A reminder that proponents of Prop 102 lied to Arizona in 2008

02 Apr 2013 03:32 pm
Posted by: Donna

In 2006 Prop 107 would have added the following words to the Arizona State Constitution:

“To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.”

It was defeated by nearly three points in the election that year, a result that was quite a rarity at that time. Opponents to the Protection of Marriage Act, as it was called, shrewdly and successfully persuaded the majority of Arizona voters that the proposed amendment went too far with the “no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized” language. That meant that all same sex partners, in addition to many opposite sex couples, could be denied a host of benefits and legal protections.

So the conservatives came back with a “marriage only” amendment two years later. Prop 102 added the following words to the state constitution:

“ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE.”

And they swore up and down they were only interested in protecting the precious, holy institution of straight marriage from same-sex interlopers and did not intend to use it to attack civil unions. I had more than one prominent supporter of Prop 102 make that claim right to my face. Of course, the second the 2008 election was over the opponents of marriage equality forgot all about that. One of the first things Governor Brewer did when she was appointed in 2009 was sign a Center for Arizona Policy bill that would have yanked domestic partnership benefits from state employees in same-sex relationships. In the meantime, CAP has made it abundantly clear that they believe so-called “marriage counterfeits” are a threat to society and should be fought vigorously. Since they’ve not had much luck trying to get Phoenix and Tucson to roll back their domestic partnership benefits, Cathi Herrod is now turning her sights on the little hamlet of Bisbee. The Bisbee City Council will be voting tonight on legally recognizing the civil unions of same-sex couples.

They will be the first city in Arizona to give full legal status civil unions, short of marriage which is prohibited in the constitution, if the ordinance passes. CAP is clearly planning to sue if it does:

But a conservative Christian advocacy group says Bisbee can’t legally recognize civil unions that would include same-sex couples.
A letter from the Phoenix-based Center for Arizona Policy says an ordinance would violate the Arizona Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage and would be the subject of a costly legal fight.

Again, this is NOT what they were telling voters about what Prop 102 did back in 2008. Here’s what Peter Gentala, Chairman of Arizona for Marriage, said in support of the measure in the Secretary of State’s publicity pamphlet:

Get the facts. Opponents of marriage will say anything to get you to vote against protecting marriage. Here are some of their distortions:

Myth: Arizonans have already rejected this marriage amendment.

Fact: Proposition 102 is very different from the amendment that was proposed in 2006, and does one thing only: it preserves marriage as between a man and a woman. This amendment sets the issue of domestic partnerships aside and focuses where Arizonans agree: on the meaning of marriage.

Looks like the leaders behind Prop 102 deliberately perpetrated a fraud on the voters of Arizona. Which I doubt troubles their consciences in the slightest, since they’re all about availing themselves of useful lies to advance their cause.

1 Comment(s)

  1. Comment by Mike Slater on April 3, 2013 4:30 pm

    I doubt the City of Bisbee has the money to fight a court case they can’t win.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.