue. All my ballot proposition polls consist of one yes and one no vote, again, because that’s how people will vote on election day. With respect to why someone would vote yes or no, that’s exactly what these comments are for, if people care to share.

Having gone through this process before a couple of years ago, I understand that there is no wording of this poll that will make everyone happy. I totally understand if the choices make anyone uncomfortable such that they decide not to vote.

September 16, 2008 at 3:40 am
(16) Thomas says:

Kiel Says:

“However, respecting the rights of homosexuals does not require altering the definition of the world’s most important social union-marriage.”

No, respecting the rights of homosexuals requires not altering a constitution that is provided to protect and give rights to ALL people. Regardless of race, religion, or sexual gender.

This proposition does not protect marriage. The only thing it does is discriminate against a specific minority. It spreads hate, bigotry, and undercuts everything for which our country is built upon.

Allowing homosexuals to marry should not be a religious matter. It does not affect heterosexuals. It only affects those who believe homosexuality is a sin and is wrong. Those who believe that homosexuals should be persecuted and treated unfairly. If you support this amendment, then you believe that, which shows you ARE intolerant and close-minded!

Keep God out of government, do not pass amendments which take away rights to a group of people who have done nothing to deserve this treatment. Heterosexuals have ruined and perverted the “sanctity” of marriage. Homosexual couples simply wish for the same rights that are given to heterosexual couples.

Keep marriage simple by letting ALL Americans marry. Let ALL Americans have the same benefits, the same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, the SAME RIGHTS that YOU take for granted.

Tell your church to keep their hatred of homosexuals within their four walls!

September 16, 2008 at 2:51 pm
(17) Robert Rowley (Tucson, Arizona) says:

Something you all need to keep in mind is that this amendment is being pushed by OUTSIDE groups, not ones from or in Arizona. Simply go to the bottom of the yesformarriage.com page.
After doing a whois look up I found that it is a private (secret) registration for the page meaning they don’t want you to know who they are. BUT, at the bottom of the page it gives the big contributers, Pete King (a business tycoon from North Las Vegas), Focus on the Family (Neonazis from way out of Arizona) and an LLC who are a consultancy from New Jersey.

Why are we letting out of state trash dictate what our laws are? They don’t have the right to vote here and shouldn’t be allowed to be involved in our states constitutional law either.

Not only will I be voting AGAINST 102 but I’ll start putting up signs against it as soon as I can get some.

September 16, 2008 at 9:35 pm
(18) Kevin M. says:

All you folks who are going to vote yes on this proposition will be voting to further restrict the rights of one of the last officially discriminated populations in the United States. Do no kid yourselves, you are not voting to “preserve” anything. As others have stated, heterosexuals already DESTROYED the sanctity of marriage at their own convenience with divorce A LONG TIME AGO!

Give me a break! Even if this amendment is passed, hopefully during the next presidency there will be a federal over-ruling of these hateful, discriminatory laws!

September 17, 2008 at 8:59 am
(19) Ralph M. says:

It’s confusing to me why this is even a point of conversation. For a marriage of two of the opposite gender a ‘union’ is obvious and logical. It appears that our society could use a human physiology class before considering yes on this proposition.

September 18, 2008 at 12:51 am
(20) Vince says:

I’m a gay man in a committed relationship, with a 2 year old daughter born to us through gestational surrogacy. Both of our names are on her birth certificate (thank you California!). I find it shameful that fellow Arizonans pass judgment on our family by believing we don’t deserve the same rights as those with heterosexual parents. It is my hope that our daughter will grow up to see a less ignorant Arizona.

September 18, 2008 at 9:39 pm
(21) fish eye no miko says:

Kiel: “This amendment is essential.”

Essential to what, exactly?

Kiel: “This amendment must pass.”

Or what?
Please explain how not passing an amendment to define marriage as “one man an one woman”, in a state that doesn’t allow gay marriage anyway, will have a negative effect on the state?

September 19, 2008 at 1:35 am
(22) Mark says:

It’s been said about politicians that “the longer they talk the further they get from
the truth.” That saying rings true not only for politicians, but for propositions as
well. Unlike other political issues of the day, Prop 102 is simple, clear, and easy to understand.

Prop 102 does one thing and one thing only – it defines marriage in Arizona
as the union of one man and one woman.

I will be voting yes on this important issue this November.

September 19, 2008 at 6:06 am
(23) senyata says:

under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it says simply :
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

there is nothing that states it must be man and woman to be together, so why are you going against it!

September 20, 2008 at 8:31 am
(24) Bryan H says:

Vince says:
I’m a gay man in a committed relationship, with a 2 year old daughter born to us through gestational surrogacy. Both of our names are on her birth certificate (thank you California!). I find it shameful that fellow Arizonans pass judgment on our family by believing we don’t deserve the same rights as those with heterosexual parents. It is my hope that our daughter will grow up to see a less ignorant Arizona.

First I want to say congrates to Vince here!

This proposition was voted down once before in 2006. Here we are 2 years later and there are pushing for it again. This time it was voted NO by the legislate 2 times before pressure was put on them to pass it.

The same thing just happen in Michigan where it was voted in and now demestic partner ship has been taken away do to multiple law suites. Now to a lot of people that are voting YES on this might not think that this is not a bad thing but here is something most of you dont think about. The Arizona Government just put into affect Demestic Partnership for state employees. This is for PEOPLE how have been together for 3 years and are unmarried. It allows the state employee to have benefits and insurance for the non-state employee that they are with. The majority who are getting the advantage of this are STRAIGHT people who are engaged to someone who are waiting to get married for whatever reason (lack of money “ME!!” time, etc). If this proposition passes it is only a matter of time before they use its EXACT wording to change other things which hurt those that are not homosexuals.

I think its bad that two people can get married in Las Vegas with out knowing each other and have the same rights as married couples to turn around an through it all way a few days later cause they where to stupid to keep it from happening, but its not ok for two people of the same sex who truely love each other to share (as my dad says) the same misery (and happiness HAHA) as any other married couple.

My Fiance and I both have friends that are homosexuals, even though my Fiance and I are straight and their sexual prefference does not coincide with our beliefs, there are still our friends. They have been together for longer then most married couples and have 2 kids. The are better parents then most heterosexual familys and there is no reason why they shouldnt be allowed to share the same benefits as any other married couple.

What if your brother or sister were gay…..would you not want them to be happy….?

In this day and age that we are living in where discrimination is supposed to be looked down on, things like sexual preference shouldnt matter. If you look at our history we have always discriminated against those that we feared. Look out how long it took for woman to get the power to vote, for desegregation, and even though all of this has come to pass, we still have poeple who believe woman are inferior to men, where areas of the country still are somewhat segregated because people believe what they are taught by hateful people that still believe on old small mind ways of generations past.

Sex, Race, Religion, and Sexual Preference SHOULD NOT determine the worth or rights of someone. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS!!!! AND THERE FOR ALL MEN AND WOMEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND ARE ENTITLED TO INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE! LIBERTY! AND HAPPENIESS!

Please truely think about your decision and what could come of it and vote for a better future for all. Vote NO on Proposition 102.

September 20, 2008 at 6:35 pm
(25) Anom says:

People say those who speak out against homosexuality are intolerant. They say, “You should be tolerant”

But aren’t they just being intolerant of those who speak out against it?

Respect the individual, but you don’t have to respect what they do. Vote yes on Prop. 102.

September 20, 2008 at 8:37 pm
(26) Catherine says:

Why should we be tolerant of bigots, Anom?
And how can you honestly say you respect someone if you don’t respect what they do?

September 21, 2008 at 2:45 pm
(27) P Crowley says:

EIther the gay lifestyle is a valid choice or it is not. Regardless of “sexual orientation”, whom one associates with and how promiscious one is is still a choice. If the gay lifestyle is a valid choice, then people need to be encouraged to experience this valid choice – including education in schools about this valid choice.

For most of human history, this has not been viewed as a valid lifestyle and one that people have been strongly encouraged not to choose, again regardless of their orientation. We are clearly at a crossroads. If the gay lifestyle is a valid choice, we should expect and encourage it to be experienced. If it is not, then the gay lifestyle should not be encouraged. Period.

This has little to do with the argument that gays have no choice and are just “that way”. It has to do with how one lives. Period.

September 21, 2008 at 8:19 pm
(28) jacob says:

the great thing about America is its a democracy that lets the majority decide. its also a country that lets citizens come and go as they please. so when the majority says they are against same sex marriages, for what ever their reasons may be, the minority have the privilege to pack up and move to a society that is more accepting of their life styles.

more importantly, the slippery slope has already began. if same sex marriages are allowed, where does it stop?? there is no moral basis or legal basis for “love” to allow to an individual to marry whatever they want. if same sex marriages are permitted, what is the basis for denying intra family marriages, even intra family same sex marriages? why cant a person marry an animal that shows every trait of love?? Once you start making one exception, you have to open the door for all.

to simplify the legal storm this needs to be kept the same as it has been since day one. YES ON 102

September 21, 2008 at 11:33 pm
(29) JGonza says:

Wow, this is insane. I do not in any way shape or form feel that MY marriage would be threatened or devalued if gay people were allowed to marry. My marriage is just that MINE, Hollywood has done more to devalue and mock marriage than the gays of the world could even begin to. People really need to worry about what is going on inside of the walls of their own homes rather than this nonsense…in 20 years this issue WILL be the same as prohibiting woman’s rights to vote!!! This is NOT about GOD, hence separation of church and state, this is about Human rights, and who are any of US to say who can marry…this is utterly ridiculous.. The funny thing is people hide behind the bible and other religious books to tout the need to define marriage, because they can’t admit that they themselves are simply intolerant. Why is it that the people who preach the most about God and religion are often the furthest from Godly and tolerant? I say this is a waste of my time, I have to feed my family and can’t worry about who is marrying who, gay people are here to stay so you all had better get use to it!

September 22, 2008 at 12:33 am
(30) Kathy says:

I am sorry for your fear. I will pray for you to gain understanding and love. I am sorry you do not want my family and my kids to grow up with the protections you have. It isn’t our fault the government decided to call that legal act marriage. If you all want to call the government contract a civil union and we ALL sign that instead of a marriage license and then people can choose if they want a marriage ceremony in a church that would be equal and fair. But since church and state has already come together on this the issue is not that it will interfere but that we need to remove it.

Never in Arizona history have we written discrimination into the constitution, as a Native I hope we never do. You also seem concerned the courts will change it. The law has already been challenged here and was upheld. It would be very difficult to over turn because of that.

This is all fear based. I am all ears if you have suggestions on how my family can be guaranteed we will have hospital visitation rights, death benefits, and other rights provided in the government policy “marriage.” Those rights aren’t discussed in the bible they are government rights. The term marriage is the problem so help me figure out a way to protect my family and not guarantee that I will be discriminated against in the place I grew up and now raise my two children. Please do not try and make my family less important in this country than yours.

September 22, 2008 at 2:04 am
(31) polly says:

Tolerance needs to go both ways. If I must be tolerant of your lifestyle, then you must be tolerant of mine.

We are seeing that is not the case with homosexuals.

Catholic based adoption agencies have had to choose to close their doors or act against their moral values and beliefs.

A Dr. in California has lost a court case because he wouldn’t help a lesbian couple have a child.

A photographer in New Mexico has lost a court case and been fined a large sum of money because she didn’t want to photograph a “marriage” of a gay couple.

A minister in Canada was charged with a hate crime for preaching against homosexuality in his church.

Children are being taught in the public school system that the values and beliefs of their Christian parents are intolerant and unaccaptable.

We are losing our freedoms because of this new definition of tolerance.

September 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm
(32) vince says:

Jacob,

Here’s the problem with your argument. If civil rights were left to a voting majority, slavery in the South would have lasted past the civil war and possibly through to current times! The civil rights of minorities need to be protected by the government since they do not have a voting majority. Think about it…

September 22, 2008 at 1:02 pm
(33) vince says:

Polly,

Church and religion throughout history have been used to discriminate and condemn others for being different. Organizations today in America continue to preach hatred through religious doctrine (the KKK, as an example).
Or internationally (Al Qaeda, as we all know). You have the freedom in this country to be intolerant, just as the KKK still continues to express through the right of free speech. But it is a problem when intolerance is written into the state constitution and accepted as a social standard.

September 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm
(34) vince says:

Jacob,

And here’s the problem with second part of your argument – “The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.”
(see http://www.nizkor.com) There are many resources on the web that explain why the “slippery slope” is not a valid point for a sound argument.

September 22, 2008 at 1:35 pm
(35) kanezona says:

I don’t understand, tax-paying consenting adult homosexual couples are FORBIDDEN from the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts because…? Perhaps it’s because bigotry and blatant discrimination against gays is alive and well in Arizona. Meanwhile, California is raking in the dough from all the gay couples going over there to get married! In these times of economic crisis, thankyouMr.Bushandchronies, does it make fiscal sense not to legalize gay marriage since A.) it’s the just and FAIR thing to do since gays are tax-paying consenting adults, B.) it would bring in millions of dollars spent on gay weddings, which California Massachusetts, C.) there’s been no reports of heterosexual marriages being destroyed in CA and MA since legalizing them in either state; and D.) isn’t there supposed to be a clearly defined separation of church and state. Something our current president has most DEFINITELY lost sight of?!!

September 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm
(36) jacob says:

actually the slippery slope is a great argument, especially when it comes to “civil rights” and political correctness.

once you go outside the traditional definition of marriage, to be completely politically correct and not infringed on any else’s “rights”, no matter how sick and twisted you may think it may be, you have to allow it.

case in point. there is a Germany couple that has an on going case fighting their government because they want the right to be married and have children.. they feel it is there right because they “love” each other. the only problem is that they are biological brother and sister. Yes there is a chance for genetic anomalies if they choose to have offspring, but isn’t that also there choice if they feel they could adequately care for those children?? as a general population most find this an abomination, but on what grounds??? they love each other dont they??

that is just once case of the slippery slope. now multiply that times how ever many people want to have there situation legal.

that is just a fraction of things that would have to change. lets not forget the impact that it would have on the economy… benefit costs would sky rocket, paper marriages would go through the roof. it has disaster written all over it.

September 22, 2008 at 1:51 pm
(37) kanezona says:

Re: Polly’s comment #33, it’s good to hear that states are finally doing the right thing which includes setting an example of intolerance toward bigotry and hatred toward gays and lesbians by holding those who are blatantly discriminating against homosexuals accountable. It’s about the separation of church and state. If you and your church want to hate on gays and lesbians who have done nothing personally to you, then you can do so in the privacy of your own hate-filled place of worship. But leave that kind of ignorance out of politics. Perhaps you might want to get to know some gays and lesbians, maybe even a gay couple or family and learn about them. You’d realize that your wants, needs, and desires are similar to theirs, they just happen to go about it in a slightly different way. And that’s okay. They are not bringing harm to anyone. You, on the other hand, ARE encouraging violence and continued discrimination to people who deep down in your hate-filled heart, you realize deserve the same rights and priveleges that you do.

September 22, 2008 at 3:38 pm
(38) vince says:

Actually Jacob, you demonstrated why a slippery slope argument is flawed.

Laws do not by default lead to other less favorable legislation.

Here’s a good example of a flawed slippery slope argument: Would a legitimate statement be made against raising the interstate speed limit to 75 mph because it could be possibly raised to 120 mph in the future and then be VERY dangerous?

There are already millions of gay households across the US, Canada and Europe raising children. Those families already exist. Yes to Prop 102 will not change that fact. But it is an effort to hurt those families and children.

Massachusetts and California have greatly benefitted from gay marriage revenue. Other countries have gay marriage and there just hasn’t been the disaster you’ve predicted…

September 22, 2008 at 4:48 pm
(39) Bill says:

Is marriage really threatened so badly that we need a constitutional amendment to “protect” it? Don’t let the proponents fool you – this amendment’s function is to open the door to further discrimination against same-sex couples in this state. They fought tooth and nail to get it on the ballot again because it was so narrowly defeated in 2006 (only 51.8% of voters said “No”). And that only happened because its opponents’ TV ads raised the specter of unmarried hetero couples being discriminated against!

The other popular argument for this initiative is that liberal judges won’t be able to overturn our law against same-sex marriage if there is a constitutional amendment in place. Maybe so, but it’s only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court rules that denying marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional. When this happens, gay marriage will be legal in Arizona – despite what our constitution or laws might say.

Putting something into a constitution doesn’t make it right. When the U.S. Constitution was first written, it stated that the slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes. And we all know how well Prohibition worked – yet another example of a religious subsection of the population clamoring to have their morals imposed upon everybody else.

If your personal definition of marriage is one man and one woman, that’s ok. If your church’s definition of marriage is one man and one woman, that’s fine too. But campaigning for legalized discrimination is where I draw the line. I hope others will join me in saying “NO!” once again on November 4th.

September 22, 2008 at 6:03 pm
(40) Polly says:

I have not expressed hatred toward anyone. You just assume that I am filled with hate because I believe tolerance should work both ways. To assume I am hate filled because I am afraid of losing my freedom is bigoted.

You can’t cry foul and lament how intolerant I am of someone else’s lifestyle choice and then in the same paragraph blast my choices. That is blatantly intolerant.

I do personally know homosexual couples who live the lifestyle, and I know people with same sex attraction who believe it is not a good lifestyle. I have people in my extended family that have faced the personal dilemma of trying to reconcile their feelings with their religious beliefs. These individuals have gone both ways, and I still love and respect them. I’m not cloistered and out of touch. And, I am not dictating their lifestyle choices. They are consenting adults and it is up to them. I can accept their choices and love them as individuals without embracing their choices as right.

I would like to have the same respect shown toward myself and my beliefs. I’m not asking you to accept my beliefs as your own, I’m asking for the same respect you are asking for.

And, the courts have shown which way they will swing. If same sex marriage is legalized it won’t be long before religious organizations are forced to close their doors or compromise their values. Business owners who believe differently than the same sex couples will be litigated out of business. Parents who try to teach their children moral values that don’t exactly coincide with gay/lesbian ideology will be in jeopardy of losing their children. Private schools will lose funding if they don’t teach the new brand of tolerance, ie. my way is the only way and your way is hate mongering.

It seems to me that there has to be a way that we can enjoy our God given freedoms of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, with out walking on the freedoms of others.

September 22, 2008 at 7:54 pm
(41) squack too says:

Why is it so important for gay’s to get married? No one is denying the nature of their personal relationship, but why use marriage as a way of forcing others to accept who they are?

To me, marriage was created to bind the union between a man and woman in support of the formation of a stable family. The couple has the potential to create a family, if they so decide.

Biologically, a homosexual couple does not have this option. It seems as if marriage is more symbolic to them, rather then a point of great significance. No one can deny the essential role marriage has for hetrosexuals, historically, socially and culturally.

September 22, 2008 at 8:09 pm
(42) Paul says:

#18 Thomas said:
“Keep God out of government, do not pass amendments which take away rights to a group of people who have done nothing to deserve this treatment. Heterosexuals have ruined and perverted the “sanctity” of marriage. Homosexual couples simply wish for the same rights that are given to heterosexual couples.”

This country was founded on our beleif in God and our right of religous freedom.
Marrige is a bibical union before God of 1 man & 1 woman.
This country is headed to hell in a hand basket due to this new “we need to be tolerant”
Now dont get me wrong I dont hate anyone, I just hate the sin…

September 22, 2008 at 8:25 pm
(43) vince says:

Polly,

I certainly respect your right to believe as you choose.

But there is a problem when one denies the rights of another, as that other’s appearance and/or lifestyle does not conform to their religious beliefs.

For example, there are religious groups out there that still preach and believe that a woman’s place is in the home, taking care of children.

Would it be right for an employer with these beliefs to discriminate against you because of your gender?

If you brought your ailing child to an emergency room while you were wearing your business suit, and the doctor refused to treat him because a woman should be caring for her child, not be pursuing a career, is he in the right?

Would these two individuals be wrong to assume you’ve pursued a career “lifestyle” that makes you unfit to raise a family?

Would it be wrong for them to state your selfish career “lifestyle” runs contrary to an obligation to care for your husband, therefore you shouldn’t have the right to be married?

September 22, 2008 at 10:09 pm
(44) Bill says:

Polly,

I agree with you: I must also be tolerant of your lifestyle and your morals, and on a personal level, I am. I just don’t see how your “freedom” is being taken away by gays and lesbians receiving equal protection under the law.

You are advocating that the government deny rights to a group of people whose morals and lifestyle you don’t agree with. We are not trying to force our beliefs on you. All we want are the same protections and freedoms that heterosexuals now enjoy. Equal rights are not special rights! How is discrimination based on the teachings of a book written 2,000 years ago any different than discrimination based on a person’s skin tone?

You bandy the word “lifestyle” about quite a bit. I have to wonder how stereotypical your image of our “lifestyle” is. Is it what you see on your TV during coverage of a Gay Pride parade? Do you believe all homosexuals are hedonistic, amoral and promiscuous, and therefore incapable of making a serious commitment like marriage?

If you are ever refused service anywhere because you are a Christian, or a ballot initiative is ever introduced that seeks to take away Christians’ rights, give me a call. I’ll gladly stand beside you and support you in your fight, because only then is your freedom truly in jeopardy.

Right on, vince… :)

September 22, 2008 at 10:38 pm
(45) jacob says:

so Vince, what legal basis is there to allow gay couples and not any other coupling that may want to take place?? isnt that descrimination to now only allow gay couples and straight for marriages??? thats where the slipery slope begins.. no legal basis and no moral basis.

what about that germany couple that i brought up earlier??? under a context of love and acceptance, shouldnt they be allowed to marry even if they are brother and sister??

why is this so important that gays be allowed to marry anyways?? is the “I DO” going to keep you together forever?? i think it has to do with money personally.. tax writeoffs, benefits etc… you can get a power of attorney for everything else

September 22, 2008 at 11:46 pm
(46) winky_boi says:

Those who are opposing prop 102 are probably the most ignorant people. Why should our government be able to decide what makes a family? Next thing you know you’re going to be voting on segregation? I know alot of gay couples who have a great and loving family the only thing they don’t have are the same legal rights as straight couples. But I also see day in & day out on TV about those straight couples who create broken families, creating strain on their children and their families. What happen to the separation between church and state? Those who vote NO on Prop 102 are ignorant, closed minded, uneducated (and I’m not talking about having an MBA, it’s common sense) individuals. Get with it people, love doesn’t matter what sex you are love comes from the heart.

September 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm
(47) David says:

If the REAL purpose of this law is to protect marriage, why not change it so that it makes divorce a crime? Wouldn’t that “protect” marriage by making sure married couples stay together forever?

No one would vote for such a law because it makes no sense and it’s simply not realistic. Of course, Prop. 102 has NOTHING to do with protecting marriage — this is a pro-religion, anti-gay law, and it brings absolute shame on anyone hateful or ignorant enough to support it.

The good news is that if you’re truly religious, then you have no choice but to reject this. Matthew 7:1-2 is very clear that voters have no right to pass judgment on the rights of others:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

Rather than discussing this any further, let’s all just speak with our ballots and send this embarassing proposition where it deserves — straight into the trash.

P.S. I am a straight, married 36-year-old man. I cannot imagine why this law would “protect” me or my wife in any way.

September 23, 2008 at 8:56 pm
(48) vince says:

Thanks Bill.

Jacob,

The reason why gay marriage is important is because gay couples are having children.

We have the most amazing two year old daughter. My partner and I brought her into this world through gestational surrogacy in CA, which means both of our names are on the birth certificate.

Our family deserves the same rights as any heterosexual family in this country. My daughter should feel her parents have the same rights as her friends’ parents.

The adverisement the Yes on Prop 102 people now have on TV is an exercise in pure ignorance. My family pretty much looks the same as the ones featured, but the parents are the same gender.

The advert spreads ignorance because the message is that limiting marriage between and man and woman is necessary to protect family and children. But voting yes discriminates against my family and child.

But no matter how this vote goes, my daughter will continue to have a nuturing childhood, go to great schools, and she’ll know her dad worked to fight the ignorance.

So now on to your Germany point.

Regardless of any religious organization’s dubious claim otherwise, sexuality is hardwired. If you disagree, let me ask you this – would someone or some organization be capable of changing your sexuality?

Unlike homosexuality, incest is a choice. You could choose another woman besides your sister to be your wife, right?

