But when they do let their guard down…

03 Dec 2011 10:46 pm
Posted by: Donna

will-cathi-herrod-ever-apologize

My Google Alert for Center for Arizona Policy popped up last night and it was Cathi Herrod’s weekly “5 Minutes for Families”. The latest installment is about the importance of stalwartness in protecting traditional marriage from the liberal gay plague: Never Let Our Guard Down.

While the marriage amendment victory was a critical step to protecting marriage in Arizona, we would be foolish to think our work is done to ensure marriage is never redefined. A recent poll from the liberal Public Policy Polling group claims a smaller margin of Arizona voters now support traditional marriage – 45% say same-sex “marriage” should be illegal, and 44% say it should be legal. Their poll also says that a majority of voters think that Arizona should establish marriage counterfeits like domestic partnerships.

Of course, the poll did not ask whether marriage should be defined as only the union of one man and one woman. The questions were not exactly neutral, and the polling company typically works for those who want to redefine marriage. The obvious intent is to begin laying a foundation to ask Arizona voters to redefine marriage in the next ten years or so.

The poll shows the “never give up” commitment of marriage opponents to eventually win on the marriage issue. These organizations are well funded and are well organized. Marriage opponents will be out registering voters and working hard to influence the 2012 elections. At CAP, our team will never let our guard down in our stand to see marriage stay the union of one man and one woman.

They certainly won’t. And their dedication to the pursuit of micromanaging your personal life for the Lord does not preclude dishonest Earthly means to attain Heavenly theocratic ends. Note Herrod’s mention of “marriage counterfeits like domestic partnerships”. Now, this is interesting because Prop 102 in 2008 was the “Marriage Protection Act”. It was sold to voters as a state constitutional amendment that would simply define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The proponents of the measure made a big deal of emphasizing that the state of marriage, and only marriage, was under consideration.

This was because in 2006 Arizona voters had narrowly defeated a proposed amendment with broader language that included denying legal rights to all unmarried couples.

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.

So they came back two years later.

Didn’t we already vote on this?

Nope. In 2006, the voters focused on a different issue—benefits for unmarried couples. Prop 102 is a different amendment with different language. Prop 102 is 20 simple and clear words that define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman. That’s all.

But, I believe everyone is entitled to the same rights. Doesn’t Prop 102 take rights away from some people?

No. Prop 102 does not take rights away from anyone. Prop 102 simply defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Everyone has the right to live as they choose, but no one has the right to redefine marriage for all of society. Voting “yes” on Prop 102 secures the definition of marriage for future generations.

See? You were being silly and overwrought if you thought Prop 102 was an effort to invalidate unmarried relationships! It was all about marriage. Marriage, marriage, marriage. Oh wait.

Their poll also says that a majority of voters think that Arizona should establish marriage counterfeits like domestic partnerships.

Geez, why would Cathi care about people in alternative arrangements now that the precious holy institution of hetero marriage is secure?

After Prop. 107 went down to defeat by a vote of 48-52 percent, supporters of same-sex marriage adopted a clear strategy: They would back new partnership benefits, then frame the public debate around protecting those benefits, all the while paving the way for same-sex marriage. But opponents of gay marriage also learned from their loss. They decided to push for a simple, straightforward amendment that would enshrine the traditional definition of marriage without touching the domestic partnership issues raised in 2006, thus making it difficult for the opposition to obscure the central issue. “Just the simple definition of marriage was what we wanted to do,” said Herrod. “Other issues related to that would be addressed at a different time.”

Cathi and her crew got right on “other issues related to that” once Jan Brewer became Governor, didn’t they?

5 Comments

  1. Comment by dude on December 4, 2011 9:24 am

    Yes Cathi, we’re never going to give up. Or let you down. Or run around, or desert you.

  2. Comment by Timmys Cat on December 5, 2011 9:01 am

    . Everyone has the right to live as they choose, but no one has the right to redefine marriage for all of society.

    He! Cathi dear, irony is not what you do to hubbys boxers.

    Ah, the great” that’s the way it’s supposed to be” even though it has no basis in reality., So if something comes along as a perceived threat to the Annoited Protectors of the American Way@ (white, self-entitled) then it’s pearl clutching, undie spotting time.
    St. Cathi, NOBODY CARES! I think that’s whats got you P/O’d the most.. You can feel the self-applied righteous power slipping away, and not many can really see the point of propping up an archaic faith based ideal for a few, when secular law for all says different.. A proud tri-corn wearing Constitution waving patriot like you has surely heard of the 4th Amendment. (i know sweetie, but no matter what Russell P said, you can’t ignore laws you don’t like.)

    Newtie values! Marriage is between one man and one woman at a time. If they overlap, at least it’s boys and girls boinking and not….eeewww!

  3. Comment by Timmys Cat on December 5, 2011 2:05 pm

    After ALEC my paranoia is on high alert, but I’m sure these are all just coincidences.

    THIS

    And THIS Yup, hubby-bubby.

    And finally THIS

    I sure of course naturally nothing there keep on walking that there was no help on legislative language.

  4. Comment by Timmys Cat on December 5, 2011 2:09 pm

    Craps, last THIS should be THIS

  5. Comment by Terry on December 7, 2011 5:01 pm

    Timmys Cat, those ‘this’s’ are really scary. Talk about cozy appointments, you scratch my back I’ll scratch your balls er back. Crap this place is worse than Hazzard.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.