For any who are interested, I just became aware of a VERY INFORMAL AND UNOFFICIAL poll re: Proposition 102, the Marriage Amendment.
It's a simple 1-question poll. I'd encourage you to take 2 minutes and answer it. As of late Wed. night (10-15-08), the results are as follows:
Will you vote in favor of Proposition 102?
- Yes, I think it should be part of Arizona's Constitution.
60% (2280) - No, marriage is already defined in Arizona as one man, one woman and the voters already rejected this in 2006.
39% (1504)
Total Votes: 3784
The poll is here; I'll be curious to see the results as we get closer to election day.
And remember to vote for real on November 4th!
UPDATE
As of late Tues. night (10-21-08), the results are as follows:
Will you vote in favor of Proposition 102?
- Yes, I think it should be part of Arizona's Constitution. 59% (2772)
- No, marriage is already defined in Arizona as one man, one woman and the voters already rejected this in 2006. 40% (1882)
Posts
2 comments:
Yay for bigotry and hate. Didn't we already vote this thing down once? Oh, and by the way, marriage of two people of the same sex is ALREADY ILLEGAL in Arizona. Who would Jesus hate? Hmmmm. I don't feel like my marriage to my husband is threatened because of this...why do you? Don't we have more important things to worry about? Have you heard the economy if falling apart?
Shelley:
You asked "Didn't we vote this down once already?" The answer to that is no. The people voted down a very different amendment in 2006 - one that attempted to do much more than clarify the definition of marriage. . .one filled with very confusing language. Prop. 102 does one thing and one thing only - it makes it harder for judges to change the law without the people's consent.
Yes, marriage is already defined in AZ statute as "one man, one woman." But it was also defined that way in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut until judges overruled the laws in those 3 states - without the people's consent. There's a difference between state laws (statutes) and a state's constitution. Statutes can be overruled or judged unconstitutional by just a handful of individuals in black robes - as proven in 3 states so far - but to change a constitution requires an amendment - a much more difficult process which requires a majority of votes from the citizens.
We've already seen judges force their opinions on the people in 3 states; who's to say they wouldn't force some other issue here in Arizona? Maybe not gay marriage, but maybe higher taxes. Maybe mandatory public education. Maybe jailing people for not voting. Any of these seem like wild ideas - if not utterly impossible. But if judges can overthrow any state law with the stroke of a pen, why couldn't they make these changes? Just for the sake of argument, they could - hypothetically, of course - void every marriage license ever issued by the state by invalidating the current "one man, one woman" statute.
Are these just "slippery slope" threats? What-ifs and Maybes voiced by a bunch of Chicken Littles?
That's what the people of Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut thought.
Post a Comment