You may try to counter my argument by stating I could have married a woman too. But let’s flip the table and let me ask you this – as a heterosexual man, how unfulfilled and unhappy would you be if the state told you you had to be paired with a man to be married and have a family? And your religion told you it was expected that you’d be faithful to that man?

So, the distinction is obvious. Opposing the legal approval of gay marriage because it could lead to legislation allowing incestual family relationships is not a sound argument.

September 24, 2008 at 9:44 am
(49) Bob U says:

I’m a man, married to the same woman for more than 45 years, with three children. How is proposition 102 going to protect my marriage? Obviously, the proposition has nothing at all to do with protecting marriages between heterosexual couples.

If passed, it will not change the status quo at all. A candid and realistic assessment of the proposition’s impact is that in the future, it might have some temporary effect—the legislature might desire to eliminate the ban (which will undoubtedly happen sometime in the future), or a state court might be offended by the ban.

This proposition might delay the change briefly, but the citizens will not let the effects of the proposition stand for long. Our children will blanche in embarrassment at what their parents did—as we now do when encountering restrictive covenants in real estate transactions.

“No persons of any race other than the Caucasian race shall use or occupy any buildings or lot.” A covenant made in 1950, which I encountered when buying a building on Camelback Road in 1990.

Our kids will say, as we’ve said about our parents’ actions, “”We know this horrific history existed, and it should never have happened and it should never happen again.”

Let’s not embarrass the memory our children and grandchildren will have of us as the 21st century unfolds.

September 24, 2008 at 1:42 pm
(50) jacob says:

nice try vince.. the “I cant help it” theory is just that.. a theory. there is no science behind your claims. there is no way a person can prove that they were born gay, there is no genetic marker, there is no virus, there is no air borne disease or however you want to paint your excuse. like many say about religion.. its just a fallacy that cannot be proven and a common misconception for the weak looking for reasons beyond the reality. im not saying what makes a person gay, im just saying what its not.. and science has yet to prove it.

again with the germany couple.. who are we to deny their love?? love had no bounds right? like gay people say: you cant choose who you are attracted to right? how can society choose to condemn a loving couple that can naturally reproduce?? there are millions of people that reproduce knowing that down syndrome, spina bifada, crones disease and host of others are all genetically passed.. so why cant this couple marry and reproduce? if its good for the goose it good for the gander.

September 24, 2008 at 7:07 pm
(51) vince says:

Jacob,

There’s nothing being tried by me, no excuses , and there’s nothing to be helped. A fact is a fact. I’m gay. Nothing will change that. Curiously, above you counter points I never made!

If this propostion was about the legality of incestual marriage, then you’d certainly have quite a lot to say about it. But it is not.

Your germany couple argument is akin to stating that organized religion should be banned because there was an organized religious group in Texas practicing polygamy. Who are we to deny their love? To use your words, “what is good for the goose it good for the gander”. Right?

Organized religion should be banned because the Catholic church has been racked with sexual abuse cases involving minors. Priests are expressing their love – should we deny it?

I’ve given you a few examples why slippery slope arguments are not sound, and provided a great resource to explain why they don’t hold water. I can do no more than direct you to the information.

And I can make a similar slippery slope argument that organized religion needs to be banned because it leads to polygamy and the sexual abuse of minors.

My guess though is that you equate homosexuality and incest as mutually and morally reprehensible. If you’re unable to separate these subjects and analyze them individually, then there’s no discussion to be had.

Civil rights are an uphill battle, but they’re being won. Suffrage, ending slavery, non-discrimination due to race and gender, interracial marriage, the legal birth of children to gay parents, AND gay marriage!
And there have been people using religion to argue against every one of these examples. See a pattern?

Think, we may have a President who is the product of the American civil rights battle.
In spite of the ignorance and AZ Proposition 102, times are changing and for the better.

September 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm
(52) laurie says:

jacob it is strange that you’re saying gay marriage will lead to acceptance of incest.

religious zealots in the mormon church stand on high ground claiming moral superiority and in their houses there are kids being molested and leaders having multiple wives.

I read this proposition is mostly funded by the LDS. They’re complete hypocrites. A single religious group has the finances to affect this vote. THAT IS SCARY!
People please vote NO to stop the LDS from controlling our laws!!!

September 24, 2008 at 8:44 pm
(53) vanessa B says:

Laurie – I checked online and there is a Mormon family in Mesa providing almost all the financial backing for this proposition. If you look at the campaign brochure almost all those supporting it are from Mesa too. It is scary. The LDS is contributing big $$$ to the same prop in California. The LDS has the right to worship and believe as they please (as long as they are not having many wives, molesting kids or doing incest) but they are almost single-handedly trying to change public policy. I hope the message gets out there before the voting day.

September 24, 2008 at 9:07 pm
(54) vince says:

Laurie & Vanessa,

I pulled this excerpt from
FATAL INHERITANCE: MORMON EUGENICS by Linda Walker

“…this gene cluster effect happens when people with common ancestors marry and bear children. Polygamy today is comprised of early Mormon polygamy descendants and these families are now interrelated by a factor impossible in monogamy. Evidence exists that this gene pool foments a genetic and human catastrophe. Mormons can now see why American citizens passed laws intended to stop polygamy, a relic of unwise prophecy, laws continuously disregarded in Utah, a state controlled by the Mormon Church, if they will only look. In addition, the Mormon Church touts itself as the quintessential traditional family values church, advertising via expensive television campaigns. They are quick to point out to reporters that they no longer practice polygamy and excommunicate members who continue to do so. This denial is hollow considering the record. They offer no support, no exit route, and no programs for the people trapped inside polygamy endeavoring to escape these closed polygamous communities, or compounds.[10]

The discoveries and research within my own kindred so alarmed me that I studied other descendants of polygamy to see if their families also suffered from crippling illnesses. I am convinced they do. As bad as this past is, the mounting evidence is far worse. In 1991, I first became aware of the Latter Day Church of Christ (a.k.a. Kingston’s and The Davis County Cooperative Society), a Mormon polygamist offshoot and determined to interview within this virtually impenetrable closed polygamist group. One 1980’s leader, John Ortell Kingston, married thirteen wives and sired over sixty-five children, many of them deformed. His wives included five nieces. One disillusioned former member claims “babies are born as blobs of protoplasm”, and “brothers marry sisters in an effort to build up a royal priesthood.”

If online resources are correct, this is the religious group mostly backing Proposition 102. Wow, this group is hypocritical. Their version of traditional family values I guess!

September 25, 2008 at 1:52 am
(55) Ann says:

Keep it up Arizona. You just lost a Google office of 1500 employees this week. Spread some more hate and bigotry and no one with a brain will want to live in this state.

September 25, 2008 at 1:54 am
(56) Ann says:

Check out this website to learn the real dangers of gay marriage and how Prop 102 will help Arizona:

http://www.myspace.com/prop102

September 25, 2008 at 11:13 am
(57) vince says:

Alright Jacob, thanks to the help of others I think there’s enough information here to turn your slippery slope argument on its head.

Here we go:

You should oppose Prop 102 because supporting the marriage amendment could lead to the legalization of incest.

Those providing most of the financial backing, namely members of the LDS, have a well established history of insidiously and covertly promoting polygamy and incest.

At least the german couple you reference was honest. Certain factions of the LDS hide their blatant disregard for the law.

There’s a compelling reason to “deny their love”. It is not just about caring for those brought to the world with preventable genetic problems. Problems are created for entire family lines. There’s an undeniable factual biological reason to deny the germany couple’s love.

You’ll be hard pressed to find a gay person who believes incestual relationships should be recognized. Gay people who raise children only face the hatred of the ignorant. And gay parents are working to combat that ignorance.

In voting yes for Prop 102, you are effectively acknowledging the political power of a religious organization with a deep and disturbing history of defying the law for religious dogma. This dogma, when practiced to its extreme, damages the health, safety and welfare of its own children. There is nothing more shameful.

The fact that factions of the LDS hide their disregard for the law is indicative of the weak trying to circumvent the ugly realities of their actions.

So…do I believe my slippery slope argument? No, of course not. There are indisputable facts in my argument, but not enough to make a crazy connection.

Unlike those that are pushing this proposition, I don’t judge entire groups because of the actions of a few. I also believe the LDS has a right to practice their religion within the confines of the law.

However I find the actions of the LDS to oppose gay marriage to be remarkably hypocritical, in their claim to a beacon of traditional family values.

But I still hold YOUR gay marriage – incest relationship to be a lame excuse to oppose civil rights.

September 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm
(58) Bill says:

Ann (58),

That myspace page you directed us to is filled with some of the most ignorant, paranoid babblings I’ve ever seen!

For instance:

“It is estimated that, since 2006, approximately 20,000 heterosexual marriages have failed in Arizona due to inadequate protections from the possibility of activist judges ruling in favor of some future homosexual plaintiffs.”

W-W-What?! Oh, and I love this little gem:

“Additionally, the legality of gay marriage in California sent out powerful shockwaves of destructive gay energy throughout the country.”

Wow, so that’s what “gaydar” is!

And the icing on the cake:

“New research from the Family Focus Forum (FFF) indicates that homosexuality may in fact be a communicable disease. In fact, many previously heterosexual men are now leaving their families for no apparent reason in order to persue[sic] careers in fashion design and hair styling.”

From the same “researchers” who claimed that Aryans were the master race, no doubt.

Either this is the work of somebody who is off their meds, or a clever parody. Whatever the case, I’m laughing too hard to be offended!

September 25, 2008 at 8:48 pm
(59) Jill says:

Steve #15 said

“I agree with you that divorce is way too common and accepted in America, but it didn’t used to be this way. Back in the late 1970s when I was 10 years old, my parents got divorced. Even back then it was much more taboo than it is today. In my opinion, it is because of the social downfall of our country that I think started in the 1960s. Sure I was not alive when that began, but I think part of this started with the sexual “revolution.”

Steve I get a warm and fuzzy from an idea of a traditional mom, dad and the kids from times past. I think of Ozzy and Harriet. And it seems it should always be that way.

BUT, things looked so rosy then BECAUSE divorce was taboo. People didn’t think they had a choice. Because of that, people suffered in silence.

My best friend’s mother remarried in the mid 70′s when her dad died. They were a church-going family.

Then her stepfather started sexually molesting her. Her mother spoke to her priest and he told her if she got divorced she would be shunned from their church!

You can find sooooooo many stories of people who suffered greatly from the divorce taboo of years past. Spousal abuse, affairs, sexual molestation etc. Same issues as today, only nobody ever spoke of them. So of course the past looks so great!

Realistically, you’ll never garner enough support to fight divorce. There are too many people who will disagree with you.

I just can’t understand how limiting marriage between a man and a woman preserves traditional values or the sanctity of marriage.

I’m married to a wonderful man and together we are puzzled. It makes no difference in our lives if two men or two women get married. I will continue loving my husband the same way no matter what happens with the marriage amendment. I’m curious to know how your life would change if it doesn’t pass.

September 26, 2008 at 12:24 am
(60) NA says:

I agree with John (comment #1). How can AZ use the law to tell people what’s to be considered a “normal” lifestyle and acceptable behavior. Equality should be extended to all, in whatever relationship they prefer. There are millions of underrepresented citizens who are not allowed to have a sanctioned marriage simply because their preferred attractions are not acceptable to the majority. Why not extend marriage, not just to homosexuals, but to those who wish to marry 7 year olds, cows and inanimate objects. We should then insure that these lifestyles are taught to our children in public schools as “normal” and acceptable – nevermind that any 10 year old with a brain can recognize in learning biology that homosexuality is not a natural norm. But that’s OK. We believe in freedom, choice and equality for all – as long as it’s not “hurting anyone.” Oh, I forgot how AIDS proliferated …maybe we shouldn’t encourage this kind of deviant behavior so much after all.

September 26, 2008 at 4:02 am
(61) Mark says:

Squack,

Using your logic, any heterosexual couple that chooses to not have children should be denied the right to marry. It is only a status for them. Sorry, but the US government has turned marriage into a legal issue. It involves tax rights, inheritance rights, visitation rights, medical decisions and lots of other things. Nothing in marriage law has anything to do with family or children. It is a contract. Maybe in this country we need to do like Canada, the Netherlands, and about 10 other countries, and make marriage a ‘religious’ institution, and make the legal aspect a ‘union’.

Also Polly, you don’t have a “God given freedoms of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, with out walking on the freedoms of others.” These are granted to you in the United States Constitution, not the Holy Bible. Maybe you need to realize that these two are supposed to be kept separate, according to the one that give you your rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

September 26, 2008 at 11:55 am
(62) Steve E says:

I find it fascinating that conservatives, who are supposed to be all in favor of personal responsibility and smaller government, are so gung ho about forcing their morality on everyone in the nation through legislation and constitutional amendments.

To them I say, “get a life and keep your nose out of ours.”

And, not that it’s anyone’s business but our own, I am a heterosexual male in an exclusive relationship with a heterosexual female.

I’ll be voting “no” on this issue. Again.

September 26, 2008 at 1:22 pm
(63) jacob says:

once again vince, there is no moral or legal basis to allow gay marriage. and that is where the slippery slope comes into play. Since there is no legal or moral basis, it opens legal flood gates for everyone to have their personal situation sanctioned as a marriage.

you keep talking about civil rights. what gives you the right??? what separates you marrying another man for a man who wants to marry a horse??? both situations cannot naturally reproduce,they would have to go outside their family unit… its not hurting anyone and all signs could point to the fact that they love each other.. SOOO you take that into a court of law, and there is NO BASIS TO DENY anyones claims because if a man can marry a man for no good reason, then people should be able to marry their dog, son, daughter, totem pole..

why not allow group marriages?? if two people could do a good job of having a healthy functioning family unit, why not allow all those crazy polygamist Mormons to have their own families? couldn’t one argue that they would be an even better individual because they would have a much broader knowledge base to draw from? more attention and more adequately cared for then from a two parent unit that each has to work 40 plus a week to survive??

im talking strictly from a legal basis here. you cannot re-define this just to allow gay marriage because there is no precedence. what legal reasoning is there to have your situation recognized and then deny anyone else’s?? goose and gander….

September 26, 2008 at 1:42 pm
(64) Scott says:

California’s second Constitution is about 50,000 words and is still the second longest constitution in the good ol’ USofA (Louisiana’s is first, but the French are really wordy). It grew to about 75,000 words, having been amended over 500 times, every couple of years since, 1876, when the second one was finally ratified in 1974. The ‘amended” 1978 revision was, at long last, rejected by the voters. With current amendments, California’s constitution is 111 pages,

Every California special interest group has their say in this thing – as their own, personal amendment to a document that was (and is!) intended to outline the rights and obligations of its citizens. Congratulations, Californians, nobody can understand your basic principles.

Is this what we want for Arizona? It sure isn’t what I want.

September 26, 2008 at 8:36 pm
(65) troy says:

It was a simple no vote the first time and it’s a simple no vote this time. I don’t need the government/state defining what a Marriage is, frankly it’s not for them to determine.

To an earlier comment regarding the secret supporters of Prop 102, specifically the comment of: Focus on the Family (Neonazis from way out of Arizona) –

Neonazis may be close but it’s my understanding that they are Fundamentalist Right Wing Regligious group with close ties to the GWBush Admin. and that has links to Blackwater, the security group assigned to the Green Zone in Iraq and the worlds largest private mercany organization employeed by the G.W.Bush Administration.

But I digress.

No on Prop 102

September 26, 2008 at 8:39 pm
(66) Rocky says:

http://www.yesformarriage.com
Get plenty of information supporing prop 102. I found no reason not to support a proposition that protects marriage as it has stood for thousands of years.

September 27, 2008 at 1:24 am
(67) Adam A says:

Prop 102 does one thing and one thing only – it defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Arizona.

I will vote YES on Prop 102 to secure the definition of marriage for my children and grandchildren.

September 27, 2008 at 11:18 pm
(68) Chris says:

I believe if many people who oppose Prop 102 understood the severe consequences, they would rethink their position. Although there is currently a law against same sex marriage in Arizona, the AZ courts could easily overturn the law as was done in CA. On March 7, 2000, 61.4% of Californians (an overwhelming majority) voted for Prop 22 preventing CA from recognizing same-sex marriage. However, on May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Courts struck down this initiative by a 4-3 vote. How 4 judges can overrule millions of citizens amazes me. Now CA is trying to pass Prop 8 which will amend the constitution which will prevent the courts from striking the law down. Arizona needs to do the same to prevent judges from legislating from the bench.

Now the consequenses…if the definition of marriage is changed, the next step will be to begin to make laws to enforce this change. Churches will be forced by law to marry gay couples, even if it is against their beliefs. One church after another will be sued until they all comply. Your own personal religious beliefs will be rejected and your religious freedoms taken away. It is already happening.

Here are some recent legal cases from http://www.npr.com entitled “When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash”:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191&sc=emaf

The Catholic Church pulled out of the adoption business in Massachusetts in 2006 due to lawsuits on this very issue.

Doctors, photographers, and churches have been sued and are being forced to do things against their religious beliefs.

This will lead to a complete breakdown of the family and the destruction of civilization. It is a very serious matter.

September 27, 2008 at 11:30 pm
(69) Kevin L. says:

Another argument for NOT supporting Prop 102:

How much taxpayer’s money will be required to pay our elected legislators for the time to REMOVE Prop 102′s article to the state Constitution when same-gender marriage becomes legal pursuant to Federal law. Yes, sheeple, if the Feds legalize same-gender marriage, it will render that article of the AZ Constitution void, and will basically require the article’s removal… That is… if it isn’t voided, or removed from the ballot before Nov. 4 due to church/state separation issues.

September 27, 2008 at 11:59 pm
(70) Chris says:

Prop 102 does not discriminate against homosexuals. It simply keeps marriage the way it has always been, between one man and one woman. I have tolerance for homosexuals, however I do not and will not have tolerance for homosexual activity — I believe it is morally wrong and unnatural. There are already laws in place protecting the rights of homosexuals. They can do as they choose. However, at this point homosexuals want religious liberties to be taken away from others who believe it is morally wrong. They will use the courts in an attempt to destroy every institution that does not condone their lifestlye.

September 28, 2008 at 3:18 am
(71) Chris says:

Here is a news article saying that as a result of the new same-sex marriage movement throughout the world, in Toronto, Canada a man is trying to push for polygamy and so far has not been challenged by their government.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/29/john-oakley-when-we-legalized-same-sex-marriage-we-should-have-known-polygamy-was-sure-to-follow.aspx

I’ve also read articles about a push for marriages of 3 or 4 people as a group. Arizona, please wake up! We need to pass Prop 102 or you will live to regret it.

September 28, 2008 at 3:46 am
(72) Chris says:

Here is another article that should be read in The Weekly Standard called “Banned in Boston ‘The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.’”

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp?pg=1

Here is a piece of this article:

“This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve’s marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.

So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come?

I PUT THE QUESTION to Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund is widely recognized as one of the best religious liberty law firms and the only one that defends the religious liberty of all faith groups, “from Anglicans to Zoroastrians,” as its founder Kevin J.
Hasson likes to say (referring to actual clients the Becket Fund has defended).

Just how serious are the coming conflicts over religious liberty stemming from gay marriage?

“The impact will be severe and pervasive,” Picarello says flatly. “This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.” Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses. In times of relative peace, says Picarello, people don’t even notice that “the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it’s easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.”

For scholars, these will be interesting times: Want to know exactly where the borders of church and state are located? “Wait a few years,” Picarello laughs. The flood of litigation surrounding each point of contact will map out the territory. For religious liberty lawyers, there are boom times ahead.”

“Marc Stern is looking more and more like a reluctant prophet: “It’s going to be a train wreck,” he told me in the offices of the American Jewish Congress high above Manhattan. “A very dangerous train wreck. I don’t see anyone trying to stem the train wreck, or slow down the trains. Both sides are really looking for Armageddon, and they frankly both want to win. I prefer to avoid Armageddon, if possible.”

The clash between gay marriage rights and religious freedoms will escalate in the coming years. As gay rights continue to win, you will see a serious weakening and decline in religion and family. Think about what has happened to every other ancient nation of the past that has come to that point in their history. Those nations aren’t around anymore are they?

September 29, 2008 at 8:50 pm
(73) informed and scared says:

If you were better informed you would see that it is not about the religious sects (Mormons,). If you would research this you will find that MOST religions (have you seen the Catholics video?)have a problem with the issue of same sex marriage. It is not an issue of church against Gays. It is about the rights of individuals. Examples are the Catholic Adoption Services in Mass. closing thier doors, New Mexico Photographer getting sued and the having to pay for all the lawyer fees and then having to perform that which they were not comfortable with even though they found someone who would take their pictures. The Doctor in California. The list is ever growing,…
People are getting taken to court and getting sued over their right to not do things that they feel personally that is not right. Only to have the courts tell them that they have to do that which makes them uncomfortable because someone complained. Last time I heard it was alright to say NO!!!!! Our rights are being taken away and put in Jeopardy. It is not about Religion and Gays. It is about the Rights of Individuals to choose. VOTE YES!!!

September 30, 2008 at 1:09 pm
(74) Scott says:

This pending legislation makes me proud. Of Canada.

I love Arizona; it’s my home, but I am saddened by the myriad of small minds I find here. We’re straight and married; we’re encouraged, not threatened by same-sex pairs who love each other and want to sanctify their relationship.

September 30, 2008 at 3:01 pm
(75) Edward says:

I am deeply saddened by our government as a whole. How can people not see that voting yes on this measure just proves that we as a society are in fact denying a lifestyle because it is ‘different’? I believe that people should be allowed to love another person, period. Has anyone looked at how gay marriage has negatively effected other countries around the world? Wait a second…it hasn’t. If anything it has boosted their economies and proved that hate isn’t necessary. I will be voting NO on this measure even though I for some reason think it will pass just fine. Arizona has never been at the forefront of evolution…

WAKE UP PEOPLE…Homosexuals are not just going to go fall off the face of the planet one day. If anything their numbers will increase with more acceptance once all of the bigots come out of the closet and realize that the only reason they are pushing for an anti-gay amendment is because they are ashamed of their own homosexual feelings.

September 30, 2008 at 7:36 pm
(76) Chris says:

Edward,

Prop 102 doesn’t deny anyone the right to love each other. Prop 102 simply keeps the definition of marriage the same as it has been for thousands of years – between and man and a woman. Love and marriage are different things. Marriage is a commitment between two people that is sanctioned by the government and/or the church. Traditionally marriage was a vow and commitment to God to have sexual relations only with one’s spouse. I realize things have changed. However, when the government and/or the church acknowledge a marriage, they are saying they agree with and sanction the bond and relationship created. I can accept gays without accepting their lifestyle. I believe homosexuality is immoral, just like I believe adultery, murder and stealing are immoral. And I am not a bigot for believing so. Nobody is denying gays from living as they choose.

Homosexuality has boosted the world economies? Are you serious? Did you just make that up?

Nobody is denying a lifestyle because it is different. In fact, nobody is denying a lifestyle at all. But when a church or an individual is forced by the law to do something they don’t want to do, then you are denying a lifestyle. Vote YES on Prop 102.

October 1, 2008 at 1:05 am
(77) Jon says:

A vote for YES is a vote for HATE.

October 1, 2008 at 12:20 pm
(78) Troy says:

Chris said: “The clash between gay marriage rights and religious freedoms will escalate in the coming years. As gay rights continue to win, you will see a serious weakening and decline in religion and family…”

Really? Are we that insecure in our heterosexuality and religious beliefs that we have to invoke the collapse of ancient civilizations as an argument to vote for something that is supposedly the mainstream belief already?

I say our next wasteful proposition should then be. God. Let’s all vote to see if he/she/it gets a nod as well.

What a waste of time and money.

Vote NO on Prop 102

October 1, 2008 at 4:56 pm
(79) Tricia says:

Why does it matter what I do in MY house?? Do we judge you for how u live your life?? Do we tell you how to raise your children, wear your clothes, tell you who you can and cannot love, or live you life?? NO!!!! So why does it matter who I marry, be it a man or a women?? You can sit here and tell me it’s not what GOD wants and all this other stuff, but I know GOD still loves me!! And so does my girlfriend, and my family and thats all that matters to me!!

VOTE NO!!

October 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm
(80) Alan in Tucson says:

I will vote NO on this amendment — it is unconscionable that we would modify the state constitution to prevent something that, years from now, will be considered normal.

October 1, 2008 at 9:42 pm
(81) Catherine says:

squack too says:

“Why is it so important for gay’s to get married? No one is denying the nature of their personal relationship, but why use marriage as a way of forcing others to accept who they are?”

You’re forgetting there marriage comes with a great many legal protections straight people take for granted. Unless the state is willing to grant those to gay couples, they are being discriminatory.

“To me, marriage was created to bind the union between a man and woman in support of the formation of a stable family.”
[...]
Biologically, a homosexual couple does not have this option.”

Ah, so I can’t get married? Due to medical issues, I’ve been told not to have kids, so it’s not an option for me either. And what about menopausal women? Infertile men and women? They shouldn’t be allowed to get married either, right?

As long as you’re going to insist that the purpose of marriage is having kids, you have to deny it to ALL those who can’t have children.

And, of course, you’re completely ignoring things like surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertilization, the fact that some people come out later in life, after having kids with an opposite sex spouse “the old fashioned way”… The idea that gays can’t have kids is just wrong.

October 1, 2008 at 10:07 pm
(82) Catherine says:

Chris says: “Prop 102 does not discriminate against homosexuals. It simply keeps marriage the way it has always been, between one man and one woman.”

I’m pretty sure many, if not most (maybe even all?), cultures practiced polygamy at one point. Not to mention marrying siblings, marrying for money, marrying to strengthen political and social alliances…

The idea that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, and always is about TWOO WUV is a joke. Hell, women used to be the property of their husbands. Should we go back to that, too, to “protect marriage as it’s always been?” Not too long ago, you couldn’t marry someone or another color. And when people wanted to change that a lot of people who didn’t like what it changed were making many of the same, “It’s immoral!” arguments you guys are now.

I agree with others: If you really wanna “protect marriage”, start with the heterosexual people who are screwing it up right now.

“I have tolerance for homosexuals, however I do not and will not have tolerance for homosexual activity — I believe it is morally wrong and unnatural.”

A lot of things humans do is “unnatural”. So what?

“There are already laws in place protecting the rights of homosexuals. They can do as they choose.”

Well, no. They can’t get married.

“However, at this point homosexuals want religious liberties to be taken away from others who believe it is morally wrong.

And if marriage were purely religious, you’d have a point. But as long as legal privileges are offered by the government to married couples, NOT letting gays participate in it is discriminatory.

October 2, 2008 at 1:18 pm
(83) Captain Moroni says:

Regarding Prop. 102, the Same-Sex Marriage proposition debate. We would like to let you know that there are a number of Mormons opposed to the Church’s involvement in the issue. LDS OFFICIAL doctrine denounces such involvement.

Please visit our site –

lds4gaymarriage.org

We explain our position in a systematic and logical way. Thank you.

October 2, 2008 at 6:17 pm
(84) DeWayne says:

This proposition is not about marriage; it’s about fear.

How about adding a proposition that says, “Hetrosexuals can only marry members of the opposite sex; homosexuals can only marry members of the same sex; bisexuals can marry anyone they want. We don’t really care, because we’re too busy balancing the budget.”

Wait, who am I kidding? They can’t balance a budget.

October 3, 2008 at 11:48 am
(85) Kristin says:

Here’s something to ponder..
How can anyone say that Prop 102 is discrimination? How could we possibly allow the constitution to be amended for one group of minorities & not all the others, like for instance poligimists. I do believe that the Arizona Constititution should be ameneded as recommended & I will vote yes on prop 102.
I don’t think that we should let any other union be called marriage. If we allowed same-sex marriage, then the polygamists will start screaming discrimination.
As for ~Support Love~’s comment.. Marriages end in divorce, usually because people don’t pick their mates as carefully as they should, & I have a lot of same-sex couples as friends, & even they go through mates, faster than I do. I’m 28 & have had 3 boyfriends, the shortest relationship I’ve been in, is the one I’m in now, & that’s going on 4 years.
I also believe that the reason our grandparents weren’t divorcing like my generation & my parent’s generation, is because divorce is easy now. Everyone goes into marriage knowing that they can get out of it at any time, young people (myself included) rush into marriage, because they like the idea, not because they know what it is. I’m divorced, have been for about 4 years now, not because I wasn’t willing to work on it, believe me, I didn’t want it & tried everything I could to not let it happen, however, I didn’t marry someone that valued his word, like I value mine, & I didn’t marry someone that was ready to marry, I married someone with a maturity level much less than mine & realize this now. Which is why I haven’t rushed into another marriage & have choosen the type man I date carefully.
I just moved to AZ from CA about 2 months ago, & the most disgusting thing that my home state has ever done, is make same-sex marriage legal. It’s not that I believe that same-sex couples shouldn’t have the same rights to each other & each other’s belongings as man-woman couples, it’s just that they shouldn’t be allowed to call their union marriage.
Even with friends & relatives that are in same-sex relationships, I feel this way.
By allowing same-sex marriage like CA, we are teaching our children, that at any time we can re-define the definition of marriage, to make it suit our needs, which in turn, isn’t going to do a damn good thing for the divorce rate. We need to teach our children the way our great-grandparents taught our children, chose your mate wisely, you will have children with this person, & you will have to live with their bad habits & annoyances until you depart this life. Young girls don’t grow up designing their wedding dresses & dreaming of prince charming anymore, because their single -knocked up by her boyfriend & left to fend for herself – Mom says he doesn’t exist. They don’t dream of their huge weddings & over the top honeymoons anymore because mostlikely their parent’s have such a horrible time getting along or are divorced & the kids get passed back & forth between them like a stick of lipstick & a bar bathroom, with 2 houses they visit, & none to actually live at. In a situation like that, I can defentaley understand why so many of my friends will never marry, cause their parent’s have taught them that it’s awful, & will most likely end in divorce anyway, so why bother.
By the way.. I was smart enough to realize, once I was married, that my ex was in no way mature enough to be someone’s father, so I don’t have any children that I’ve drug through the mud. I wish I was living in my grandparents time. Where marriage mattered, women had rolls in the relationship & home & actually did them, when men had rolls & did them too. At time when things were discussed & NO always won.

October 3, 2008 at 5:03 pm
(86) Matthew says:

The following is from an Alliance Defense Fund pamphlet printed March 2005:

Won’t churches be protected from having to perform same-sex “marriages”?

If same-sex “marriages” is legalized, churches could find themselves in a difficult position. While some homosexual activist groups deny that churches would be pressured to perform same-sex “marriages,” antidiscrimination laws that include “sexual orientation” could force churches to make a choice between their tax-exempt status, denial of equal access to public property, and violating their Biblical beliefs.

Raymond Flynn, a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, furthers this concern:

“The issue of legalizing same-sex “marriage” raises the question: Does this mean there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I think it is the next step. I don’t think people will stop until the while sacred institution of marriage crumbles.”

In addition, churches and individuals who verbally object to same-sex “marriage” and homosexual behavior could find themselves subject to the so-called “hate crime” laws or other sanctions. For instance, in Canada, merely running an ad in a newspaper with Scripture condemning homosexual behavior resulted in a fine.

The above is from an ADF pamphlet, see http://www.telladf.org for more information.

My opinion of this is that I do NOT want any church to be forced to make a choice like that. Churches should always have the FREEDOM to continue to stand for their Biblical beliefs. I also do NOT want our freedom in America to be jeopardized were we cannot print the truths in the Bible.

Because of this, I will be voting yes on 102.

October 4, 2008 at 6:22 am
(87) Mason says:

Our progress is an Evolving revolution changin 4 human adaptation imperative 4 advancment of our species-in constant conflict w/tht wich resists movin out of a familiar trane in thought, tho revolutionary at inception,its purpose was wel served n the times com 2 grow. growth cnt b w/o change-xspanding idealized traditions 2 encompass any1 who holds tru 2 root core of the ideal-prop102 halts progress 4 evolvd hi level acceptanc in terms what a marriage is defined as,by language defininition as a noun of englishorigin &inflected thru luvs tru hearts turning ordinary wordz 2 songs of a union in wedlockd lifelong commitment.luv transcends earthly trappings of race,religion,gender,language &/or geography.realy tru!

October 4, 2008 at 9:00 am
(88) sylvia sofia sanchez says:

NOT 102!!!SNAP OUT OF IT! B CURRENT! B FLEXIBLE! SUPPORT COMMITED LOVE AS THE COMPONENT 4 OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION DEFINING MARRIAGE BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS! FREE YOUR MIND & THE REST WIL FOLLOW!

October 5, 2008 at 11:43 am
(89) Don Sullivan says:

Hi Judy,

You say click on “Read more” for pros and cons, but I can’t find that on the web site.

Please help.

Don

October 5, 2008 at 12:49 pm
(90) Judy Hedding says:

Hi Don,

The read more just brings you to my entire blog comment here (above). Click on the link that says “Read the exact language of Proposition 102, as well as officially posted arguments for the proposition.”

I hope that helps.

October 5, 2008 at 7:22 pm
(91) Richard says:

Vote YES. I will strongly support this. I believe that one makes a choice to be gay. I f they don’t, than it is an illness.

October 5, 2008 at 7:52 pm
(92) Mel says:

People complain about the government being too involved in everything we do – yet we continue to pull to goverment into areas we shouldn’t. When does this really stop? I read many blogs where the complaint of socialism is now the ‘true’ Democrat Party, yet how many Republicans are also voting on these propositions – where again government is forced to well govern. I think we need to look at what is realistic and necessary and I’m one to say this isn’t – keep government out of it. What are you people so afraid of? Seriously? Divorce rates are high, the percentage of men cheating on their wives is high – even more and more women are cheating -this is what is breaking down the family unit – why don’t you have the government step in a do something about that????? THINK PEOPLE THINK…….

October 5, 2008 at 8:09 pm
(93) MomToo says:

For those of you that think gay is a choice I really want to know how you came to that conclusion? Are you certified in any type of profession to make that type of claim? How do you know – because the bible tells you so? Please send me the scripture that says being gay is a choice? Gay people weren’t pulled from pods sent from alien ships – wake up – they are our children. Yes, our sons and daughters period. As my children became older, they opened up to me about their homosexualtiy. I never taught my children to be gay or told them they had a choice between being straight or gay. I soul searched, educated myself and spoke to so many people on this to find out – the scientific conclusion GAY IS NOT A CHOICE!! My son explained to me -why would anyone choose to be gay – especially with the adversity against homosexuals. It’s not any easy life by no means. My children are good people: they were star athletes, honor students, going through college and working jobs to make ends meet – just like most students. They are humantarians and have given back to their communities as wonderful volunteers. I want what every mother wants for her children, love, family, job and a good life – who wouldn’t.

October 6, 2008 at 6:47 pm
(94) Jesse says:

Unfortunately, as is common with highly polarizing issues, many misrepresentations of the facts are to be found scattered around the internet working to sway voters in one direction or the other. Proposition 102 is no different, and regrettably the factual misrepresentations are even found within the official voter’s guide itself. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Proposition 102, having the facts is vitally important. In order to help Arizona voters untangle the massive amounts of information surrounding Proposition 102, is dedicated to helping undecided and moderate voters make a decision based on the facts. There is no doubt that our goal is to see Proposition 102 passed in Arizona, but we want to reach that goal by educating voters about the importance of the proposition and the lasting affects that a failure will have on all Arizonans.

October 6, 2008 at 11:18 pm
(95) Lynzi says:

Traditional values? what are those considered to be? throughout the years “traditional” has changed a whole lot… it use to be tradition for african americans to not be able to marry white people…. and now thats accepted world wide (for the majority)… it use to be traditional that women were considered to be property instead of individuals… and now they are accepted world wide (for the majority)… and it use to be illegal to get a divorce… and now days our divorce rate is getting higher and higher….

So why is it necessary to put a limitation on marriage…. especially when the “traditional values of marriage” has changed throughout the years…

October 8, 2008 at 4:01 am
(96) Nikki says:

It is amazing and baffling to me that some people have nothing better to do with their lives than to try to keep two human beings from loving each other apart. And for what? Because the bible says God does not approve?
A question to all of you bible pushing Christians: Do you really believe that your God put you on this earth to hate and to condemn love?
That is all it is, love. Love isn’t gender, religion, race, or age related. It is just two human beings.

October 8, 2008 at 4:43 am
(97) jennik says:

Have you seen the ridiculous commercials for yesformarriage.com? “(Marriage is about) making a family and passing life to the next generation.” Adoption gives hope and love to children who need homes and a family. Let’s see… Two adults, a child and possibly a pet?… Hmm! Sounds like a family to me!

Marriage is about love.
Whether or not we as gay people are accepted in society or allowed to marry, we are not going anywhere. If you think banning us from our rights as Americans– as humans, is going to make us disappear, you’ve got another thing coming. What is next for us? Auschwitz?
If you think morality is hating upon those who just want to love, then YOU are the real threats to our society. YOU are the terrorists, YOU are the ones polluting your childrens’ minds with your ignorance and bigotry.
Do us a favor, live your own lives and be with who you want to be with instead of worrying about who we are with.
If you believe in what the Bible says, by all means live your life the way you choose.
But if you think that when your time comes and you meet your maker, he will be happy that you lived your life hating upon and condemning those who love, then your maker is not the righteous ‘God’ character you preached on and on about when you were banning love from our constitution.

October 8, 2008 at 9:33 am
(98) Ronald Clark says:

I can already see the twisting of this verbiage: “I am a man married to one man, therefore I am married.” In a country that *tolerates* a blatant perjurer who asks, “it depends on your definition of is”, and such perversion (twisting) is celebrated, anything can be interpreted any to any desired end.

October 9, 2008 at 12:21 am
(99) nick says:

this country was originally founded by people who believe in God and the Bible so that is how this country should be. same sex marriages do not last long becaus they are not natural. you want to knwo whyt he country is getting worse, it is because of ideas like this and people seperating themselves from God.

October 9, 2008 at 11:41 am
(100) Paul says:

This statement was made by Greg Quinlan, a former member of the homosexual community, who testified before the Ohio Defense of Marriage Act in November, 2003. Quinlan claimed that the physical and mental devastation caused by homosexual behavior, and the cumulative effect of that behavior “is incalculable.” Here are some statistics to back up his statement.

Homosexual activity remains a major source of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus. More than 50% of new AIDS/HIV cases are among homosexual men.

The risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.

Two extensive studies published in the October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems.

Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression; three times more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, four times more likely to suffer conduct disorders, six times more likely to suffer from multiple disorders and more than six times more likely to have attempted suicide.

Many homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.

In an interview with Zenit News, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a child and adult psychiatrist in practice for more than 27 years, said, “Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interviews, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence.”

He concluded by saying, “Men and women with a history of homosexual contact had a higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study. These findings are the result of a lifestyle marked by rampant promiscuity and an inability to make commitments, combined with unresolved sadness, profound insecurity, anger and mistrust from childhood and adolescence.”

A study by Susan Turrell entitled “A descriptive analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample,” and published in the Journal of Family Violence (vol 13, pp 281-293), found that relationship violence was a significant problem for homosexuals. Forty-four percent of gay men reported having experienced violence in their relationship; 13 percent reported sexual violence and 83 percent reported emotional abuse.

Levels of abuse ran even higher among lesbians with 55 percent reporting physical violence, 14 percent reporting sexual abuse and 84 percent reporting emotional abuse.

As outrageous as it might sound, “Most medical groups have embraced the homosexual agenda and are advocating that lifestyle despite all the scientific studies and medical evidence that demonstrate medical and psychological risks,” said Joseph Nicolosi, President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. “Homosexual activism and political correctness are clearly trumping science.”

http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html

This is a study done by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA)
http://www.mfc.org/contents/article.cfm?id=755

This is the heritage that we want to leave for our kids? This is what we want promoted in public school as a normal and healthy lifestyle?

This isn’t about homophobia or fear or hate. This is about facts. Gay marriage is not a healthy lifestyle choice and should not be advocated as normal and healthy for our kids.

October 9, 2008 at 5:01 pm
(101) dale says:

To: MomToo, you’re asking people to prove to you that being Gay is a choice. I’ll refer you to Genesis 2:24 which states; “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Doing anything different is a choice. It doesn’t say the man will leave his 2 fathers and join his male lover. Now how about you prove to us that being Gay is not a choice. Being straight is a choice. I chose to be straight meaning I chose NOT to be gay. People that are gay CHOOSE NOT to be straight. I haven’t met any gay person that has said they wish they could be straight and i’ve never met any straight person that said they wish they could be gay. IT’S A CHOICE. If you want to be gay go ahead. I have nothing against gay people. I have gay friends. Just because i don’t approve of their choices doesn’t mean they’re not good people. So again I say, prove to us that being gay is not a choice. And don’t go saying its “Scientifically proven” because that’s a load of horse shit. God put Adam and Eve on the earth, adam being a male and eve being a female. And then he commanded them that they multiply and replenish the earth. So basically, until male’s are able to get pregnant and bear children (which is close to never), marriage between a man and woman is the way God intended it to be.

Now to: jennik, the term “family” has many different definitions, so to say that marriage is about making a family is not accurate. one definition of family is: A locally independent organized crime unit. those people don’t need to get married in order to organize their crime unit. Marriage is a commandment, multiplying and replenishing the earth is a commandment. That can only be done by a man and woman. adoption is a convenience for women that can’t bear children of their own, and its a totally different subject.

For those that don’t believe in God, or even those that choose not to obey His commandments, do what you want, that’s YOUR CHOICE.

October 9, 2008 at 5:03 pm
(102) Tricia says:

Nick say “this country was originally founded by people who believe in God and the Bible so that is how this country should be. same sex marriages do not last long becaus they are not natural. you want to knwo whyt he country is getting worse, it is because of ideas like this and people seperating themselves from God.”

That is SO Ridiculous the country is getting worse because of people LIKE YOU!! Who judge and discriminate against people who are NOT JUST LIKE YOU!!

October 10, 2008 at 1:35 am
(103) Tamm says:

This is just my opinion, and my experience~

Where I have had the oppurtunity to live in a few states where issue has been put onto the ballot.

I was personally blessed with having a “homosexual” brother. Who was my best friend.

Not all of my family agreed to his lifestyle. Although, we respected his wishes.
Over the years, he actually taught a few of our disapproving family members a few things.

That he was able to find his sole mate.

Luckily there was a state that honored thier relationship. My brother was happily married for 10 years before he died.

What did this teach me?

Respect everyone, no matter who they are for thier own opinions, beliefs, morals with out them this wouldnt be the Free Country that we have..

October 10, 2008 at 11:53 pm
(104) jessica says:

I’ve read all your opinions and would write mine but, would be repeating Thomas in the beginning of this debate. HOWEVER Laurie, please don’t tell people they should vote no because you have some weird conception that the LDS church is still running in the 1800′s

October 11, 2008 at 3:09 am
(105) John B says:

Just yesterday on the http://www.YESforMarriage.com was the following news alert (and I also heard about this Connecticut ruling on the radio):

YES on Prop 102/YESforMarriage.com Response to Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling

CT RULING SHOWS WHY VOTING YES ON PROP 102 CRITICAL IN ARIZONA

The Connecticut Supreme Court today overturned that state’s law defining marriage only as the union of one man and one woman. Connecticut now joins Massachusetts and California on the list of states that have had judges by a one-vote margin redefine marriage for the entire state.

Yes on Prop 102 spokesperson, Kelly Molique, said the CT decision shows the importance of passing the marriage amendment in Arizona this November. “The Connecticut ruling further illustrates why Arizona needs Proposition 102’s 20 simple and clear words added to the Arizona Constitution,” Molique said. “As the Connecticut ruling shows, it’s easy for activist judges and politicians to overturn existing marriage laws. The only way to prevent that from happening is to amend the constitution by passing Prop 102.”

Prop 102 reads:

“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

“By voting yes on Prop 102, Arizonans can decide the future of marriage rather than leave the definition vulnerable to redefinition by judges or politicians,” said Molique.

Now more than ever I will definitely be voting yes on 102 as I do NOT want judges to legislate (again, like was done in California and Massachusetts) from the bench.

October 11, 2008 at 7:09 pm
(106) Aaron says:

As a gay man I feel very discriminated against by most of these comments, especially those who say they aren’t homophobic or discriminatory. If you aren’t, then what are you so afraid of by homosexuals getting married. Me being allowed to solidify my love with someone shouldn’t effect the sanctity of your marriage. Us getting married doesn’t hurt anyone, but you people keeping us from marrying is extremely hurtful. If we could all look at each other through eyes of love as we should, then acceptance wouldn’t even be an issue.

October 11, 2008 at 11:25 pm
(107) MomToo says:

To Dale:

So, Dale, let me get this straight (no pun intended) you could be gay, if you wanted to, but you choose not to. So, all of us, humans, have that choice, gay or straight? That is what you are saying? So, we all could be gay or straight, if we wanted to be, but most of us choose to be straight? Can I ask how you decided not to be gay and choose to be straight? Did you have a relationship with a man and a relationship with a woman and felt the choice was clearly a woman? (don’t get offended, just trying to understand how it’s a choice? Sorry, the bible passage didn’t convince me – except that marriage is between a man and a wife – which we need to interpret too, because does the bible define what a man and a woman is? Is it biological? What if you’re born with male and female reproductive organs – yes, there are people born that way – I guess you can be what ever you want in that case. Sorry, off subject here.) Back to choice. I’m straight and I don’t think I made the choice to be straight, I’m just straight. I could never choose to be gay, because it isn’t a choice — I believe this because I was born – biologically straight – there is no choice for me. I don’t feel anything sexual towards a woman. But if it is, then it means inheritantly we all should or could have sexual feelings towards the same sex and can be gay, but we choose not to. So, if you change your mind, you could be gay – if you choose to be, but you choose not to be. As a child, I used to hate beets – I never tried them, I just knew that I hated them and would never eat them because I choose to not like them. This year, I actually ate a beet salad and liked it, so all along I could have had beets, I just choose not too eat them. So, using that comparison, we all have the ability to be gay and the ability to be straight because that is the only way it could be a choice. If that capability wasn’t there – meaning there’s is absolutely no way you could ever be gay (how do you know if you haven’t tried it), then it isn’t a choice it is.

If you think this makes no sense at all to you, thats because what you’ve said say makes no sense at all to me. But, that’s our choice.

October 12, 2008 at 3:36 am
(108) Paul says:

Just some thoughts after reading most of the comments here.

Lets suppose that most people here like football. We all know what football is, how it is played, what the rules are. There are rules for the game, the refs, etc. But one day someone decides that football the way it is currently played isn’t for them. They want it to be different. So, they and a few others who feel like them start getting really vocal and even a bit pushy about how its not fair that someone else made the rules and they don’t like them. They start trying to force everyone to change the rules of football to be the way they think they should be. If you start changing the rules, making up new rules, throwing out the refs, whatever they decide doesn’t suit them, etc., then it ceases to be football. It becomes some other game. It may become so disorganized that no one can play anymore.

Thats what we are looking at with same sex marriage. Marriage ceases to be. It becomes something else. Its no longer the same game.

Also, the argument that heterosexuals have already trashed marriage, give homosexuals a chance to show how its done. That argument doesn’t fly. If you have a car that you’ve neglected and it only works part of the time, you don’t drive it off of a cliff. You stop and fix the problems. You have to go back and make right what you made wrong.

Then there are the arguments that God is love and loves all of his children and wants them to be happy so let homosexuals be happy because thats what God would want. As a parent I set rules and bounderies, with consequences for breaking the rules. I do it because I love my kids. I teach them not to play in the street. I don’t let them play with guns. I teach them to brush their teeth and respect their bodies. I try to teach them what they need to know to be safe and live a long, happy, productive life. I would never say “whatever”, because I don’t want to take away their freedom, or because they hate my rules and try to get me to change them. They may even throw a little temper tantrum about it. God has given us bounderies and rules, with consequences for breaking the rules. Because he loves us and wants us to live safe, happy and productive lives. So, we are given commandments and “lectures” (scripture) to tell us what to do and not to do. Just as we as parents do for our children, He has done for us. Not to make us unhappy, but to help us be happy.

To those who say you can’t or shouldn’t legislate morality. Well, then we would live in a state of anarchy. Every law is based on morality. Where do you draw the line on stealing. Is it ok to steal one penny? If so then is ok to steal a dollar? Where do we draw the line? Where do we draw the line on violence? Does the line shift, and if so when do we stop moving it? When do we finally say, “Ok, the line will stay here now. This is where we will go no further.” If we say same sex marriage is legal, then who is to say the line stops there. Someone somewhere is going to want the same fair treatment that homosexuals want. Do we move the line for Pedophiles? Do we move the line for groups of consenting adults? Their wants and desires must be as important as the homosexuals.

If your feelings are hurt because I want my children to know that homosexual behavior is unhealthy, both physically and psychologically, I’m sorry. My feelings are hurt that you can’t see what this is doing to children. You would never hand them a loaded gun to play with, why would you try to tell them that homosexual behavior is good, safe and happy? The statistics are there to back me up. And, if you are the exception to the statistics, good for you. But, you are an exception. And to say that because you are an exception, the statistics are invalid is flawed logic.

October 12, 2008 at 11:44 am
(109) vince says:

Jacob,

My partner & I have been busy finishing up the legal and medical work to have our second (and possibly third!) child, so I haven’t been checking this site lately.

In response to legal and moral precedence for gay marriage, I suggest you look into international examples of both. This will help you put this in a broader context.

As national polls are demonstrating, there’s a strong chance we’ll have Obama as President, and a “magic 60″ in the Senate. I’ve been hearing that if this does follow through, there will be a major push to approve federal civil union rights for same sex couples. This will trump all this marriage nonsense.

October 12, 2008 at 1:56 pm
(110) Kirsten says:

Im soo sick of this shit! It is unconstitutional is soooo many ways and its disgusting! Why should gays be denied the right to get married and reap the benefits, it goes against the 1st ammendment!! This whole proposition is based off people’s religious beliefs and “what it says in the Bible” and it’s so wrong. Separation of church and state!! I’m so tired of people saying we have to do this to save our society. That is bullshit, this is just a way for the homophobics to control people. Gays being able to get married DOES NOT AFFECT YOU DIRECTLY so get over it!!! This goes against everything our country was founded on, freedom of expression, equality, separation of religion and government. When religion gets involved with government things get bad, look at the history!!! I am ashamed to be in a country where people are losing more and more of their rights everyday. Just admit it, the only reason this bill is even alive today is to appease homophobes, there is no benefit about this bill. And all this stuff about how “traditional man/woman families decrease the risk of drug addicted children”, well then I guess we better ban divorces because that happens way more often and leaves families “untraditional man/women” and screws up a lot of children! People will think of any excuse to pass this, and it is allll BULLSHIT!!!! GET OVER IT PEOPLE THIS IS AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

October 12, 2008 at 2:29 pm
(111) the REAL Sarah P says:

I heard the same thing Vince…

and now I’m waiting for a hater to post
THATS WHY IM VOTING FOR MCCAIN

LOL

Let the churches like the LDS have marriage. Let them waste millions of dollars “protecting” it. It’s a damaged institution anyway.

My gay friend and his partner’s son just started at Yale this term. Their son is planning to marry a girl after college who is now attending Brown. Good thing his son beat the odds of being damaged!!! HAHAHA.

I’m not sweating the props in CA, AZ & FL. The big important change is coming after the election. Dare I say it – THANK GOD!

October 12, 2008 at 9:44 pm
(112) Cindy Aman says:

Vote “NO” on Proposition 102. VOTE “YES” on Proposition 100.

If I could afford to move out of Arizona I would. REpublican Puritan State. Oh, yea..vote Obama/Biden. See, I don’t belong here in this state.

October 13, 2008 at 12:55 am
(113) Lys says:

I just have one main comment that I find really disturbing. When searching for all aspects of prop 102 I went to the main website voting yes. There motto next a brady bunch smile, suburbia family was
“yes to prop 102, what’s love got to do with it?”

…..Really? So therefore love no longer matters. Love, the first and foremost component in any successful relationship, doesn’t have anything to with marriage…
Interesting.

October 13, 2008 at 2:49 am
(114) josh says:

I vote YES w/o hAtE

October 13, 2008 at 2:56 pm
(115) Paul says:

I have yet to hear/see a legitimate, reasonable argument that explains how same sex marriage benefits society as a whole.

It only benefits a small (4%) portion of the population and only in selfish ways. It does not benefit society.

October 13, 2008 at 5:01 pm
(116) jen67211 says:

what are the benefits of a traditional marriage? And what would be the harmful effects of a homosexual marriage? And just because it is “4%” of the population that would benefit from this, should we exclude this “4%” of AMERICANS from the RIGHT to get married just because it dose not conform to the traditional diffinition of marriage. Many “diffinitions” are changed over the progression of our country for the better, case in point segragation, Here was a group of people that were just a small percentage of AMERICANS that just wanted the same RIGHTS of other AMERICANS. We changed and became a nation of one, with no predjudice, let us come together once again and be a nation united, vote for what you think is RIGHT after all it is you’re RIGHT.

October 13, 2008 at 7:28 pm
(117) pedro says:

NO on Prop 102, for the SECOND TIME!

October 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm
(118) bryan says:

So if 2 brothers love each other and are committed and want to get married that is ok as long as they don’t get divorced. Or how about a brother and a sister as long as they love each other and never get divorced, according to opponents of prop 102 that is a higher standard that heterosexual marriage as long as they don’t get divorced. Proponents of gay marriage always use the the divorce statistics as their argument for gay marriage. That is ridiculous because if gay marriage had been legal for the last 50 years I bet their divorce rate would be the same or greater than heterosexual. Before about 50 years ago divorce was taboo and not common at all same as homosexuality. I cannot blame homosexuals for the way they think because they were brainwashed by a society lacking morals. Homosexuals we the people of Arizona do not hate you but we cannot allow what is wrong to be called right. Marriage must be consummated to be valid and only 2 people of the opposite sex are able to consummate a marriage. Homosexuals if you are unable to be heterosexual please call your marriage what it is “boundary less roommates”.

October 14, 2008 at 2:19 pm
(119) Paul says:

Ways that same sex marriage will negatively impact society.

http://familyleader.net/Home/servlet/viewArticle;jsessionid=95EF441FEEF9B8E3E19F920CFD3D33A3?contentId=2238&subsite=

I’m still waiting for a reasonable, legitimate argument for ways that same sex marriage will benefit society as a whole.

October 14, 2008 at 6:04 pm
(120) Mariah says:

Thomas (comment #18) says:
“Keep God out of government…”

I think it is absurd to say “Keep out of government” when it is because of God’s divine hand that this country (and it’s government) is as great as it is. How is it that so many people have forgotten that??!

October 14, 2008 at 11:36 pm
(121) Saleem says:

This issue here is that we have been forced to protect marriage from a small minority that is bent on altering the natural biology of the family unit.

This is not just a religious issue but also an issue of when GLBT rights and Religious Liberties Clash. See above link for several examples of how some (not all) are abusing their civil liberties to attempt to stomp out the very religious freedoms that make this country the envy of the world.

Edited to add: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

October 15, 2008 at 12:30 am
(122) mina says:

Banning same-sex marriage is going way too far. Marriage is completely a personal issue and people need to think about the issues that really matter!

October 15, 2008 at 2:44 am
(123) Crystal says:

As a person, one has the right to choose their partners, should they not also have the right to choose to legally be bound to that partner? In nature, several species choose to mate with the same sex, as the “superior” race should we not be able to accept this anomoly as well? Everyone should have equal opportunity to experience what they will.

October 15, 2008 at 2:52 am
(124) AZtraveler says:

Same sex “marriage” affects every family. Watch the following video to see how parental notification does not exist for the Parker family in Massachusetts. Even though the following video is about the California marriage amendment, it has the potential to affect Arizona families the same way.

It is a shame that the Jewish/Christian principles are being so trampled on and abused that the United States of America was founded on.

As a father of 2 young sons here in Arizona, I would sure want to be notified if their school wanted to introduce this subject to them.

I Will Vote Yes on 102

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815825713/bctid1819819843

David Parker says the following about a book that introduces 5 year olds to same sex “marriage”:

In an intolerant manor and in an aggressive manor they (the school their 5 year old son goes to) are putting forward that we as parents do not even have the right to know what they are saying to our children.

They would not allow parental notification or the option to opt out (of teaching about homosexual families). They are taking the parental role for themselves and have no tolerance for the notion that parents have the right to be the primary directors of the child’s upbringing and moral education.

The family went to their Jewdao (Jewish) / Christian beliefs and faith and said you wish to affirm homosexuality to our son you are presenting that which is sin as though it is not to our son and we cannot allow that. The school then reiterated that it is not a parental notification issue.

October 16, 2008 at 1:28 pm
(125) Luckynkl says:

Marriage was originally a religious ceremony that the government had no business getting involved in, in the first place, much less legalizing, being there is a separation of church and state.

The 1st amendment gives us the right to worship the religions of our choice. Your rights, however, end when they infringe on mine. You do not have the right to force your religious views down my throat. That’s why there is a separation of church and state and what the 1st amendment attempts to protect, we, the people from. From the religious zealots taking over the government and dictating their religious beliefs to us. Such is the case with homosexuality. An attempt is being made to make the laws of the state comply with the religious views of organized religion. And that is downright unconstitutional.

For those who would like to dictate to others who they can love and commit to and who they can’t, I suggest you take up sheep herding to satisfy those power and control issues of yours. If y’all spent half as much time minding your own business and cleaning up your own back yard instead of minding the business and yards of others, maybe your divorce rates wouldn’t be the highest in the land?

More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason in history. I’m tired of the excuses. The hatred, prejudice and discrimination has got to stop. Loving each other is a good thing, not a bad thing. Isn’t that the goal?

In the meanwhile, all I can say is, Dear Jesus, please protect me from your followers.

October 17, 2008 at 5:21 am
(126) Scott says:

I think it’s so sad how people keep creating propostions like this. It was just 50 years ago that a white person couldn’t marry a black person and many people thought that was okay. We are making a mistake now. This is the united states of america, I believe in freedom for all people not just some. I encourage all my friends to be open minded and be more considerate of peoples feeling and more understanding of things they may be going through. I just don’t understand you have your happy lives your marriage, your kids so why do you want to take the american dream away from other human beings. If you set a homophobic example for your children that could be a very bad thing, just remember anyone can have a gay kid and many do. It does not matter what race they are, where they live, or what religion they were brought up in. Vote no on proposion 102 we all deserve right we all deserve our shot at the american dream.

October 17, 2008 at 2:11 pm
(127) Joseph says:

I Will strongly VOTE NO Who cares if Homosexuals get married. Its not like it will make a differnece anyway. The american people rejected it before as we will do AGAIN. But i do respect all your “Opinions” thats what makes this country a beautiful place. Freedom. And furthermore Arizona seems to follow suit with California, and i have absolute faith that we will once again. Like i said “I do respect all of your opinions” but remember they are only that. “OPINIONS” Everyone is entitled to one. Although It can cause dissagreements we all have that right. Why should some get all the rights and others are condemned for being BORN the way they are. Again i say “born that way” when did we forget the Pledge of allegiance. And for that matter John 3:16 For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that WHOSOEVER should believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. It doesnt say “except for the homosexuals” Just remember that.

October 17, 2008 at 2:32 pm
(128) JenF says:

I am a caucasian, Catholic, happily married woman to a wonderful man, I have a son and a dog. Are these “traditional values”? Historically, it seems, that “traditional values” also brought us a felony conviction for inter-racial marriage until 1967, the Three-fifths rule that 5 African-american persons would be counted as 3 persons in the House and Electoral College, and despite the addition of the 15th ammendment in 1870 we needed to pass the National Voting Rights Act of 1965 to prevent continued descriminatory voting practices. Why don’t we let “traditional values” be just that…traditions not laws. Please keep government out of my marriage. This issue is a distraction from other critically important issues such as healthcare, corporate corruption and our military men and women. Those which if not dealt with will lead to the demise of our comfortable “traditional” lives.

October 17, 2008 at 7:06 pm
(129) Jamie Signo says:

I personally don’t care either way what the wording is for the union of individuals. If they want to pay to get married and pay to get divorced, then so be it. But if these adjustments to wording is going to cost tax payers money, then forget it. Whichever (yes or no) fits this category, then I’ll be voting for “stop wasting my time and money”.

October 17, 2008 at 7:25 pm
(130) AZtraveler says:

vince (comment #111 on October 12, 2008) says:

“My partner & I have been busy finishing up the legal and medical work to have our second (and possibly third!) child…”

Umm, “medical work to have our second child,” I do not understand?!?

The vast majority healthy heterosexual couples do not need any “medical work” to have a baby and bring life into this world. God made Adam and Eve to biologically be able to bring new human life into this world. Back then, there was no “medical work” required or even available; it was and still is natural, which is the way God made us.

Also vince says in the same comment:

“In response to legal and moral precedence for gay marriage, I suggest you look into international examples of both.”

This is the United States of America and an independent nation. I know there are some people in our legal system who think it is OK to bring in case law from other countries. I am STRONGLY opposed to that. This is America and we have our own laws and rules; we do not need to base our case law on what other countries are doing. I believe this is the best country on earth and I would like to keep it that way. The founding fathers of the United States of America left Europe to get away from that form of government and start a new country.

October 17, 2008 at 10:03 pm
(131) An Average Kevin says:

no. Cuz theres gonna be more and more divorce courts. how much physical and emotion do u need in a relationship anyway. Marriage is a religous thing also. im not religous. hell i dont care if i spelled that right. all im saying is you dont need anything to prove yourself more. Marriage is just a way to show off. trust me. when someone shows a better Karat ring. you pout. or shows off a better woman. you pout. who needs more stress in your life. You love each other. keep it that way. u get bored. you split. take care. instead of divorcing and money gets taken away from you… If this goes through. My friends will try and marry me when im drunk and black out and divorce me when i go with my girlfriend and he get all my money. i dont want that. but trust me. i bet that WILL happen to one of you!

October 17, 2008 at 10:04 pm
(132) Marko says:

“Gay Rights” advocates claim that by not changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples somehow violates homosexual’s right to marriage.

So who exactly is preventing them from getting married? If they want to get married they can — unless who they marry is outside the bounds accepted by society such as:
A sibling.
A parent.
An animal.
An inanimate object.
More than one person at a time.
Someone of the same sex.

Any of the above “unions” are not considered acceptable forms of marriage in our society.

I understand that homosexuals are not interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex. That’s fine, nobody is forcing you to do so. But to say your rights are violated because the definition of marriage doesn’t fit your lifestyle is wrong.

The argument is kind of like saying you want the title of Medical Doctor, however you’re not academically inclined, thus, preventing you from obtaining that title and all the rights, and privileges associated with it. Since you want to be recognized as a Dr and the law says you can’t your “rights” are violoated, right?

So why not change the definition of Medical Doctor to include anyone who want’s the title. Physicians should still have to pass medical boards to actually practice medicine but, hey, at least the rest of us can put M.D. at the end of our name. It won’t harm other MDs, right?

The fact is nobody’s rights are being violated.

Several years ago same-sex “marriage” started being recognized in the Netherlands. Years later studies showed that the number of people getting married decreased significantly. People just didn’t see the point of it so they just “shacked up” together because marriage had become kind of a mockery and lost its significance.

Families are the building blocks of society yet traditional families have been under attack by adultery, drugs, pornography, etc. If society actually does change the long held definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, it’s just another stab at the building block of society.

October 17, 2008 at 10:44 pm
(133) Mallory says:

There for

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Right from the Declaration of Independence.(http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm)

I’m pretty darn sure, that marriage should be put under the idea of pursuit of happiness.

In addition, I do not believe that raising kids to believe that in the event that children turn out to be gay/lesbian there is something wrong with them.

There for “Focus on Family Action (out of state, one of the funders for http://www.yesformarriage.com/)” would be putting children in what is classified as peer pressure. Which, I am pretty sure parents don’t want children to be put into (for drugs and etc.). Putting a kid from an early age into the idea that “this is wrong, this is right” can put them into a vulnerable state.

Though really, I’m only 11 (turning 12 on the 31st) what do I know?

October 18, 2008 at 12:00 am
(134) Jeff says:

Im voting no to it.

Because I think anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they want.

If you want to marry a tree, go right ahead.

Marriage is over rated anyways.

October 19, 2008 at 2:29 pm
(135) Jim S says:

I believe, as well as 99.9% of Arizona’s populace that everyone no matter what their sexual preference should have the same legal rights as any other committed (or married) couple.

The argument however for prop 102 is the definition of Marriage. Not bigotry or intolerance. The dictionary defines marriage as: “the state in which a man and woman are formally united for the purpose of living together (usually in order to procreate children) and with certain legal rights and obligations toward each other”.

The effort and energy used to argument prop 102 should be focused in creating a definition for same sex unions, like United Wedlock, (simple definition: “a united married state”) that gives the same legal rights and obligations as (for lack of a better word) traditional marriage.

Let the heterosexuals keep their “Marriage” definition. Create and work toward a definition that will allow all the honor, legal rights and obligations that go with a married state and are not prohibited in Arizona or any other state.

After all the State of Arizona law prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but it says nothing about a United Wedlock.

Use your energy and effort wisely.

October 20, 2008 at 2:18 am
(136) Bradly says:

I’m glad to read such well spoken debate on this issue.

I would like add perspective as I am voting ‘NO’ on this proposition. I am a very conservative Christian male. I was raised to honor the sanctity of marriage and to honor my vow’s. I have even cast an early ballot for McCain/Palin and I am a patriot. I am also an active masculine male who has served his country abroad.

I also know what it is like to be in love and to honor that emotion with fidelity and respect. I don’t understand an amendment that would deny others the opportunity to have that emotion between two committed people to be validated by legal paper. Love with relation to marriage can only be defined by those who experience it, not law. I believe that I can am entitled to this emotion and union whether or not my neighbors think I should be allowed to or not.

Understand that I am NOT aligned with any special group or organization that is militant for gay rights. Let me also be clear that I am NOT voting ‘no’ on this simply because I am a gay male with a wonderful husband and family. I as well am NOT voting ‘no’ because I feel slighted and angry towards the ‘religious right’ (or any other group for that matter). I am voting ‘NO’ because an amendment like this is completely unnecessary for the constitution of Arizona. Laws already exist and are in place to deny recognition of our family and our commitment; a similar amendment was already voted on 2 years ago; it is already illegal for my husband and I to be considered, ‘official’ in this state; and most important, amendments that do nothing more than single out specific subsets of my fellow citizens have no business being added to the charter of our state. I would never vote to deny multi-racial marriages, or any other amendment that would single out a subset of people I work with every day. Arizona voters may soon decide that I cannot be defined as married to the love of my life, or that my children are somehow not protected, or are in danger….but, I know who my husband is, and our children know who their fathers and mothers are. We are strong and faithful members of the community. If you knew us, you may have different opinions on this amendment.

As a doctor I see many different races, sexes, ages, and many interesting, or unique ‘types’ of people. I may not agree with some of their lifestyles, but I also cannot imagine voting for an amendment that would alienate them, or deny their right to a ‘title’ that is based on one of the greatest gifts of life, love.

The good news is that if my fellow citizens, whom I serve almost daily, do not want to afford me the right to something I cherish (that an overwhelming majority of individuals take for granted and mock by their various and illicit behaviors), my life will go on the same. Proposition 102 may pass, those who voted for it may think they have won some sort of moral battle. This sadly will not solve the chronic damage to the institution of marriage that has been long desecrated before the wicked gay people wanted to share in it. But with that said, our wonderful family (though awkward in the eye’s of the ‘yes’ voters) will continue in love, honor, and respect without the legal paper and recognition of the state. We recognize it, honor it, cherish it, and do not need anyone to approve of it.

October 20, 2008 at 3:08 am
(137) Miss Malice says:

You CANNOT stop gays and lesbians from loving each other, so, you might as well LET THEM GET MARRIED, you empty headed animal food trough WIPERS. I have 2 friends who have been in love for 7 years and are waiting for the day to get married, I want them to get married, so, EVERYONE JUST LET THEM. Don’t be a son of a silly person, gay marriages in Arizona are gonna happen one day, I promise.

October 20, 2008 at 5:18 am
(138) Jon says:

This proposition is nothing more than blatant discrimination and pandering to religious conservatives to get votes when election time comes. It is NOT the Government’s job to say who should be married. I normally vote Republican but I promise I will vote against every rep that supports this measure and have already encouraged my friends to do the same.

October 20, 2008 at 1:25 pm
(139) Morpheus says:

I am sure the sheeple of the state will approve this retarded amendment to the constitution. Just like they approved the 1.4 BILLION dollar light rail system that will do nothing to improve transportation in the phoenix area.

First of all marriage is a religious institution not a GOVERNMENTAL institution. According to the bill of rights, The Government has no ABILITY to infringe on someones religious rights. This is defined in the First amendment to the American constitution for all you homophobes out there. Here is the exact language for you to read: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…Therefor someones religious preference is to be married to a same sex partner how can the GOVERNMENT create a law to prevent it.

The job of the government is to protect the rights of individuals against the oppression of the Many. not for the many to oppress the rights of the few! Besides that why would heterosexuals want to deprive homosexuals of the joy and bliss that only comes with DIVORCE!!!

written by a 100% heterosexual man!

October 20, 2008 at 2:56 pm
(140) Satan says:

There’s no right or wrong any more. Right or wrong is what we make it. Let’s redefine right or wrong AND call right “wrong”, and wrong “right”. Why does stealing, robbing, killing, perversion and all sorts of traditional evils have to be considered evil? Why can’t it be good? Why can’t we live in a society where it’s everyone for them selves? Are we not individuals? Are we not our own Gods?

October 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm
(141) mtmmog says:

It looks like the opponents to Prop 102 are still running commercials spreading lies in order to befuddle the easily confused in our state. The main point of the commercial I saw last night said that Arizona voters had already voted against this same amendment. This is simply not true. Proposition 107, voted on in 2006, had added, besides a definition of marriage, a section denying any legal status to gay couples. The Arizona voters didn’t fall for the extra baggage attached to the amendment and voted against it by a narrow margin (of about 3 percent). Proposition 102 is not the same thing. It is similar to state constitution amendments already passed in 26 states. Even the Vote No on Prop 102 website misleads the public with this lie.
____
Why do the opponents feel it’s all right to spread lies about the amendment in their sponsored TV commercials in order to get their point across? Desperation is a poor taskmaster.

October 20, 2008 at 3:07 pm
(142) mtmmog says:

Add Friend
mtmmogOct-12 @ 7:54 PM Delete13
Marriage is not a private concern about a private union between individuals. The changing attitudes toward private life, living together, sexual relations, choosing your partner and so forth have no bearing on the public institution of marriage. Marriage is a government sanctioned contract that determines certain legal rights of the couple, but more importantly it determines the legal status and rights of the children that the marriage produces. The definition of marriage is important to protect the children that marriages produce. Gay marriages, by definition do not produce children and cannot qualify for the public institution.
____
Since marriage is a public institution established under public laws, private interpretations or evolved attitudes challenge the current legal position of marriage and necessitates establishing a constitutional amendment to retain the past and present definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

October 20, 2008 at 3:53 pm
(143) Lee UK says:

God for such a forward country, Arizona is so backward!! In 2008 everbody no matter what sexuality, religion, race, culture should all have the same rights!!
This is not a fair vote in any way at all. By voting should there not be a vote to accept that Gays/Lesbians have those same rights? Where is that question? Surely by giving people the choice that should lay it to rest once and for all. In this vote the Homophobics are just trying to make sure it is buried and never brought up again!! You make me want to vommit.

October 20, 2008 at 6:54 pm
(144) revtpk says:

I have to say that I am surprised at how much emotion is being unleashed. Honestly, I don’t have any idea about how I am going to vote on this. My feelings (as a “traditionally” married man) are:

1. Marriage is an “institution” with absolute religious origins. Yes, this country was founded by a religious group and based on a strong religious foundation. That is the reason why all of our laws seem to mention “marriage” (which is historically man and woman) when dishing out rights and restrictions.

2. It is unfortunate that this has become an issue about the right and wrong of people’s lifestyle choices. This issue has nothing to do with “LOVE”. There have been some associations with Catholic priests and their actions with the insinuation that these actions have some form of “LOVE” associated with them. They do not. These are pure perversions with no emotional attachment. (my opinion). On the other hand, same sex unions are based on emotional attractions. When will we as a society realize that there is a difference between SEX and LOVE. Having said that… this issue is about granting economic and civil rights to non-traditional relationships between two citizens of this country. It should not be a platform for moral or religious views.

3. I admit that I am not politically versed about the long term social and economical effects of expanding sanctioned relationships. It seems to me that this is just a way of sidestepping the requirement to remove the religious term “marriage” from the legal structure (separation of Church and State) and replace it with something more descriptive and less restrictive. Marriage could remain as an institution between one man and one woman as desired by the more religious based citizens, and a new term to describe the economic joining of two individuals could be used to ensure equal rights across the board.

4. Do yourselves a favor and stop bringing up the traditional divorce rate. You only have statistics on that because it has been in place for soooo long. If and when same sex unions are openly sanctioned as “marriage”, I guarantee that you will get some statistics on failed same sex relationships. Divorce is about two people that just don’t want to be together any more. The chance for official departure from any relationship is possible. The issue with divorces in comparison to other separations is purely legal due to the fact that “marriage” is a contract that has nothing to do with love. Same sex couples have been loving each other for a long time outside the institution of marriage. Giving them the right to get “married” only forces them to endure the same financial repercussions traditional divorcees have experienced for years.

Stop the hate and start to educate.

October 20, 2008 at 8:00 pm
(145) Satan says:

Legalize gay marriages so I can adopt children NOT related to me, so I can sodomize them in my own home… If a child is born out of artifical methods, then the other person who is not related to the child can privately commit incest. What a win win for the homosexuals.

Who can love a child better than the biological parent? The government and those not related to the child… woohoo!

October 20, 2008 at 8:06 pm
(146) Satan says:

Fatherlessness: The Root Cause
The link between crime and fatherlessness is astonishing.

By Dave Kopel, Independence Institute

Roger Clegg’s article detailing the continuing rise in illegitimacy rates is terrible news not just for the children themselves, but for every potential crime victim in America. For all the talk about the complexities of the “root causes” of crime, there is one root cause which overwhelms all the rest: fatherlessness.

As Pat Moynihan wrote in 1965: “From the wild Irish slums of the nineteenth-century Eastern seaboard to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring a stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos… [In such a society] crime, violence, unrest, unrestrained lashing out the whole social structure — these are not only to be expected, they are virtually inevitable.”

A Detroit study found that about 70 percent of juvenile homicide perpetrators did not live with both parents. Another study found that of girls committed to the California Youth Authority (for serious delinquents), 93 percent came from non-intact homes. Nationally, seventy percent of youths incarcerated in state reform institutions come from single-parent or no-parent homes. A survey of juvenile delinquents in state custody in Wisconsin found that fewer than 1/6 came from intact families; over two-fifths were illegitimate.

Said one counselor at a juvenile detention facility in California: “You find a gang member who comes from a complete nuclear family, a kid who has never been exposed [to] any kind of abuse, I’d like to meet him… a real gangbanger who comes from a happy, balanced home, who’s got a good opinion himself. I don’t think that kid exists.”

Young black males from single-parent families are twice as likely to engage in crime as young black males from two-parent families. If the single-parent family is in a neighborhood with a large number of other single-parent families, the odds of the young man becoming involved in crime are tripled. These findings are based on a study conducted for the Department of Health and Human Services by M. Anne Hill and June O’Neill of Baruch College. The study held constant all socioeconomic variables (such as income, parental education, or urban setting) other than single parenthood.

Crime has often been thought to be a problem of race or poverty, since poor people and racial minorities comprise a larger portion of the violent criminal population than of the population as a whole. But in fact, the causal link between fatherlessness and crime “is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime,” as Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her famous “Dan Quayle was Right” article.

William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, observes that most variables that are said to determine the crime rate have not changed since 1960. Male unemployment, the poverty rate, and the percentage of church members has stayed approximately the same. Urbanization has increased slightly but hardly enough to explain crime search. Since 1960, real personal income per capita doubled, and so has the number of police per capita. “The one condition that has changed substantially,” Niskanen writes, “is the percentage of births [to] single mothers, increasing to 5 percent in 1960 [and] to 28 percent in 1991.” (And, as Clegg explains, to an even higher rate in 1999.)

There is another association between illegitimacy and crime: unwed fathers are more likely to commit crimes than are married fathers. If you see two young men walking towards you on a lonely, dark street, you may start to worry. But if one of the men is holding the hand of a small child, your worries vanish. Marriage and mating really do civilize men, but mere sex and reproduction do not.

Although misguided welfare policies helped spur the rise in illegitimacy, the continued growth in illegitimacy, notwithstanding welfare reform in 1996, suggests a widespread breakdown in social mores, extending far beyond the ranks of welfare recipients. How to fix that problem is the most important question for persons who care about crime control in the long run. Compared to the disaster of illegitimacy, almost everything else on today’s “anti-crime” agenda is a trivial distraction.

Speaking at the 1999 NRA Convention in Denver, the late Vikki Buckley (Colorado’s Secretary of State) brought the crowd to its feet when she explained: “Those who would run the NRA out of town need to look at our own children who are engaging in irresponsible sex and having children they cannot take care of. Such irresponsible sex is a new age hate crime — raise as much heck about that as you do the NRA and you will save more lives in 5 years than are taken with guns in a century.”

Citations for the material in this article can be found in Kopel’s book Guns: Who Should Have Them? (Prometheus Books, 1995).

October 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm
(147) Satan says:

Satan’s solution? Let’s destroy traditional family some more; so we can have more children grow up without real parents or grow up in broken homes so that we can have more crimes.

It’s the perfect recipe for a liberal, socio malnurished, has been country.

October 21, 2008 at 9:39 am
(148) Adam says:

Satan, you sound like someone who is hiding a deep dark secret. That is normally the case when someone spouts out hatred. My guess is that you were an altar boy and something happened.

October 21, 2008 at 12:51 pm
(149) John Paul II says:

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS

TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION

TO UNIONS

BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA

VATICAN CITY 2003

INTRODUCTION

1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.1 Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted — or intend to grant — legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.2 Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE

AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS

2. The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.3 No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator’s plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level — the personal level — where nature and spirit are united.

Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.4

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.5 This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries6 and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.7 They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.8 The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”9 and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.10

II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM

OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL

RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,11 but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.12 Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.13 Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.14 Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

From the biological and anthropological order

7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,15 does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.16 The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.

From the legal order

9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.

Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law — like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy — to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.17

IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS

WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR

OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS

10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.18 This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger

Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.

Titular Archbishop of Sila

Secretary

——————————————————————————–

NOTES

1Cf. John Paul II, Angelus Messages of February 20, 1994, and of June 19, 1994; Address to the Plenary Meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Family (March 24, 1999); Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 2357-2359, 2396; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8; Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986); Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons (July 24, 1992); Pontifical Council for the Family, Letter to the Presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences of Europe on the resolution of the European Parliament regarding homosexual couples (March 25, 1994); Family, marriage and “de facto” unions (July 26, 2000), 23.

2Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), 4.

3Cf. Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 48.

4Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2357.

5Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana (December 29, 1975), 8.

6Cf., for example, St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians, 34.

7Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 10.

8Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2359; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (October 1, 1986), 12.

9Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358.

10Ibid., No. 2396.

11Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 71.

12Cf. ibid., 72.

13Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.

14John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 90.

15Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum vitae (February 22, 1987), II. A. 1-3.

16Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 63, a.1, c.

17It should not be forgotten that there is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).

18John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae (March 25, 1995), 73.

Taken from:

L’Osservatore Romano

Weekly Edition in English

6 August 2003, page 2

October 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm
(150) mtmmog says:

In California, the attorney general Jerry Brown, unilaterally renamed the proposition as it appears on California ballots. It had been listed as “Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Brown, a liberal Democrat, changed the proposition’s wording to: “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The Arizona Republic has done the same to Arizona’s Proposition 102, renaming it the “Gay Marriage Ban.”
____
What we have here in California and Arizona is truly manipulative. Four California justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create. This isn’t democracy, this is despotism.
____
Vote for Proposition 102 and let the despots know that the people rule, not judges, not the attorney general of California, not the Arizona Republic.

October 21, 2008 at 3:39 pm
(151) Prop 102 Language says:

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constituion to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but would not amend the Arizona Constituion to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

That said, the amendment protects marriage from groups wanting to force their agendas on traditional family. Agendas such as requiring a state holiday to monumentalize homosexuality and to force childred to celebrate the holiday or to force every public citizen to honor homosexuality as a valid lifestyle or be fined or be imprisoned:

http://www.topix.com/who/arnold-schwarzenegger/2008/10/gov-schwarzenegger-vetoes-bill-honoring-slain-gay-politician-harvey-milk

http://churchofchristblog.com

October 21, 2008 at 5:22 pm
(152) Sheri says:

Kiel, Your comment is perfectly stated.

October 21, 2008 at 5:33 pm
(153) Sheri says:

Bryan, You referenced a couple you know who are homosexuals, etc. In this same long response, you referenced people who are taught hatred. Boy, was that a mouth full! That’s exactly what Rev. Wright was doing in his church; spreading hatred and he was Obama’s pastor and friend. How sick is that?

October 21, 2008 at 5:43 pm
(154) Sheri says:

To John Paul II: I am a born again believer, but will comment on this long epistle from John anyway. The bottom line is that homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible; plain and simple. God created Adam and Eve for a union, not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve. While homosexual acts are a sin, we are called to love the sinner; and the same goes for any other sin.

October 21, 2008 at 6:28 pm
(155) Assault on Family says:

I don’t see homosexual groups standing up for the rights of individuals who’s rights were violated when they were fined, forced to comply or criminalized for their beliefs. Isn’t it funny that these groups say their rights are being violated, when they could care less about the rights of groups not in support of their beliefs?

If they care so much about rights, why don’t they care about the rights of families? Rather they want to force their beliefs on everyone!

If the amendment doesn’t pass, the state will define homophobia as an offense against the state. Pro-homosexuals lie to the public when they say they just want to preserve their rights to exist and practice their lifestyles. It is a lie because schools will be forced to teach their lifestyle – and if a parent opposes their decision, then the parent will be labeled a homophobe and an “abuser.” There will come a time when a parent’s rights will be trumped by the state for practicing their beliefs in their homes. In other words, if I say to my child homosexuality is wrong, I can get punished by the state.

A marriage amendment protects families from homosexual groups wishing to assault the general public with their personal agendas and beliefs.

October 21, 2008 at 11:28 pm
(156) Jeremy says:

I think it’s bullshit that there are only two options to choose from. I will VOTE NO on this prop and who gives you the right to determin that marrrage is between one man and one women when the government should stay out of the lifes of the voters and deal with real prob like the economy for instance

October 22, 2008 at 1:37 am
(157) Timothy J. Dailey says:

Ten Facts About Counterfeit Marriage

1. Homosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution

Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

2. Homosexual marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior.

Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of “love” and “mutual commitment,” it is impossible to exclude virtually any “relationship” between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that gay marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could “marry” would have been greeted with scorn. The movement to redefine marriage has already found full expression in what is variously called “polyfidelity” or “polyamory,” which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations among various groups of individuals.

3. Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue

Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all

citizens–including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.

4. Upholding traditional marriage is not “discrimination”

Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally regarding the point in question. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airplane. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to “discrimination” because they are denied the opportunity to fly an airplane. Similarly, the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of human history, as expressed in virtually all cultures, has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexual activists conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Although not strictly comparable, radically altering the definition of marriage can also pose dangers to society in much the same way as permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.

5. Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony

Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such “moral objection” to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.

6. Homosexual marriage would subject children to unstable home environments

Many homosexuals and their sex partners may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in redefining marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children.

· Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged “societal oppression.” A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

· Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.

7. Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage

Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more “inclusive,” but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and … transforming the very fabric of society.” Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of “a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often … and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.”

8. If victorious, the homosexual agenda will lead to the persecution of those who object on moral or religious grounds

If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, then children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is a normative lifestyle, and that gay households are just another “variant” style of family. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Unbelievable? This Orwellian situation has occurred in Massachusetts , which legalized homosexual marriage in 2004. In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual “families” in his kindergarten class.

At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for “trespassing,” handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. In 2007, Parker’s lawsuit against the Lexington school officials was dismissed by a federal judge who refused to uphold his civil rights and to enforce the Massachusetts parental notification statute. Parker’s shocking story will become commonplace in a society that forces the acceptance of homosexual marriage as normative.

9. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans reject same-sex marriage

Public opinion remains firmly opposed to the redefinition of marriage. A May 2008 Gallup Poll asked the question: “Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid?” Respondents opposed homosexual marriage by a margin of 56 percent (opposed) to 40 percent (agreeing). Respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll in October 2007 rejected same-sex marriage by the same margins.

10. Support for traditional marriage translates into ballot initiatives and laws around the country

Because of strong public support for traditional marriage, same-sex marriage advocates have attempted to circumvent public opinion by redefining marriage through the courts. Despite some victories, such as in Massachusetts and California where the courts have mandated same-sex marriage, there is a strong national movement to protect traditional marriage. A total of 45 states have instituted protections for traditional marriage either through state constitutional amendments or through laws:

* 26 states prohibit same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
* 19 states currently prohibit same-sex marriage through statute only.

In addition, in 2008-9 several more states will be considering ballot initiatives to protect traditional marriage, including Florida and California . Others, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania , will be voting to institute laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Timothy J. Dailey is Senior Fellow for Policy at Family Research Council

http://www.frc.org/content/ten-facts-about-same-sex-marriage

October 22, 2008 at 12:23 pm
(158) Tara says:

I don’t understand why anyone would vote yes. Why would you only recognize marriage between a man and woman? Because the bible says it’s wrong? Think for yourself. And yes, it is a waste of tax money.

October 22, 2008 at 3:39 pm
(159) Death and Destruction says:

Why would any one want someone else to suffer or to not reach their full potential? It’s common sense that we should help one another. When you agree to legitimize homosexuality you are basically condemning an individual to suffer a life of misery and not reach their full potential. Here’s a summary from a reputable article. Remember, anyone can counter this argument with their own studies but the question you should ask is what proof do you have and does your stance really support the common good? If not, then their stance is based on selfishness and self-centredness.

Executive Summary

Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are:

Levels of Promiscuity

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.

Physical Health
Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.

Mental Health
It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.

Life Span
The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.

Monogamy
Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.

Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable.

READ MORE HERE:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

October 22, 2008 at 3:40 pm
(160) Lou says:

Someday we will hopefully look back on this initiative and look at it with disdain, like we look at Jim Crowe laws and Segregation. Imagine if it were not legal for blond-haired and brown-haired people to marry. Anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a choice shouldn’t be able to vote because they are not capable of rational thought, so basically we are penalizing a group because of how they are born…just like slavery, just like the holocaust, and just like Japanese internment camps. Lets all take a big step into the 21st century and vote no on Prop 102!

October 22, 2008 at 7:38 pm
(161) Homos and Man Boy Love says:

Notice the same arguments homosexuals use to legitimize homosexuality are the same arguments used by North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

From their website:

Who we are
As never before, our society is beginning to recognize the value and richness of human diversity. The manifold nature of our humanity appears in the emotional, spiritual, and physical attractions between people. Attractions between men and boys can be found in every society, crossing lines of race, age, temperament and occupation. They form a sure basis for mentoring and friendship traditions the world over. Man/boy love is exceptional only for the degree to which it is still misunderstood in cultures derived from Northwestern Europe. Most man/boy relationships are based on mutual respect and affection, and strongly desired by both partners. Such relationships do not harm anyone, and often entail many benefits for both man and boy. Boy-lovers and boys alike respond to the needs of those they love — needs for affection, understanding, and freedom.

Who we are is perhaps best understood from Dr. John Money’s account of two boys, who speak about how they view their adult lovers: Andy – “Just as normal as anybody else. He is like a second father to me.” Burt – “He’s neat; and he’s nice, and gives me more respect than anyone ever has … he treats me like an adult, not like my parents treat me. To me, he’s my best friend.”

http://nambla.org/

October 23, 2008 at 12:10 am
(162) Fabian says:

If we think of the constitution as the supreme law of the land, then we should let everyone enjoy the same rights. I believe that marriage shouldn’t be limited to a man and a woman, please keep religion out of politics. One can’t help but wonder if states should have the rights to even have a say on decisions like this. The federal government should be followed, if we let the states to run their own governments then minorities will suffer.

October 23, 2008 at 12:16 am
(163) Fabian says:

Jacob’s comment is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard.

“If we let gays marry then people can marry animals, we have to open the doors for everyone”

I don’t know what the hell is wrong with you, but as a counter argument: As far as I know animals can’t talk, and to get married both sides have to agree. Maybe you can get one of those devices that translates animal sounds into comprehensive english.

what a retard

October 23, 2008 at 1:40 am
(164) Tara says:

No wonder your name is death and destruction. And considering that, you obviously don’t give a fuck about who gets STDs. And really, you shouldn’t. What business is it of yours if someone is homosexual? If you don’t want to be, then don’t. It’s as simple as that. You should respect other people’s decisions. You know, sleeping around also increases your chances of getting STDs. Supporting the common good would include acceptance. You’re condemning people for something they can’t help and it’s not fair. I just don’t understand what benefit you get out of this. And what do you mean about not fulfilling their full potential? I don’t see the correlation.

October 23, 2008 at 1:47 am
(165) Tara says:

You think that God’s “divine hand” created this country? Get real. We should keep God out of government. This isn’t a theocracy, you know. People should not vote based on religion. Period.

October 23, 2008 at 1:59 am
(166) Prophet says:

If you’re not going to use religion as your moral compass, then what will you use as your moral guide when it comes to social justice? Mob rule (morality based on might makes right)?

I’d like to know what will guide your actions? Is it safe to assume that you will raise the Bill of Rights as your idol?

October 23, 2008 at 10:04 am
(167) John says:

It’s funny that people say we should not change marriage for a group of people so that everyone has the same rights. Marriage has changed over time in many ways already, it predates Christianity, and in the beginning a man could have multiple wives. Why don’t we just go back to the original views on marriage?

Prop 102 is just another way to put discrimination into the states constitution, a place where discrimination does not belong. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so why are we trying to regulate marriage in this manner? I guess we forget that all the people that we are now trying to discriminate against pay taxes just like everyone else, and should be entitled to the same rights and privileges everyone else has, including those of marriage.

October 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm
(168) Polygymy says:

John, you must be coming from a backwards mindset and selfishness. Don’t you know that fatherlessness has a direct correlation to crime? In fact 70% of homocide perpetrators grew up with no or absent fathers. 90% of incarcerated females grew up with an absent father. And if you asked gangmembers in the streets of LA or any gangmember for that matter, you see a common thread. That is lack of a father in their lives. In fact, the reason they want to join gangs IS to want to belong to a family. All you hypocrites and backwards people supporting the disintegration of traditional family lack the understanding of the consequences of you actions.

60% of the population can’t even keep a single marriage, what makes you think getting married to more is any better?

October 23, 2008 at 12:52 pm
(169) AZTraveler says:

From June 2008:

There’s a case in Virginia that is an example of why California judges should’ve put their decision on homosexual marriage on hold until after the vote in November. The case involves a woman who traveled to Vermont to create a civil union with another woman. During their time together Lisa Miller had a baby. They have since dissolved their union. Now, the two are fighting over custody of the child. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled late last week, they can’t hear the case because they don’t recognize the two women were ever a couple legally. So, if same sex couples are able to get married in California, it seems there will be a lot of other issues to address. This case shows how children can get hurt in the process.

Voting Yes on 102

October 23, 2008 at 4:20 pm
(170) Tara says:

No wonder your name is Death and Destruction. And, given that, you obviously don’t care about people’s best interest, so why are you pretending to? What business is it of yours whether or not people have a greater risk of STDs. You know, sleeping around also increases your chances of getting STDs. You are condemning people for something they can’t help and it’s not fair. What’s self-centered is you telling people who they can and can’t be intimate with and telling them they’re wrong for it. What did you mean about filling their full potential? I don’t see the correlation.

October 24, 2008 at 2:29 am
(171) Jennifer Mesko says:

Judicial Attacks on Marriage Continue

by Jennifer Mesko, editor

‘Americans are tired of being told by judges they know what’s best for them.’

First it was the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ushered same-sex “marriage” into the U.S. in 2003. Then, California’s Supreme Court decided it, too, could ignore state law and mandate gay “marriage.”

On Friday, the Connecticut Supreme Court followed suit, striking down the state marriage law in a 4-3 decision.

“This decision demonstrates the dire need for states to enact constitutional amendments to protect marriage from ongoing judicial attack,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

In November, three states — California, Arizona and Florida — will have the opportunity to protect the definition of marriage.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Americans are tired of activist judges.

“Four arrogant justices not only redefined marriage in Connecticut but reversed the will of the people,” he said. “Americans are tired of being told by judges they know what’s best for them.

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ now exists in three states comprising more than 46 million citizens, and only 12 of those citizens — four justices in each state — had a voice in the decision.”

Hausknecht said voters in California, Arizona and Florida have a chance to “send a strong message that those states still have governments ‘of the people’ rather than governments ‘of the judges.’ ”

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008431.cfm

Even more reason that I will be voting Yes on 102 this November.

October 24, 2008 at 12:41 pm
(172) Veronica says:

I AGREE WITH ~SUPPORT LOVE~!!!!!! What is everyone’s problem? Even if you are not of the gay community; I, myself, am not; you can let others do what they wish. Why should they not have a chance to share their love together in the most amazing way like everyone else!?! Let people live how they wish! What happened to EQUALITY!?! Marriage should be between “LOVERS” not a man and a woman…do you love your husband or wife? Well being married doesnt acknowledge that yet!!

October 24, 2008 at 2:33 pm
(173) Brotherly Love says:

My brother and I will be voting no on 102 in hopes that someday this intolerant state will accept our homosexual relationship and give us the same rights as breeders!

October 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm
(174) Logic says:

Age of consent is important in this discussion. Because what it all boils down to is this. A homosexual’s primary premise is:

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE:
All people consenting to marriage or sex are legal.

Homosexuals consenting to marriage or sex are people.

Therefore, homosexuals consenting to marriage or sex is legal

PEDOPHILE PREMISE:
All people consenting to marriage or sex are legal.

Pedophiles and children consenting to marriage or sex are people.

Therefore, Pedophiles and children consenting to marriage or sex is legal

CONCLUSION:
There is an obvious fallacy with a homosexual’s argument in “All people consenting to marriage or sex are legal.”

Why because every country in the world has their own idea of “age of consent.” As stated in my earlier examples, many countries have much lower age of consent laws (ie. Japan 13yo and Mexico 13 yo.)

Perhaps you will argue we all live in the US. Then you would fall in another fallacy based on ethnocentricism – where a culture thinks their culture is more superior than other cultures.

In conclusion, a YES vote for prop 8 is a vote for logical reasoning.

October 26, 2008 at 9:26 pm
(175) Pastor Frank says:

People who are going to vote “NO” on prop 102 just dont get it. I have been heavily involved in making sure we get this passed as a way to get back the good ole days and God’s will.
And just think, we are already in the planning stages of a couple more props. If you ever read your bible, youd see that in the old testament not only were gays to be killed, but that people who married outside there race or that had sexual relations with people outside of there tribe were also to be put to death.

So watch out all you catholics married to jews, and Mormons married to protestants. We will be coming after you next. We just cant allow you to live in sin anymore. Its for your own good.

And of course the interacial marriage thing is a given. So Say yes to marriage for us bible thumping straights. We are just looking after your everlasting souls.

October 26, 2008 at 10:32 pm
(176) John says:

The Parker family in Massachusetts could be your family in AZ. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

October 27, 2008 at 2:36 am
(177) Tara says:

Oh, please. Worry about your own “sins.” This is so stupid.

October 27, 2008 at 12:52 pm
(178) The Declaration of Independence says:

This is a reminder for all the un-American liberal, moral relativists who wish to remove God from government.

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

October 27, 2008 at 12:55 pm
(179) Logic and Reason says:

Age of consent is important in this discussion. Because what it all boils down to is this. A homosexual’s primary premise is:

HOMOSEXUAL PREMISE:
All people consenting to marriage or sex are legal.
Homosexuals consenting to marriage or sex are people.
Therefore, homosexuals consenting to marriage or sex is legal

PEDOPHILE PREMISE:
All people consenting to marriage or sex are legal.
Pedophiles and children consenting to marriage or sex are people.
Therefore, Pedophiles and children consenting to marriage or sex is legal

CONCLUSION:
There is an obvious fallacy with a homosexual’s argument in “All people consenting to marriage or sex are legal.”

Why because every country in the world has their own idea of “age of consent.” As stated in my earlier examples, many countries have much lower age of consent laws (ie. Japan 13yo and Mexico 13 yo.)

Perhaps you will argue we all live in the US. Then you would fall in another fallacy based on ethnocentricism – where a culture thinks their culture is more superior than other cultures.

In conclusion, a YES vote for prop 8 is a vote for common sense and truth.

October 27, 2008 at 6:41 pm
(180) Adam says:

I will be voting NO on this prop. I think that any two people that love each other should have the ability to be married no matter what sex they are. I am not a homosexual I just know that it is wrong to tell two people that they cannot express their love the way they wish.

It is overall good because married gays obviously cannot have their own children so won’t they end up adopting children? I think it would be wonderful to get more children out of orphanages and into a loving home.

The people that are against gay marriage are mostly religious people. But don’t we have a freedom of religion here in America? If a person chooses they can believe everything in the Bible except that gay marriage is bad.

October 27, 2008 at 6:54 pm
(181) Pedo says:

How sure are you that adopted children will be safe and loved?

33% of all molestations are incurred by homosexuals (man-boy love). That’s a statistical fact! What lifestyle are you trying to condone and protect? Molestation and pedophilia? Do you think that’s a safe family environment?

For a population that is roughly 3-5%, homos sure make up a large amount of pedophilia crimes in the US! That’s not a statement, that’s a statistical fact!

October 27, 2008 at 7:22 pm
(182) Jesus says:

I am Jesus and I say let same sex couples marry. This is my final word on this subject.

October 27, 2008 at 7:56 pm
(183) Joe says:

We cannot allow this amendment to pass. It would be writing discrimination into the constitution, which, in its own way, should be illegal. I do not know the full process of how these items are allowed to get on the ballot without going through some type of approval process by a non-partisan committee, but this is ridiculous. On that note, there needs to be a non-partisan committee that approves or rejects all campaign ads, both national and local, so that only the truth is told. I will be getting into politics in a few years, and just watch how our entire world will change for the better once I am in office. Thanks for reading and take care.

October 27, 2008 at 8:30 pm
(184) Anti-Pedophilia says:

You must have not read the statistical facts or calculated the propensity of homosexuals to pedophile occurences. Had you, you would have determined that homosexuals are more likely to molest children.

How is it that 30% of all molestations are being perpetrated by a slim 3-5% of the population. This is a disparing and alarming number. Anyone who would support your beliefs would not be in favor of love, but rather perverted love. I’ll be the first to say I feel sorry for the boy who grows up in a homosexual household. Statistics and crime rates hold these things are facts. Anyone who knowingly puts at risk children into a home with horrific statistics… is a grave injustice.

This amendment protects not just traditional marriages, but children from abuse and injustice.

October 27, 2008 at 11:43 pm
(185) JD says:

A challenge for all the people who object on religious grounds – dust off your bible and take a look at the words in red. Count up how many times Jesus refers to gay/homosexual/lesbian, etc. – now count up how many times he refers to adultery and divorce.

Gosh- could it possibly be that the gay issue has been trumped up to get religious people to come out and vote for Republicans?, that a political party with the motto of pull yourself up by your bootstraps wanted to combine with people whose religion says what ye do unto the least of these ye do unto me (Jesus) – in order to form a majority and win elections then tax those people and give the money to the corporations that contribute to their campaign ???

hmmm – nah sounds crazy.

October 27, 2008 at 11:49 pm
(186) JD says:

“Anti-Pedophilia says” hi I’m a bigot who pulls statistics out of my butt.

And, I think if we pass this amendment we will reduce the number of homosexuals.

der da der (here’s your sign)

October 28, 2008 at 12:03 am
(187) JD says:

I assume all of the people for the sanctity of marriage will vote for Obama – the Christian who has been married to one woman instead of McCain who divorced his first wife Carol, the mother of his 3 kids, who waited for him to get back from Vietnam. First fooling around with other women then marrying Cindy.

Sanctity all over the place

October 28, 2008 at 12:58 am
(188) Jeff says:

Not only does everyone that thinks this prop should pass stink of complete ignorance, but this is a complete waste of time and money. Voting no does not allow gay marriage, BECAUSE ITS ALREADY ILLEGAL!!! Holy crap, what a colossal waste of time to make something that’s illegal, more illegal! Leave it alone! Keep your stupid religious beliefs out of out government. For you bible pushers, this is about your ignorant brainwashed minds trying to keep something away that scares you. For everyone else, its about getting everyone closer to having the same rights. If gay people didn’t pay taxes…fine. But they do, so they should have the same rights as every other taxpayer. People that hate the fact that gays can get married are no different than racists that that would like nothing more to take away rights from blacks or any other ethnicity. Mind you own business, and quit putting your stupid signs all over the friggin place because the more signs I see, the more ashamed I am to live among the people I do. If you ask me, religion should be outlawed just for the way it makes you think about other people….maybe we should get that on the next ballot.

October 28, 2008 at 1:31 am
(189) az_bill says:

fyi for any of the true conservatives out there…
letting gays get married (besides being smaller govt) will probably also lower taxes. Most govt handouts like food stamps and medicare would use the household income instead of what each individual made to determine how much welfare to dole out.

who cares whos screwing who – with big govt we all get screwed!

You wanna stop gay sex – let em get married :)

October 28, 2008 at 1:34 am
(190) JD says:

Don’t be the people in the videos you see trying to keep black girls from going to school. Any time you fight against someone fighting for fairness, you will lose in the end. Don’t be on the wrong side of history.

be straight – not narrow

October 28, 2008 at 3:12 am
(191) andyet says:

Why are people so afraid of gay marriage? What are the “family values” they hold so sacred and want to impose on others? I guess they’re not tolerance, or dignity, freedom, or respect.
But fear, disdain, and denying others the possibility of being happy are very prevalent values in these people.
Pedo–doesn’t that then mean that 66% of molestations come from Heteros? We should ban heterosexual marriage then!

October 28, 2008 at 1:02 pm
(192) Pedo says:

To legalize gay marriages will be a license to molest children. Period!

As stated, homosexuals are more liketo molest children than heterosexuals. How is it that 3% of the population is responsible for 30% of all child molestations?

And to think we want to give them licenses to adopt children!

October 28, 2008 at 2:46 pm
(193) Anti-Pedo says:

There are links between pedophilia and homosexuality. The political scientist Prof. Mirkin wrote in a paper that:’pedophile organizations were originally a part of the gay/lesbian coalition…’(Mirkin H. The pattern of sexual politics: feminism, homosexuality and pedophilia. Journal of Homosexuality 1999; 37: 1-24.). There is an overlap between the ‘gay movement’ and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable through organisations such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), as admitted by David Thorstad, Co-founder of NAMBLA writing in the Journal of Homosexuality.(Thorstad D. Man/boy love and the American gay movement. Journal of Homosexuality. 1990; 20 : 251-74)

The number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%.(Statistics Canada found only 1% of the population who described themselves as homosexual.) However, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.(Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.) Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.

If you don’t trust that resource, call your neighborhood justice court and ask them where you can find that info. Statistics won’t lie.

VOTE YES FOR PROP 102.
STAND FOR FAMILY.
DON’T STAND FOR AGGRESSION AND DECEPTION.

October 28, 2008 at 6:38 pm
(194) Khelil says:

I believe that people should be able to marry who they want to, weather its a man and a man or a man and a woman. personally im not homosexual, but if being homosexual or having a gay marriage makes the people happy than so be it. Why should people stand in the way of making others unhappy? It is simply unfair.

October 28, 2008 at 8:54 pm
(195) Brad says:

The mormons are bigtime supporters of 102. The oppressed have finally become the oppressors – very funny. Now really, would Jesus use the force of law to push his will on anyone? Show me one instance of him forcing his will on other people. Just one, and I’ll vote YES on 102.

October 29, 2008 at 1:57 am
(196) Brian B says:

The following is from the website crosswalk.com:

Traditional Marriage: In the Image of God
Mathew D. Staver
Liberty Counsel

To place in context the debate over same-sex unions, consider the story of creation. Contemplate for a moment the wonders of the created world. Standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon, the sight is surreal. Between one edge and the other side snakes a jagged scar in the depths of the earth a mile wide. The breadth of the landscape as you survey the horizon is too large to comprehend. The majesty of the Grand Canyon is awesome.

In a completely different environment, at forty feet under crystal blue water off the coast of Grand Cayman, are the most brilliantly colored coral painted in red, yellow, blue, and green. Surrounding this magnificent structure are thousands of fish. Some are yellow. Others are shiny as they speed through the water. Other fish are multicolored and spotted with black, yellow, or blue. Some are completely red. A moray eel slithers into the coral with its bright green skin. At one hundred feet under, literally on the edge of a tectonic plate, you stare downward into a black abyss.

Whether gazing at the Swiss Alps with their towering mountains, a field of drooping trees covered with freshly fallen snow, a magnificent sunrise on the east coast or a breathtaking sunset on the west, the stars on a clear night, multicolored birds or the animals in the plain, there is only one creation bestowed with God’s highest appellation, that of being created in the image of God — the creation of man and woman.

The creation story tells it this way: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them” (Gen 1:26-27).

The Hebrew word used for “man” in Genesis 1:26 is the generic noun adham or Adam, which means “mankind.” Genesis 1:27 states that God created “mankind” in his own image as “male” and “female.”

Creating man and woman was God’s crowning act of creation. Elevating the union of man and woman above every other created thing in the universe, God declared man and woman to be made in his own image. Nothing else in creation reflects the image of God except man and woman, and nothing is more central to the created order than the union of one man and one woman.

There is something fundamentally important about man and woman in God’s creation. An image is a counterpart or a model. While an image may connote physical resemblance, an image may also connote characteristics. A son who is the image of his father may reflect characteristics of his father other than physical resemblance. Stating that someone is the image of good health refers to more than just physical characteristics; it refers to a state of being.2 The model or image of God is unique and only found in the creation of, and the relationship between, a man and a woman. The creation story continues with the declaration that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24).

Jesus spoke of the relationship of husband and wife when he declared to the Pharisees: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” (Matt. 19:4-5).

The apostle Paul, in the book of Ephesians, also talks about the union of husband and wife as one. “‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Eph. 5:31).

Homosexuality is out of sync with God’s creation, and it is contrary to the natural order. A homosexual relationship is exactly the opposite of what God ordained. Take anything that was created or designed to operate one way and reverse the sequence of operation, and the inevitable result is destruction. Same-sex unions strike at the very image of God and the natural order.

One doesn’t need to believe in the Bible or subscribe to Judeo-Christian theology to conclude that human sexuality is like radioactive material, that it has the potential to produce as much as good as it can be destructive, and that sex between a man and a woman is self-evident in the natural order. Whether you believe in a Creator God or a humanistic evolutionary model, the fact remains that human sexuality is best suited to occur between a man and a woman. To ignore this obvious fact is nonsensical. To sanction the opposite through same-sex marriage is cultural suicide.

http://www.crosswalk.com/marriage/1290017/

I will be voting yes on 102 this coming Tuesday.

October 29, 2008 at 2:40 am
(197) Ley says:

I will be voting NO. If you want to protect marriage pass legislation that requires premarital counseling. All this does is “define” marriage for all, according to what some believe. For those of you in favor, remember that this does nothing. The supreme court can (and I can GUARANTEE one day WILL) rule that U.S. citizens deserve marriage equality regardless of gender, and this “definition” will be rendered a waste. Did you know that abortion is ILLEGAL in Arizona according to AZ laws, but because of Roe V Wade women have the right to reproductive freedom anyway? In some weird away, I wish for all you in favor of this that you are right! Why? Because what a sad, sad waste of your energy and your life, if you spent your time keeping others from enjoying the same liberties you enjoy, and had a heart filled with prejudice, anger, and hate, and find out when faced with the Lord that you were wrong. So very wrong.

October 29, 2008 at 3:04 am
(198) Annoyed says:

Has it dawned on anyone that this might not be about homosexuality at all?

Anyone notice the hubbub about polygamy?

THINK, people. Quit quibbling and READ for yourselves and THINK for yourselves. It’s never black and white or simple. (And let’s not start a slippery slope about a racial definition of marriage, while we’re at it, ok?)

October 29, 2008 at 5:23 am
(199) Bi-partisan? says:

I have read through this entire trail of comments and I am very troubled. The polarization of America is actually the real reason why our beloved country is in the shape it is in… and it is very apparent in the inflammatory comments made.
Consider this, check religious or non-religious beliefs at the door when making a decision about someone other than yourself. How do we expect our elected officials to get anything done?

I hope Americans vote not about themselves. It should be about the freedom and quality of life for their community.

Painting in broad strokes that opponents or proponents are religious zealots or sinners, is stereotypical and bigotry.

At its core this country is about freedom of choice, it was founded upon this. The founding fathers were rebels that desired rights religiously, separate of the state.

On a personal note, I am in my late 20′s. My wife is LDS (mormon) and I am not. We both have our own views on religion and we have a great marriage. We have always had good gay friends too.

Bashing sexual orientation, bashing churches for old policies, bashing non-belief, bashing freedom of choice, and lumping points of view as prejudice aren’t tools for making the world a better place.
Were the founding fathers more progressive thinkers than we are now?

October 29, 2008 at 11:31 am
(200) Maria says:

People are keep talking about Christianity but wouldn’t a true Christian be free of judgments? It is not our place to judge anybody’s choice. I would like to see a statistic on a ratio of how long a ‘strait’ couple and how long a ‘gay’ couple stays together. I would love somebody to tell me how would that affect the ‘strait’ people if gay marriage is legal? Would that hurt? Or would that eliminate the needs for a gay couple to try to fraud the system for insurance and so on. I vould bet on the second one. I’m sure insurance is not the only issue. If you make it illegal for gay couple to get married what are you trying to achieve? You think they will just disappear? If I don’t acknowledge them they don’t exist? It’s ignorant. I’m strait myself but if two people love each other regardless of gender why is it my place to put a judgment on them? God is the only one who can judge and I or anybody else in this earth does not have the right to do the same! Those of you who vote yes to this proposition think about the fact that you never know when somebody in your family will ‘pop’ up being gay and then what? You are going to disown them and still call yourself a true ‘sensitive’ Christian human been?
I definitely vote no to this nonsense!

October 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm
(201) Gary says:

You know if any two people can marry as long as they are IN love. That means that if someone falls in love with their brother or sister… its cool… or maybe their mom or dad… thats cool too.. maybe if I am a 60 year old rich guy that falls in love with a teenager… that would be cool at well… we cant discriminate against those people.. so let them all get married.. why not.. does any one see the problem with this… come on please.. I feel like I am taking crazy pills here.. This is just the begining if this passes… vote yes for 102!

October 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm
(202) NaShea says:

Why should anyone, straight, gay, or otherwise, care what someone else does with their own life. Let people marry if they want to. It doesn’t make a difference.

October 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm
(203) Jillian says:

Support love (6) says:
Why do straight couples who usually end up with divorce have more right to marry, than a same sex couple who loves each other and may stay together till death??!

Check the facts:

In Holland, male homosexual relationships last, on average, 1.5 years, and gay men have an average of eight partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.)

October 29, 2008 at 4:15 pm
(204) Vic says:

It’s unbelievable how many close minded and ridiculous statements are posted- such as linking pedophilia and homosexuality. Please Anti-Pedro,
how about including countless statistics on fathers having sex with
their daughters, teachers (male and female) having sex with opposite sex
students. Would it be fair to tie these deviant behaviors to heterosexuality – I
think not!

Jacob, your arguments are also irrelevant. Comparing Prop 102 to a case
in Germany about a brother and sister wanting to get married is absurd. Prop 102
says nothing about that. It doesn’t say Marriage is between one man and one woman
who are not siblings. So how could you even make that argument since prop 102 has
nothing to do with siblings getting married.

Further, you think that marriage rights are purely financial. Well, it’s not. I have been
with my partner for 16 years and together we have raised our intelligent son who is 21
and graduating from college with honors. While in his eyes I am his parent and my eyes he is my son – the rights stop there. Heaven forbid should he and a father be in an accident, I have no rights and no ability to make any medical decisions. What would you do if the hospital gave you no authority for medical decisions if your wife or child were in an accident?

Vince, great job and well written responses to Jacob’s ridiculous arguments.

The argument that voting yes secures the future rights of your children and grandchildren actually does the contrary. So what will you tell your gay grandchild you did for their rights?

My final comment is that this prop is religious based. Our forefathers had the vision to give freedom of religion while also separating Church and State in the constitution. Keep religion out of politics. VOTE NO ON 102!

October 29, 2008 at 7:05 pm
(205) Bill says:

Gay marriage utterly destroyed Massachusetts as evidenced by this Daily Show video:

http://www.thedailytube.com/video/7738/the-daily-show-gay-marriage-destroyed-massachusetts

October 29, 2008 at 11:39 pm
(206) Dee says:

I have the feeling that my comment is going to have people calling me naive (at the very least anyway) but I figured I might as well since I truly don’t care what anybody here thinks about me. The comments on this site vastly amused me for the most part. All this proposition does is either define it marriage as *strictly* between a man and a woman or leaves it the way it is now.

It does *not*, however, legalize same-sex marriage.

Perhaps voting no will allow for current laws to be changed in the future when this issue might not be so much of an issue. Perhaps not. There is no way to truly know unless one creates a time machine and travels to the future to discover what happens. However, voting yes will make it that much more difficult for the law to be changed in the future if and when the country and our state is ready for such a change.

Personally, I’ve already done my voting and voted no on this proposition. I think we already give our government too much control over our personal lives and I don’t want to give up any more control to them. That’s all I have to say about it.

October 30, 2008 at 8:45 pm
(207) Nightwolf says:

I get a laugh out of people who claim that if this prop 102 does not pass, their marriage will be destroyed….or that if they see a gay married couple, it will ruin their marriage. It seems like to me, judging from the divorce rates, the hetero marriage model fails at an alarmingly high rate! Also, if it truly is the case that seeing a gay married couple will cast one’s hetero marriage in ruin, then I’d say that the hetero marriage is a weak relationship indeed!

Rather than waste time on an issue that has already been decided once, we need to vote NO on prop 102, then focus our attention on solving the more-pressing problems in our country (the war, the economy, lack of proper parenting of kids, etc.). We need to stop letting the church run our lives and start using our brains.

We should also make a law that says if an issue which has already been voted on twice is presented a third time, the sponsors of the issue shall be fined and required to reimburse the state and the people of Arizona all reasonable costs incurred in the process of running us down the same track again.

These are my two go stones. Take what you want and atari the rest.

October 30, 2008 at 10:26 pm
(208) JenniferC says:

I don’t understand, how does it affect you if your next door neighbor who happens to be a gay couple gets married. Will that change things in your home? or Maybe you don’t have enough control of your life that you feel you have to control another persons life. What right do we have to tell someone they are not aloud to be happily married.

October 31, 2008 at 9:47 am
(209) 23 and disillusioned says:

Um, have we forgotten that a no vote does NOT mean gay marriage is allowed? This measure being defeated won’t legalized gay marriage, guys. Funny to me that the right, the conservative faction, the ones who cry for less government interference in our lives, less ‘big brother’ controlling what we do, who cry ‘commie’ anyone who calls for government regulation in things that ACTUALLY MATTER in the grand scheme of things(you know, like whether you can afford your electricity, your food, your medications), are the ones crying for what? What’s that, you say? A law isn’t enough, we actually have to amend the constitution? It’s hypocrisy. Tell me, does the ‘government stay out of my life’ policy only apply to your money, your profit margin, your shareholder value, or only to people who fit into your narrow view of morality? This is why young people don’t vote.

October 31, 2008 at 5:39 pm
(210) rick says:

i don’t understand why we have to spend so much of the taxpayers money to vote on a proposition that simply spells out BULLYING! Their lifestyles do not affect me nor my family. they pay the same taxes as i do therefore they should be entittled to the same rights as i do. this is not about marriage or morality because if it is then we should concentrate more passing a law that would ban divorce because that for me is more immoral than a union between same sex. look it up in the bible if divorce is even mentioned.

November 1, 2008 at 8:05 pm
(211) Samii says:

I find all of the anti-gay marriage legislation that is popping up right now to be amusing and completely inane.

To quote the United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 1:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
(Referenced from: Emory Law School)

Why do I mention this? Because according to Constitutional Law, it doesn’t matter if each individual state says “no” to recognizing same-sex marriages. By Constitutional Law, they are required to recognize the marriage licenses legally issued in other states regardless of who they were issued to.

And furthermore, I don’t see what the big deal is. You can issue teaching certificates, college and high school diplomas, and a litany of other legal documents to anyone regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, so why is a marriage license the one piece of paper being so hotly contested?

November 3, 2008 at 1:28 pm
(212) Miss B says:

THIS BLOG IS INCORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You vote yes to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. Google it don’t trust bloggers…

November 3, 2008 at 3:38 pm
(213) Mr. G says:

Marraige is the term of the church and has been for well over 1000 years. Marraige is the union between a man and a woman as defined by the church. Seeing as our society is a Judeo-Christian society we have followed the ethos and laws of that society.

I have friends who are gay and friends who are lesbian. I don’t care what a person’s gender choice is. I do say marraige is between a man and woman and a CIVIL UNION is between whomever wants it. Give all the same rights and whatever to same sex couples but don’t call it a marraige.

November 3, 2008 at 10:34 pm
(214) Awesome dude says:

If you ask me, this country has been going down hill ever since black slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Allowing black people freedom was a mistake. Allowing women the right to vote was a MAJOR mistake. And the civil rights bill passed by LBJ was the last straw. This country is going straight to hell already. According to the Bible, blacks are inferior to whites and women should be subservient to Man. And homosexuality is a sin. Anybody that votes “no” on this proposition is going straight to hell. It’s not my opinion, it’s what God said in the Bible.

November 3, 2008 at 11:11 pm
(215) Leo says:

The biggest problem is who seriously has the time to waste fighting something that truly will have no impact on their lives. There are bigger problems to fight and gay rights truly are not one of them. Why is it my business to say gay couples cannot have equal rights? We do live in a democratic society which was founded on people running from religious persecution and fighting for freedom. Why is it that now some of you feel it is necessary to say that only some freedoms are appropriate while others are not. You want to live in a free society as long as it is the point of view that you choose. That’s not what I consider to be freedom. If the rights gay couples want includes having rights to health benefits, adoption or beneficiary rights then why not? Religion should not define legislation. There is a clear separation of church and state as stated in our Constitution. Why vote for a bill that we have already turned down!

November 4, 2008 at 12:50 am
(216) Lauri says:

What really frightens me is that pedophiles are drawn to movements such a this. They can hide behind the righteousness of being anti-gay and go on the offense, while drawing attention away from their own destructive behavior. I wish Arizona would direct its efforts against those things which are truly harmful to others and stop all this fear mongering, homophobia, Islam phobia and xenophobia directed against anyone who is different.

November 4, 2008 at 3:32 am
(217) Lynzi says:

Marriage is a right not a heterosexual privilege………

November 4, 2008 at 3:33 am
(218) Christian Counselor says:

Unfortunately I believe that Pedo’s statistics are based on prosecuted molestation of minors. The number of teen pregnancies with the father being above 18 is astounding. Frequently these “illegal unions” are not prosecuted because the father of the baby is the one who is going to support the teen and the newborn. Some of them even have legal marriages! Parents actually “sign-off” on the molestation. Nevertheless, it remains the molestation of a person who has not reached the legal age of consent as defined by our society.

Churches should have the right to define marriage within their own tradition. This should not spill over into the definition of civil marriages. The Catholic Church doesn’t even recognize civil marriages between heterosexuals as valid or licit. That’s why they find it rather easy to annul those marriages. They lack both the form and substance required for it to be a sacramental union…..so I’m not even sure why they or other churches would even weigh in on this civil debate. Interestingly enough, my relatives who were married in other churches had to have their marriage “blessed” within the Catholic Church in order for it to be considered valid (I believe it was already considered licit – I always get that confused). My point, however, is that each Church should have the right to define marriage within its own tradition but should not impose their definition of marriage on secular society.

I must agree that if people supporting this proposition really wanted to protect marriage they would vote for a constitutional ammendment banning divorse…..be it between a man and a woman or between two men or two women! Now that would be a proposition I could sink my teeth into and support! Unfortunately I don’t think it will ever come to pass because it hits too close to home for too many people.

In our history, the Bible has been used to support slavery, segregation, the haulocost and other abominations. Each time we look back, we hang our heads in shame over the bigotry and closed-minded self-righteousness of our ancestors. The shame of these acts were not propogated so much by the loud activists but by the quiet majority who did not vote for change and who tolerated the status quo.

I am voting “no” for proposition 102 because I do not want to be on the shameful side of history for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

November 4, 2008 at 5:54 am
(219) Gina says:

I’m curious to hear someone defend the anti-same-sex marriage proposition, without bringing religion/the Bible into the conversation. Every person I have ever spoken to uses Biblical references, or at least God, in their defense.
The United States is a democracy, not a theocracy, so stop pushing your religious values and beliefs on others.
I’ve read people on this very thread saying “keep traditional values alive!” and that’s all well and good… I’m sure that people said that exact same thing when people were trying to get slavery abolished, women the right to vote, and when the colonies decided to go to war with the British.

Marriage is not a privilege, it’s a right. Are you saying that a person who marries someone of the same gender is not a person and does not deserve their inherent right to marry whomever they choose??

It’s very simple really…. IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE… DON’T GET ONE but stop pushing your thoughts regarding the morality of homosexuality on others.

November 4, 2008 at 10:57 am
(220) Dave says:

I strongly believe that marraige is one man, one woman. I am voting YES on 102! If homosexuals were meant to be allowed to marry, it would have happened a long time ago. Think of this…how will we explain to our children and grandchildren that same sex people are married and why? If someone is a homosexual, then that is their business. Why should I have to accept that? I find it disgusting, to be honest. Therefore, man and woman should be united in marriage ONLY! Thank you.

November 4, 2008 at 11:03 am
(221) JG says:

I would like to know what “rights” the opposers of this proposition think that gay people will not have if they can’t call their relationship a marriage.

In addition, why does a “marriage” need to be the defining answer to giving this group the “civil rights” that you’re stating a “yes” vote discriminates against?

November 4, 2008 at 11:06 am
(222) JG says:

Gina,

Without God as an argument –

Using Big Bang Theory or Theory of evolution, same sex does not fit either. Why? Because this theory uses “survival of the fittest”. If everyone had same sex relationships, there would be no further population. No more “evolution”.

November 4, 2008 at 1:18 pm
(223) Aubrey says:

No on prop 102
I personally believe in leaving region out of politics, thankyouverymuch. What are you honestly so afraid of that you can’t call union between 2 men or 2 women a marriage.

November 4, 2008 at 2:56 pm
(224) Amie says:

are u freakn serious??
i do not like this survey..
is our fault who we fall in love with??
i mean if u had kids who were either gay or lesbian wuld u destroy their happiness because of a prop?
n as americans we have the option to love or be with who ever we want and that most definately has nothing to do with the Constition… the constitution was wriiten to protect our rights and by banning gay marriages is goes against the constitution…

November 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm
(225) Aubrey says:

ugh religion, not region, curse you tired typing.

November 4, 2008 at 3:19 pm
(226) Matthew says:

Some things to consider regarding this issue:

Are we to love the sinner but hate the sin?

The Bible clearly teaches that God is love, as well as that God shows love. First John 4:8-9 says, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.” Mysterious but true is the fact that God can perfectly love and hate a person at the same time. This means He can love them as someone He created and can redeem, as well as hate them for their unbelief and sinful lifestyle. We, as imperfect human beings, cannot do this, thus we must remind ourselves to “love the sinner, hate the sin.”

How exactly does that work? We hate sin by refusing to take part in it and by condemning it when we see it. Sin is to be hated, not excused or taken lightly. We love the sinner by being faithful in witnessing to them of the forgiveness that is available through Jesus Christ. A true act of love is treating someone with respect and kindness even though they know you do not approve of their lifestyle and/or choice. It is not loving to allow a person to remain stuck in sin. It is not hateful to tell a person they are in sin. In fact, the exact opposites are true.

http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html

God is a loving God, but the Bible clearly states that Same Sex “Marriage” is prohibited:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things
Leviticus 18:22, 24

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Romans 1:26-27

http://www.nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/bible_verses.php

This is why I vote yes on 102.

November 4, 2008 at 3:26 pm
(227) Quiet Man says:

Please vote yes on Prop 102.
Why?
Because despite claims to the contrary, it isn’t discrimating against anyone.

Why? Because all the name-calling is being done by the people that are opposed to the measure since there aren’t any compelling arguments for the governement to legalize “gay marriage”.

Why? Because despite the claims that all the gays just want to get married, they actually have a much larger adgenda to use the power of the government to force their views onto everyone else.

Why? Because every child deserves a Father and a Mother

Why? Because it isn’t bigotry to look at the facts and see what arrangement is best for the long-term stability of our families and our country.

Why? the fact that many marriages end in divorce is no reason to further undermine the institution of marriage.

Why? why does love and feelings of commitment obligtate the government to get involved?

Why? what example are we setting for our children?

Why? when people say get religion out of government, they are really saying, we don’t want values and morals in our government. Last time I checked the first ammendment still says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” I don’t see any mention of a religion in this ammendment.

I could go on but I’m out of time.

November 4, 2008 at 3:32 pm
(228) Matt says:

Voting Yes on 102 means you like discriminating against people. I don’t care what you believe for yourself, but in America we have freedom. The Arizona constitution is already discriminatory, and 102 is trying to make it even more so.

November 4, 2008 at 4:42 pm
(229) Brandi says:

I VOTE NO BECAUSE IF 2 PEOPLE LOVE EACH OTHER THAN THATS ALL IT MATTERS IT DONT HAVE TO BE JUST A MAN AND A WOMEN IT COULD BE THE SAME SEX LOVING EACH OTHER AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES

November 4, 2008 at 7:52 pm
(230) Awesome dude says:

Don’t be fooled into thinking this proposition is “just about defining marriage”, it’s about routing gay marriage amendments before they happen. Proponents for this bill say “look what’s happening in California and Massachusetts”. It IS ANTI-GAY legislation, and is aimed at creating SECOND CLASS CITIZENS that do not have the same rights to marry like hetero-sexual couples. And don’t belive that California courts “legislate” from the bench, the courts job is to interpret the laws, and not create laws. In this case, the California courts upheld THE STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION in that ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL, REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION. And if you believe that the church upholds marriage as being between one man and one woman, let me tell you about the other forms of bigotry that the church upholds. The church upheld the slave trade in America, spouting that Africans are an inferior race. The church was vehemetly opposed to give women the right to vote, because women is inferior to man. And now, the church will not endorse anti-gay laws because gay people are living in sin. Be thankful that religious zealots don’t run this country, because slavery would still be around, women would still be considered second class citizens, and gay people would be stoned to death.

November 4, 2008 at 11:32 pm
(231) Tori says:

“Why? Because it isn’t bigotry to look at the facts and see what arrangement is best for the long-term stability of our families and our country.”

HAHAHA, that whole post is the biggest line of garbage I have ever heard, especially THAT point. Long term stability?? Like the 50% divorce rate. Or wait…and also like the domestic violence, child abuse, etc within a LOT of marriages between one man and one woman?

This is law, not church and a longgg time ago we wisely enacted separation of church and state. Can we please stick to it and stop being discriminatory jerks for a change?

And please tell me how it makes sense to believe in an entity whose existence is not able to be proven and cast stones upon those who are not living by the word purported by this unproven entity and his human scriptwriters, yet shun those who human…who are obviously real and who love each other and just want the same rights as everyone else???

I voted no on this blatantly discriminatory proposition, and hopefully all those with their wits about them did as well. It was already shot down once and all the millions spent on advertising didn’t fool those of us who knew what was really going on behind those ‘protect the family (but only for straight people)’ commercials.

Oh, and no I am not homosexual, I am human and against stupidity. I think everyone should be able to love whomever they choose and should be able to obtain health insurance coverage for their partner, tax breaks, lower car insurance rates….all that comes with marriage. Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual, just as one does not pick their race or eye color. However, intolerant people do choose their path and choose to try and spread the hate to everyone else as well, all while preaching love, respect, honor, and sanctity. Blah, what hypocrisy.

November 5, 2008 at 12:51 am
(232) Americana says:

The saddest day in US history 11/04/08 But at least AZ had the sense to vote yes on 102! And we wont have the homosexuals trapsing around pretending to be man and uh, husband? Or whatever that atrocity is called, at least we will have none of it here! Now I wonder if Janeo will finally come out of the closet. Gays should be left to live in peace, but they have no right to cram their views down others throat, and everyone should have the freedom, religious or otherwise to opine as they see fit about gay marriage. I for one, according to my moral stance, find it to be wrong and yes, even abhorrent. But that doesnt mean I have a right to abuse gays. Just as gays dont have to agree with me, but theyre also not allowed to abuse me or try to force me to see it their way.

November 5, 2008 at 12:57 am
(233) ~happily gay~ says:

I just want to say i voted no on prop 102 for obvious reasons. but people should actually research before they vote. im voting no not because i feel they should legalize gay marriage in az(i do but not the point) but because i want to be able to get married somewhere else and be able to be reconized as a couple in az. I was married to a man for 8 years he was an @ss when i met my better half she was the best thing that has ever happened to me. I thank god every day for introducing her into my life. so before you start preaching about gay marriage this prop is to make sure we can be recongized not trying to pass gay marriage.

November 5, 2008 at 2:12 am
(234) Tori says:

Um, Americana…nobody was trying to cram anything down anyone’s throat. That is left to the churches. This proposition was already rejected once, but once again reintroduced out of pure discrimination. It wasn’t a proposition to legalize gay marriage!! It was one to completely ignore their unions. Funded to the hilt by a lovely religious institution not even based in Arizona yet wanting to spread their hate…again, what hipocracy.

And as far as the ‘trapsing’ you speak of, that is just silly as well as misspelled…and you obviously have issues. However, just know that should anyone want to traipse they certainly will be doing it here, as they can get married in other states and traipse away right down your street. That is the beauty of freedom.

The only thing you took away from them was the right to health care, and other basic things a ‘simple union between a man and woman’ can provide. Glad that makes you proud and I have to wonder why you say it is the saddest day in history?

Anyhow, be sure to hold onto that pride you feel, at least for the little time you have left. Soon the issue is not going to belong to Arizona anymore and the saddest day in your history will be overtaken by an even sadder day in your history when the federal government finally recognizes that which you so obviously fear, thus making this embarrassing proposition null. And if you don’t believe that, well I suppose you never thought women would vote or a black man would be President huh?

November 5, 2008 at 2:28 am
(235) AZtraveler says:

On Tuesday, November 4th at 11:20pm Arizona time, prop 102 results are:

Yes 56.5%

No 43.5%

with 91.4% polls reporting

from the official AZ Secretary of State web site:

http://www.azsos.gov/results/2008/general/BM102.htm

November 5, 2008 at 3:07 am
(236) sammy says:

its simply says yes you want to protect the union between a man and woman and gays/lezbians arent reconized in arizona. r no that lezbians/gays and staright couples are equal theres to many other states buting into our bussiness why dont they just stay out and let us chose wat we want

November 5, 2008 at 3:54 am
(237) Jim says:

I just thought I’d put my two cents in on this subject, since this is to me the one proposition that anyone with any common sense whatsoever should have cast a ‘no’ vote.

Anyone who is opposed to same sex marriages is obviously threatened by them in some way. Are you really that worried that acknowledging the partnership of a gay couple is going to turn you, or your offspring gay as well? Are they going to take away from your right to live a happy and peaceful life and be married the way you wish? Or are you just so disgusted with your own self and your own life that you have to try to make other people miserable as well?

The fact is, denying this right does discriminate. Maybe we should also take away the right for interracial marriages as well. That could definitely be harmful to the children. The arguments for the interracial marriages were amazingly similar in that situation when it was illegal and people wanted it legalized. How many of you who voted for this proposition are of mixed ethnicity? Your vote wouldn’t even count if we still went by the archaic belief structure this country was based on just less than a hundred years ago.

As for that belief structure, an even bigger table of lies. The argument against gay marriages is based strictly on the bible, a book as fictional as ‘Tom Sawyer’. The campaign was funded by Focus on the Family, an enourmous cult head. The christian religion that is the basis of this proposition is nothing more than an oversized fallicy that the weak rely on to give them answers. The book itself was edited, cut, and rewritten before even being released to the public. It is written to give control and power to the heads of church, not to spread truth and love.

Amazingly though, with documentation PROVING such things, you all still have gone out of your way to spread hate based on this book again.

What it boils down to is, gay marriages should affect other people in no way, just like a heterosexual marriage. BUt you all let it. Now it will just be worse, because the gay couple living next door to you can’t legally be joined in Arizona, and they really will be eying you every time you leave your house, wondering if you were one of the ones who voted to suppress their rights.

Karma will also more than likely rear around and cause your children to be gay as well. =)

November 5, 2008 at 6:59 am
(238) Glenn says:

All 3 states – AZ, CA, and FL had ballots to define marriage.. and the horrible results are in.. ALL PASSED ! – I Cant believe it.. I read Jim’s comments .. Thank you for expressing my views as well.. I m actually in FL – I knew about the decision in my state last nite and was so pissed … I still cant believe. Its 6am here and I wanted to check the other 2 state’s results…
To my horror, they were passed also..
I have been with my partner for 8years.. Everything we own is linked to one another– our cars, our money, OUR FAMILIES..
LET US LIVE… I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT AFFECTS PEOPLE..WE PAY HUGE AMOUNTS OF TAXES. . PROBABLY MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE MAKE IN A YEAR.. WE DO IT.. GIVE US SOMETHING IN RETURN.. PLEASE…
Obama help…!! Congress/ House of Rep HELP..!

November 5, 2008 at 11:28 am
(239) Charlie says:

You can have your CIVIL UNIONS but marriage is for one man and one woman.

No one is beating you, no one is punishing you for being gay. I would never harm you personally and you’re probably nice people. We could have a cup of coffee and be civil. I voted for Obama. I’m not some kind of evil “hater”…but I hold that marriage is sacrosanct.

No one is barring you from health insurance, from adopting, from working with this proposition–and I would go arm and arm with you to fight anyone who tried to do that to you. I just don’t think you should be stamped as “married”. You can be partnered, committed, devoted, joined, have a union, but not married.

November 5, 2008 at 11:37 am
(240) Charlie says:

To the people attacking my Catholic faith as a silly cult and saying that married heterosexuals don’t really love each other:

You are dead wrong. There are a lot of married couples who love each other dearly.

I don’t question your love for your partner-I just don’t believe homosexual “marriage” is right.

It flies in the face of what I hold dear (and apparently a lot of other people, too). Have your unions, but leave the term MARRIAGE alone. You don’t even believe in my God. Why do you care if you have that title affixed to your relationship?

You can have everything you want–just not the right to hijack the term marriage which has a long tradition throughout history as the union of a biological MALE and a biological FEMALE.

November 5, 2008 at 11:42 am
(241) Styckeey says:

LOL hey guess what? It passed…

November 5, 2008 at 2:07 pm
(242) Josh says:

When will people realize that creating separate terms for particular groups is not good for America. This separation by state definition only seeks to cement the idea to future generations that one group is inferior to the other, when in reality that group is comprised of just as many law-abiding, tax-paying citizens as the other. We need to unite our people and have law that creates in our children a respect for their fellow citizens and a desire to embrace our differences even if others do not follow their religious beliefs.

November 5, 2008 at 4:14 pm
(243) confused teen says:

Iam a bisexual and Iam also christian whats wrong with me? what am I doing wrong? I need answers!!

November 5, 2008 at 5:39 pm
(244) Mike says:

If this prop is so essential to arizona living, i suggest we pass a new prop to go with it as well. Prop 666 “Keep God out of Arizona”. Sounds like a good one to me. My mother is gay and a strong christian follower, however when she came to me today and told me how the church and christians have made her feel bad for beeing gay, it kills me how anyone can love a god who trains followers to carry so much hate. No more god in politics, no more god in arizona. Its hot enough here to be hell anyway, let all of us sinners burn here without your unwanted hate mongering. Go protest an abortion clinic hypocrits, or better yet blow yourself up in the name of your retarded god!

November 5, 2008 at 5:54 pm
(245) Mike says:

Confused teen, i have an answer for you, what your doing wrong is simple and clear (like this prop.) Stop beeing christian, then you wont be confused anymore. There is nothing wrong with you for beeing bi-sexual. Never, i repeat never be sorry for who you are.

November 6, 2008 at 3:03 pm
(246) Demosthenes says:

Religion and “God” when perceived as a third party entity, ruling over the universe with a blanketing list of rules used to sort and judge souls, is completely imaginary. It’s nobody’s fault for believing such obviously false doctrine, when grown up inside the church. To change your belief in your church is to change your self-identity. Still, religion is an archaic and outdated institution. At certain points in history religion was necessary to bring out the best of humankind. To endure drudgery and keep the best human traits alive and ease the ache of uncertainty in death. But it’s not needed anymore. Breakthroughs in science have offered new and exciting answers to the question of the great beyond. Society is in a place that doesn’t need to be policed by religious dogma to restrain deviants. And now religion is denying civil liberties to people, and not to speak of the natural right to life that is extinguished everyday over trying to decide whose false explanation of the past is going to be told to future generations. Denying these Americans rights, is the same as denying women rights, or African Americans, or Mexicans. We’ll grow out of it sooner or later, and religion will change or die eventually, but the narrow-mindedness that was shown at the polls was embarrassing. America was founded on the idea of liberty and equality for all people. And here we are over 200 years later, a civil rights war still in place. Whether you believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman or not, it is irresponsible of you, to tailor the law to suit your personal tastes. You have denied people freedom. You have denied future generations freedom. And not just gays, also yourselves, religion has unconstitutionally welcomed the state into its own governance. You wouldn’t keep it in the church, you had to involve the state to mandate your laws. It shows how much faith you have in church. Church is certainly the least sacred of institutions that I have come across and it was shown Nov. 4th, by its very own people. I now wish that if there is a divine ruler that arbitrates due and deserved justice to all its people, that every single person that voted yes on 102 will be discriminated against, and unfairly denied rights given to everyone else, by an institution you aren’t involved in, and exercised by the very system that was supposed to protect you.

November 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm
(247) neil says:

to Charlie.

Catholicism calling another institution a silly cult? really? nothing silly or culty at all in Catholicism? The paradigm for logic and fairness is it? Untainted with century’s of scandal is it?

And also,
If there is a god, it’s our god, not your god. The same as Americans have our rights, and not your rights.

At least that’s the way it should be, but as is characteristic, the ignorant like to be heard loudest and apparently vote in drothes.

November 7, 2008 at 1:40 pm
(248) Cee Yazzie says:

It is an individual choice and should be left to the individual. We are not forced to get married in any way or to whom. It is an individual right and shouldn’t be decided by the people or by the law. It is a waste of time and taxpayers money. I am not for it or against it. We are dealing with people here and messing with their decisions. If they want to do it, so let them… at least they won’t be making babies and getting divorced and becoming single parents, where the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. Right?

November 9, 2008 at 12:53 am
(249) Mike says:

My response in why I voted against Gay marriage:

Doctor Maria Ziridou published a study in 2003 which reveals that homosexual couples in Amsterdam engage in what is called “consensual infidelity”. Dr Xiridou was studying the spread of HIV among homosexuals in the Netherlands these couples that considered themselves to be in a “steady” relationship. Her study were involved in 6 to 10 additional encounters outside the primary relationship each year.
Those who considered their sexual relationships “casual” engaged in 16 to 28 sexual encounters outside of the primary relationship each year. (AIDS, 17:1029-1038,2003)

In 2004, a group of researchers at the University of Chicago published a study of homosexual relationships in that city. The research was led by Sociology Professor Edward O. Laumann. His team of researchers studied the sex habits of homosexuals in Shoreland, a “gay center” in Chicago. Laumann found the following:
* 42.9% of homosexual men in Shoreland had more than 60 sexual partners; 18.4% had between 31 and 60 sexual partners, 61.3% of the era’s homosexual males had more than 30 partners.
In November 2003, the CDC stated that HIV infection rates had risen in 29 states. There are an estimated 40,000 new HIV infections yearly with 70% of these being among men. Of those men who are infected, 60% are infected through homosexual sex; 25% through IV drug abuse; and 15% through heterosexual sex.

High Rates Of Substance Abuse
Studies from around the globe all point to continued high rates of substance abuse among homosexuals. A report published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (April 18, 2004), indicated that there’s a growing trend among young homosexual males to use Crystal Meth to prolong sexual activities during sex orgies. Those using Crystal were three times as likely to be HIV infected.

High Rates Of Mental Health Problems
A 2004 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry published a study of the high rates of mental illness in gay males, lesbians, and bisexual men and women.
The study surveyed mental health problems faced by gays and bisexuals in England and Wales between September 2000 and July 2002. The survey was of 2,430 gays and bisexuals over the age of 16 years. It found high rates of planned or actual deliberate self-harm among these groups; 42% of gay males; 43% of lesbians; 49% of bisexual men and women. A similar study published by the Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Vo. 71, No. 1, 53-61,2003) found the following:
Gay men and bisexual men were more likely than heterosexual males to be diagnosed with at lest one of five mental health disorders. Lesbian-bisexual
Women were more likely than heterosexual women to report mental health-related problems in the year prior to being interviewed.
A study by the Canadian government regarding homosexual couple states, “ violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples.”
But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently….For years, gay people have tried to keep quiet about the problem, said Dave Shannon, coordinator of the violence recovery program at Fenway Community Health, a gay and lesbian clinic in Boston. Mr. Shannon said: People feel, “Why should we air our dirty laundry? People feel so negatively about us already, the last thing we should do is contribute to negative stereotypes of us.”
According to the American College of Pediatricians” several studies of violence among homosexual couples are two to three times more common than among heterosexual couples.” In addition they go on to state the following” Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years”
In the New York Times an article entitled Silence Ending About Abuse in Gay Relationships cite some information which may indicate that domestic abuse may be under-reported in the homosexual community.
The statistics no longer need to be repeated to a culture already painfully aware of its own sickness: the highest divorce rate in the nation’s history, readily available pornography, desperately high levels of teen pregnancies, abortions, and drug abuse. With raging and destructive epidemics like these, who would be surprised to discover that many children and teens feel confused concerning some of the most basic questions about life?
But following in the destructive wake of such social infirmities comes yet another commotion – that over the issue of sexual orientation. Homosexual activists have largely spent the 1990s manufacturing intense confusion about the cause and nature of their lifestyle.
What is the effect on children and teenagers when they are surrounded by a message that not only defends homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy, but recommends it as a sexual taste? Are young people being recruited into the homosexual lifestyle?
But Remafedi also found that such confusion begins to decrease, as students grow older. Research by Dr. Kirk Cameron concurred. In a paper published in 1995 by Family Research Institute (FRI), that study found that while 25% of kids were unsure of their sexual orientation at age 12, that percentage steadily declined to about 5% by age 18.
According to FRI head Dr. Paul Cameron, even in the controversial Kinsey research from the 1940s, which formed the basis of the Sexual Revolution and its progeny, the homosexual movement, homosexuals admitted a propensity for sex with minors. Kinsey found that 37% of homosexual adult men said they had had sex with youths under age 17, and 28% admitted to sexual relations with those under age 16.
Activist Darrell Yates Rist, a co-founder of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and a prominent homosexual author, said he believes it is certainly possible for children to be “lured by queer ideas” into the homosexual lifestyle. Rist said this truth is understood intuitively by parents and worries them, because “they too understand that sexually free ideas are infectious and that, once introduced to the suggestion of same-sex love, their kids might just try it and like it.”

Meanwhile, former homosexual Johnston said that homosexual groups are reaching down to children as young as kindergarten age, “indoctrinating them to the idea that homosexuality is an intrinsic part of one’s identity; one to be explored and embraced. If that’s not recruiting, I don’t know what is.”
Here are some statistics about the Homosexual lifestyle:
1. One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
2. Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-foreword shouting matches (sound familiar) characterized their presence.” Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”)
3. cases and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. But they make up only 1-2% of the population.
4. Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past time of many homosexuals to go to “cruise areas” and have anonymous sex.
5. Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).
6. Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).
7. 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).
8. Dr Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
9. It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us (10).
10. Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.
11. Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).
12. 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism
13. 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs
14. Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which are common in filthy third world countries.
15. The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.
16. The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.
17. Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide.
18. 50% of the calls to a hotline to report, “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals).
19. About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.
20. 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).
21. There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.
22. Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molester, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester
23. 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys less than 19 years of age.
24. Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality”.
25. Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

November 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm
(250) azsucks says:

Man, i never knew there can be so many ignarants in AZ. The key word people here is tolerance…. If you mongrels believe in what you call god then believe that the reason why your god gave you brains is to be able to think what is right and what is wrong for yourself and not what the society believe is right. for now i believe that these people that passed these 102 is comparable to terrorist that spreads hate just because their values and belief is different to theirs. I’m just 19 but i’m now starting to hate how this world is turning out to be. we freaking seek life in another planet but yet we can’t even get along here. i guess we’re starting to get bored at being prejudice to our fellow humnas so we start looking to the stars to spread our hate further. i think jesus came to earth at a wrong time. This century is actually the right time to be redeemed. better yet, this is the right time to end the world… we don’t deserve this place. there’s just too much hatred.

November 9, 2008 at 3:48 pm
(251) Lauren says:

I don’t understand why people are calling it a “Marriage Protection Law”. Who gives a crap if two people are in love no matter what their race, religon, sexuality? Years ago it was illegal for there to be inter-racial marriages. Now its illegal to have two homosexuals marry.
I don’t see that as right. “Love is blind”, remember? People should understand this and leave others alone. Heterosexual “normal” marriages normally end in divorce. There is plenty that go wrong behind closed doors. Don’t judge unless you want to be judged. If you are so intolerant of something as simple as love, how will your children grow up? Unable to accept the simple and beautiful concept of two people in love? How sad.
Without being homosexual myself, I am able to step back, look at a couple who is obviously in love and think how lucky they are to have found someone who loves them in return. Especially in today’s world, how nice to have that for as long as possible. I am not even of age to vote, and I still throw all of my support in saying that if two people are in love, let them marry. And if you say that it is not right “in the eyes of God”, well who says someone has to be married by the church?
Just let them be. They do you the same courtesy.

November 9, 2008 at 6:20 pm
(252) Mike says:

Sorry Lauren: Your argument doesn’t hold water with the statistics. The average union between gay couples only last between two to three years. What about the statistics that show that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners? Even in “committed” relationships studies found that the parties involved in homosexual relationships were” involved in 6 to 10 additional encounters outside the primary relationship each year.”
Not to mention the HIV, AIDS, and other social diseases that are rampant among homosexuals. The health care costs are skyrocketing in our country and these diseases and deaths from these diseases are costing us a fortune in raising our health care costs each year.
Next do I have to mention the suicide rate, or the spousal abuse(among homosexuals), or the child abuse statistics for these people? Its all out there for anyone to see!!
My point is that this is not a matter of rights, or religion. To me it is a question as to what is healthy, moral, and good for our country and for our families. Sure there are examples of people who may not fall into these statistics, but they are a small minority in the gay community.
I don’t want my children and grandchildren exposed to these types of unhealthy, un-normal, and immoral types of lifestyles. Now you can continue to bash these religions and us people you call are “Bigoted and “ignorant”. I challenge you to go look at the statistics and what the goals are for these groups. Then tell me who is bigoted and ignorant.
And as for normal marriages, there are some of us out here who believe in marriage as a stable institution. And as long as we have a choice to defend it as what we feel is normal and right. We will continue to stand up for it.

November 11, 2008 at 4:08 pm
(253) Jamie says:

Although this is for Prop 8 in California, I think he hits the nail on the head:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa4siqvLRQc

November 12, 2008 at 6:18 am
(254) Mike says:

A few years back a small group of people started complaining that it wasn’t fair that everyone couldn’t get a house. So some people went to the government and convinced them that they should force the mortgage companies to change the rules (definition) of mortgages. We all are now seeing the consequences of that choice. Every choice we make in life has a consequence- good or bad. If we redefine marriage, are we willing to live with the consequences of that decision? We as a country in the 60s and 70s decided that “free love” and drugs would be acceptable. We are now living with the consequences of those choices- abortions, sexual diseases, drug abuse, broken homes, infidelity just to name a few.
Are we ready to throw marriage under the bus and reap the consequences of that? When our country is morally bankrupt, who is going to bail US out?

November 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm
(255) Josh says:

Well Mike, giving everyone the chance to buy a house is a bad idea, yes, because not everyone can pay for a house. It’s not the ‘small group of people’s fault. The standards of lending were already declining because people weren’t scared of failed loans because they thought they would just be able to sell off the asset at a higher price because the market was going up or if things got bad someone would bail them out (which we ended up doing). They knew the market wouldn’t just keep going up and up forever and eventually nobody would be able to buy the assets or they would be worth considerably less than they paid for them. They basically just tried to keep up demand to keep prices up for as long as they could by giving people easy starting rates and telling them they can refinance the later rate so they could afford it, which they knew could only go on for so long and eventually people wouldn’t be able to refinance and wouldn’t be able to pay enough.

And if you want to bring up changing definitions, the original definition in 1850 was simply “a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is required” and only because of course it is the norm of the majority for a man and a woman to take part in this the use of gender pronouns was used in sections describing things about marriage. They chose to redefine it to exclude same sex couples at a later date.

Also, you take the bad example of many people experimenting with drugs and being extremely sexually active to make it seem like all change is bad. If we didn’t change the marriage laws then marriages of ‘white persons with negroes’ would still be illegal.

Marriage in California was always a civil issue, and, as far as I am concerned, the sanctity of marriage in our government is already almost gone from massive divorce rates, forced marriages, marriages for money, and marriages for citizenship. Instead of putting this death grip on the churches nearly dead idea of marriage just accept that church has to stay out of the government, and, using your metaphor, put it out of it’s misery and just toss it under the bus.

November 13, 2008 at 3:51 pm
(256) Mike says:

Josh thank you for your reply. Your right, giving housing to everyone for fairness sake was wrong and your description of the progress of what happened to our economy is pretty much true. Jimmy Carter started it and then it was pushed further by Pres. Clinton and then pushed by some members of Congress. My point is that sometimes what we perceive as good for everyone isn’t always the truth.
I agree that change is sometimes good, but sometimes change just for change sake isn’t always good for everyone. I know that marriage has evolved over the centuries to what it is today. The question we have to ask ourselves about change, and moreover this change to marriage that some are asking us as a people to embrace is – Is it good, healthy, and natural for us as a people a Nation, and for families. One has to look beyond ones own interest and desires to answer this truthfully. Just because you may think it is ok, doesn’t mean its always-good rest of mankind? I would ask you how is this going to affect mankind for generations to come. Look at how this lifestyle has affected other Nations that have embraced it.
And thus was my analogy of the drug-sex-“if it feels good do it” generation. What has it done to the generations after them? What has it done to us as a Nation?
I agree that divorce is out of control, and it is causing a lot of pain and confusion to the people it affects the most- our children. I believe most (not all) of divorce is caused by selfishness. A wise man once said “ Love is what you have been through together—really been through together.” People today seem to give up too easy. We have become a generation of – when things get hard; we give up and move on. But we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Because of activist judges -On Nov 4th we as US citizens were forced to take a stand on what marriage should be defined as. And the majority decided to keep it one man and one woman for the generations after us and not for just today and now.

November 14, 2008 at 4:00 pm
(257) Josh says:

Mike

I understand that people may fear that this will be bad for society, but honestly there is proof out there to the contrary. Just check out this one cite where these two people came together to write a book that isn’t just opinion or speculation, but examples of other places where this issue has come up.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/GayMarriageBook/

If we are going to show proof that homosexual ‘marriage’ does not hurt society, people have to be receptive of it and not just dismiss it.

November 14, 2008 at 6:57 pm
(258) Mike says:

Josh; thanks for your reply, I did look at the site that you posted. And I followed up on some of the studies sited. It is interesting how two people look at the same things and come away with different understandings. It depends on what you are looking for.
I tried but I found the findings a little different. I also looked at the findings of Doctor D. Manting and Dr. J A Loeve their findings were different. Also Stanley Kurtz study of homosexual’s in Denmark, Norway and Sweden don’t back up your articles claim about homosexual marriage. Kurtz shows that the forces which led Scandinavia to accept homosexual marriages are the same as those, which have led to the rapid decline of marriage itself. Relatively few homosexuals chose to “marry” once it became possible to do so, and some homosexual leaders now admit that they are in principle opposed to the idea of marriage and supported it only as another means of gaining respectability
Then there is the study of Professor William Murray who believes the Scandinavians got more than they bargained for when they legalized same-sex marriage. He says they did not understand the damaging effect that the government’s legitimization of homosexual unions would have on the traditional institution of marriage. Murray believes America would do well to look at what homosexual marriage has done to Scandinavia and beware.
How about the Family Research Council’s findings in the April 2004 article that says the evidence indicates that “committed” homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects: · relationship duration· monogamy vs. promiscuity· relationship commitment· number of children being raised· health risks· rates of intimate partner violence.
Should I get you more? Its out there to study!!!

November 14, 2008 at 10:26 pm
(259) vic says:

Mike,
Based on the research of your sources, I also found there is also deterioration of marriage when the wife is employed. Is it your opinion that women shouldn’t work and be married then?

I also don’t see anything in the link Josh has sent you to support your arguments, although you state the site is construed to how you read it. I can’t see how you could read it any differently.

November 15, 2008 at 3:40 am
(260) Mike says:

Thank you Vick for your input, The two authors give a look at their understanding of what they claim as “the only evidence American traditionalists have offered comes from A Scandinavian Study”. When obviously I have given 4 other studies on my previous response. I didn’t see any references for where they acquired their findings. I believe the study they were referring to was more about the study of cohabitating couples and how it has affected marriages and children in Scandinavia, and only briefly touched on homosexual marriages. I found more evidence contrary to their studies in the brief few minutes I looked, and I even gave references to go look up. But thanks anyway

November 15, 2008 at 5:58 am
(261) Mike says:

SOME MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT
David Blankenhorn is president of the New York-based Institute for American Values and the author of The Future of Marriage (Encounter Books). “The recently deceased Ellen Willis, professor of journalism at NYU and head of its Center for Cultural Reporting and Criticism, expressed the hope that gay marriage would “introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart, further promoting the democratization and secularization of personal and sexual life”–but they can only illustrate the point already established by the large-scale international comparisons: Empirically speaking, gay marriage goes along with the erosion, not the shoring up, of the institution of marriage. After all, the big idea is not to stop gay marriage. The big idea is to stop the erosion of society’s most pro-child institution.
Gay marriage is only one facet of the larger threat to the institution. By itself, the “conservative case” for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples–if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society’s best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both.

November 17, 2008 at 9:08 pm
(262) Vic says:

Mike,

I appreciate your research, however there are arguments supporting both sides. Both sides can seem compelling, but the fact is that issues arising, costs associated and social impact boils down quite simply.

This deterioration is by individuals that don’t respect the sanctity of marriage no matter gay, straight, or thier ethnicity.

The right should be given to those who deserve it, not to what their race or sexual preference – the inherent birth traits of the individual.

The right is deserved by those who prove they respect the value. Face it, there is hardly any requirements to get a marriage certificate as long as it’s between two unrelated people of the opposite sex. Perhaps there should be a test to prove the two involved are worthy. I can run to Vegas now, pick up a hooker and get married. However my eternal partner and I who have been committed and faithful, raised an intelligent son, pay our taxes and upstanding citizens are not even given a chance to prove to be recognized by a legal union.

That’s my food for thought.

November 17, 2008 at 11:56 pm
(263) Mike says:

Thanks Vic, I appreciate your points- and they are compelling. I didn’t see it as an issue of taking way your civil rights. To me it is putting ones self-interests aside and doing what is right for us as a nation and a civilization. We have begun a moral decline and our most precious commodity- our children are the ones that are at risk and will have to live with the decisions we are making now. Its not about me and my marriage or you or others friends or family member that is or isn’t gay. It’s about what is good and healthy for our families and for the generations to come. After I studied the results of many intelligent and informed studies in this country and other countries that have embraced this lifestyle and the affects it has had on society it was clear to me.
Sounds like you have found happiness. That is what we all want in this life. But I’m afraid according to most all the experts I studied -you are in the minority. I saw the statistics of how homosexuality affected people mentally, emotionally, their health, and the financial burdens on all of us because of the health risks involved. And I didn’t want someone to tell my grandsons that it was normal and healthy for a man to do (that) to another man. That is why I came to the conclusion that I had to vote for prop 102.
And people are right to say “but what about the divorce rate, the broken homes, the single parents or the large number abortions and children who are born out of wedlock” I agree, these also contribute to the moral decline of families and our nation, and they need to be taken seriously- too often it is lust and not love. And it’s too easy to be selfish and give up. But because of activist judges, I was forced to vote again on what I felt was good for my children and grandchildren I hope you can understand.

November 19, 2008 at 11:23 am
(264) Al says:

Creating a separate marriage institution for homosexuals and heterosexuals is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. This bill should be invalidated by the United States Supreme Court to protect the civil liberties of homosexuals.

Look at the issue objectively, with full knowledge and comprehension of the Constitution, and you will see that this ballot measure is an illegal act.

November 21, 2008 at 2:24 pm
(265) Josh says:

Mike,

I’d be more inclined to believe it was really about people’s concern for their children and family if it wasn’t such a load of bologna. In Ca they professed to be all about protecting the family and basically banned certain families, which already exist, from having the same legal standing and societal recognition as other families, while again voting down a proposition to require parental notification and consent for a minor girl to receive an abortion. It truly boggles my mind when I try to figure out what a certain percent of the population was thinking when voting for banning gay marriage and allowing minor abortion without parental notification or consent. How can they possibly conclude that gay couples being married is more dangerous to their family than minor girls having the opportunity to engage in unprotected sex with the states help in keeping it a secret from them.

Also, you are confusing homosexuality with unprotected anal penetration. It’s like saying that being a drug addict puts you at risk for HIV, when it’s actually intravenous drug use that isn’t being done safely that is the problem. Even if we did ban homosexuality, which isn’t even the case, that wouldn’t be the answer to fixing the health problem. The only way to even have a chance at having a positive effect is through educating them on proper safety measures and probable consequences without proper safety and possibly even with proper safety.

Even regardless of this, the issue is irrelevant. Promiscuous homosexuals aren’t even as likely to want to get married, just as promiscuous heterosexuals aren’t likely either. They aren’t going to accidentally end up adopting a child and decide they should get married or be pressured into getting married. Homosexual couples that get married would truly have to put a lot more thought and effort into having a child through whatever process they end up using, and probably be more thoroughly investigated and checked up on if they want to adopt. Also, marriage has never been about finding bad parents and ‘protecting’ children. We already have people working to ensure that children in unsafe homes are removed from them and placed in better homes, and this goes for all children. If someone legitimately feels the home of a homosexual couple is unsafe for a child, report them to CPS, but most likely there won’t be anything wrong with the child if your only reason for reporting was because the couple is homosexual.

November 22, 2008 at 12:43 am
(266) Mike says:

Josh; why is it so important that homosexuals get “Married”? If marriage is such a disaster, and the heterosexuals have just managed to ruin “the institution of marriage” anyway. Why is the gay community so head set on becoming involved in the same thing for? It seems to me you should be putting all your efforts into pushing for something different and better.
I too am baffled as to why the Cal. people could not pass the parental consent prop. That is a strange one. But then again its California, they probably thought it might affect their rights somehow to prohibit their own ability to have abortions. Who knows what they were thinking!
I thought it was interesting that you used the comparisons of homosexuality and drug use. The experts have statistics about that too, but I don’t think I need to get into that right now.
Educating is one great way to help with the sexual health problems in our world right now, and not only with the gay community. But I didn’t see anywhere in the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle that I am asked to embrace as normal and healthy which excluded some types of sex acts. I may be wrong but I was under the impression that “anal penetration” was the ‘normal” practice of most gay men. And just like heterosexuals “safe-sex” practices are not always followed. One of the reasons for the spread of Aids and other sexual diseases.
Yes there are laws that are out there to help protect children, and we all should help in protecting the innocent child when they are in a bad situation whether in a heterosexual or homosexual home, makes no difference. But even these laws fail to protect everyone; we see it on the news all the time. And again the statistics are not good in this area too when it comes to children in the homosexual lifestyle.
I know that you have good intentions and that there are exceptions in every lifestyle, good and bad.
But unfortunately they are a small minority in the gay community. You are asking us to accept the whole concept of homosexuality as normal, healthy and good. I’m sorry but the evidence is against it.
Because of activist judges ruling from the bench, we were forced to vote on this proposition. And I realize that it does offend some, but my point is that I don’t want my children and grandchildren exposed to these types of unhealthy, un-normal, and immoral types of lifestyles and pushed as normal and healthy and good even if you think yours is, the studies show to the contrary

November 23, 2008 at 10:45 pm
(267) Common Sense says:

Whether you want to believe it or not, Gay marriage will eventually become legalized everywhere in the U.S. You can’t simply overturn a decision like this when the game is already in play in places like Hawaii, California, Vermont, and New Jersey. There’s no turning back. Stop looking to the past for solutions and ideas for the future. If we stayed set in our traditions, wouldn’t we still be crucifying heretics and burning witches?

I would go on, but I hope you get the point. If you don’t, I hope you can someday open your eyes and your mind.

P.S. Remember that whole thing about separation of church and state? Hmm…wonder where that went…

-Common Sense.

November 24, 2008 at 1:46 pm
(268) Josh says:

MIke,

Homosexuals getting ‘married,’ be it civil marriage or even some new title that gets a marriage license, is important because our federal government has been very adamant about not creating and enforcing any sort of same sex partnership valid throughout the entire united states that receive full federal and state benefits. Whether or not Pres. Elect Obama does help to create any such institution is something nobody can know for sure, but even he says giving them full, equal rights to marriage, whether or not it’s called ‘marriage,’ is important, and if they already had that why would he even consider it an issue?

I think you failed to grasp why I used the comparison to drug use. While you may be able to find similarities in a group, that similarity does not necessarily imply causation. If you found heterosexuality similar between people of a group with second highest STD rate, we wouldn’t just conclude that heterosexuality puts someone at the second highest risk for STD’s and call it a day. We would figure out why, which would be them having unprotected sexual contact with many partners. If we really wanted to go strictly on statistics of unhealthy sexual lifestyles to ban marriage from a group, we would have to change the minimum age to marry up to around 25 or so. People under 25 make up the vast majority of sexual diseases and unhealthy lifestyles.

If this was all about protecting our children from unhealthy lifestyles based on studies, we should actually be encouraging our girls to be gay. The sexually transmitted disease rate among gay women is minuscule in comparison to heterosexuals. Combining gay men and gay women in this area is unreasonable. There is no explanation why we would exclude gay women from marriage on grounds of being sexually unhealthy because it’s simply not true, with statistics on its side.

Also, you and many others seem to be referencing this ‘homosexual lifestyle’ and making it seem horrific, when in reality it’s just some absurd phrase with no meaning like the ‘Bush doctrine,’ which as of today I still have no idea of what the meaning is. When people talk about the rise in teen pregnancies they don’t make some vague reference to the ‘heterosexual lifestyle’ and say it was the problem because it would sound ridiculous.

For the sake of argument, let’s say gay marriage is, in fact, unhealthy, immoral, etc, wouldn’t it be much more effective and less controversial, if we wanted to protect our children from being exposed to the topic, to just make a prop to restrict the teaching of marriage in school until senior year of high school or something like that? They wouldn’t even need to know about marriage until they were 18 and they would virtually be adults and, in all likelihood, have already been exposed to homosexuality by some other means.

November 25, 2008 at 1:39 am
(269) Mike says:

Josh- thank you again for your comments, I can have empathy for gays (I’m not sure what you want me to call them) wanting to have a recognition of a union. To have rights and the ability to take care of and have a say when it comes to their loved ones. I agree that I don’t know how Pres Elect Obama will handle or even if he will try to address this issue. But again I know you don’t like my sighting statistics, But it is clear from the statistics that (1)”Relatively few homosexuals chose to “marry once it became possible to do so.” And (2) Homosexual leaders now admit that that “they were in principal opposed to the idea of marriage and supported it as another means of gaining respectability.” But again Because of the activist judges ruling from the bench, and some other people wanted marriage to be redefined- we were forced to vote on this proposition here in Arizona, California and Florida.
And for your argument’s of “encouraging our girls to be gay”. Do you realize that the statistics of lesbian women are that 83% use alcohol and 56% use other drugs? And a 1990 U.S. study showed that women who had a female sexual partner in the last 5 years- had an average of 10.1 partners in those 5 years, while women with only male partners had an average of 2.2 partners. Also there are many studies that say lesbians life span is comparably shorter than straights(“The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.” What about the evidence that “Lesbian, bisexual and other women who have sex with women (WSW) may be at greater risk for certain cancers”, and there are a lot more evidence about mental illness, spousal abuse and suisides for me to disagree. I believe that we should encourage our young girls to avoid these relationships.
But you may be on to something when you suggest that we “make a prop to restrict the teaching of marriage in school until senior year of high school or something like that.” Especially when in Mass. A book was introduced to a kindergarten class espousing two same sex partners as being married, and when the parents went to the school board to complain- the father was arrested. Or when a grade school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to their teacher’s Lesbian wedding without out parent’s knowledge or consent.

November 26, 2008 at 3:02 pm
(270) Josh says:

I understand that there are problems that may arise from a certain sexual orientation with whatever statistics there may be, but restricting marriage on those grounds is not something we do. It doesn’t help the problem at all. If we truly were interested in using statistics to make sure we don’t endorse the unhealthy life of a couple through marriage, we would have to ban overweight couples from marrying. Find some statistics on the adverse effects that an unhealthy couple (bad diet habits or lack of physical activities) has on their children. Find some statistics on hereditary diseases and how children are doomed to cope with conditions they could not have prevented. Why would the state be interested in showing approval of the home of people whose lifestyle is without a doubt unhealthy and will most likely cause that child to have a shorter, less productive life?

I usually do not get upset over our governments decision on an issue, but I do have a problem with inconsistency. Like with abortion, whether we keep the law the way it is or make most abortion illegal is not my concern. My concern is that, while we have punishments for ppl who intentionally hurt the woman and kill the fetus or for doctors who unlawfully perform abortions, I have yet find any punishment in Ca penal code in reference to a woman who unlawfully aborts her child. It simply amazes me we criminally prosecute everyone who breaks the law except the mother.

And here’s a link to some something that might make you understand the job of our judges and maybe show a little respect for their place in our government. Just because you don’t like the outcome is no justification to disrespect them. If you can’t open the link let me know.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/topic.php?uid=33283194670&topic=8400

And the field trip was nothing like that, the children there had consent, and a couple parents did not give consent and those children stayed at school. The only reasonable argument is whether or not the school resources should be used for such a field trip, but even then they did go to a government building for a government sanctioned ceremony so using government resources shouldn’t be so taboo.

December 30, 2008 at 7:13 am
(271) Jacob says:

Looks like the people spoke! Thats the great thing about America.. Democracy and open borders. You can leave any time you like!

May 29, 2009 at 12:28 am
(272) Jordan Paree says:

I can’t believe this passed! Are people not aware of “separation of church and state?” Do they not know that in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it says, “Congress cannot make laws based on an establishment of religion,” and are people not aware that this is discrimination, and discrimination is illegal?

This proposition needs to be repealed.

April 14, 2010 at 11:12 pm
(273) Alexis says:

This proposistion pisses me off. There is nothing wrong with two men or two women who love each other to get married. It’s just another form of discrimination. Black people wanted rights; they got them eventually. Women wanted rights; they’ve had them. Gays want rights; according to this prop they cant have them. Think about it if you take away their rights your taking away the entire nations right to the pursuit of happiness. This proposistion is unconstitutional. Gay people getting married is not going to get in the way of anyone else getting married. Marriage is a union of love. Not that of just a man and a woman but a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I hope this proposition will be over ruled one day because it is wrong.

Leave a Comment


Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.