The Arizona ballot for the election on Nov. 4 will feature eight citizen initiatives, also known as propositions, for voters to choose to pass or reject.

A citizen initiative is a proposal to amend either an existing law or the state constitution. For an initiative aimed at amending a law, a petition signed by at least 10 percent of Arizona’s registered voters must be submitted to the Secretary of State. For an initiative that would amend the state constitution, at least 15 percent of registered voters are required to sign the petition. Votes on initiatives are held every two years, with the options of “Yes” or “No.”

Proposition 102 relates to Arizona’s definition of marriage. The official title of Prop 102 says it “defines that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

Kelly Molique is the spokeswoman for Prop 102 and for the Web site yesformarriage.com, one of the key supporters of the initiative.

“The language of the proposition is 20 clear words that define marriage as one man and one woman,” Molique said.

Under Arizona state law, same-sex marriage is already prohibited. However, Molique said amending the constitution is still important.

“It gives Arizonans a chance to choose their definition of marriage instead of legislators or judges,” Molique said. “Laws can be changed at any time, so by amending the state constitution, Arizonans get to decide.”
Molique cited California and Connecticut as instances where state laws were overturned in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. However, she said this is not the main motivation for the initiative.

“The reason Prop 102 has gained so much support is because the proposition is very clear and not because of any fear,” Molique said.

Jim Burroway, the campaign chairman for No on Prop 102, said the initiative is being used as a distraction.
“We think it’s unnecessary and divisive,” Burroway said. “We already have a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and it’s been ruled on by the Arizona Supreme Court.”

Burroway said the legislators behind the initiative should be held accountable for putting Prop 102 on the ballot.

“I think what’s going on is that Phoenix politicians are shoving more important issues to the side for this one, and that shows their priorities are screwed up,” Burroway said. “We expect them to pay attention to important issues like the economy instead of these insignificant and divisive ones.”

In 2006, Proposition 107, which would have amended the constitution with a same-sex marriage ban, failed to pass. This was the first time in the United States where a same-sex marriage ban failed to pass the initiative process. Burroway said voting should be the final word.

“We need to send a message to our legislators that if we vote no on a proposition, we really do mean no,” Burroway said. “They have to trust the voters. We’re finding people are fed up with having to deal with this proposition again when we already dealt with it two years ago.”

However, Molique said Proposition 102 offers voters a new choice.

“Proposition 102 is different than what we saw in 2006,” Molique said. “We’re only defining marriage. It doesn’t deny benefits and it doesn’t get into any legal issues.”

PHOENIX — Under a state law enacted in 1996, it is illegal for same-sex couples to marry in Arizona. The law has been upheld by the state’s courts, and there is no visible movement — among voters or lawmakers — to overturn it.

Nonetheless, Arizonans on Tuesday will be asked to vote for the second time in two years on a proposal to amend the state’s Constitution to bar same-sex marriage. A similar ballot measure was rejected in 2006.

Supporters of this year’s measure, Proposition 102, say a constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent “politicians or judges” from overturning the state law, an apparent reference to neighboring California. The State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot in June, shortly after same-sex couples gained the right to marry in California.

“The people of Arizona have their own way of doing things, but at the same time, we are also part of the United States,” said Kelly Molique, a spokeswoman for Yes for Marriage, the main backer of the measure. “So we see what’s going on in other areas.”

When Arizona voters turned down the 2006 ballot measure, they became first in the nation to do so. Until then, backers of such statewide constitutional bans had a 27-for-27 winning streak.

Since then, opponents of same-sex marriage have had further cause for concern: courts in California and Connecticut said laws in those states barring such unions were unconstitutional, bringing to three — along with Massachusetts — the number of states where same-sex couples can marry.

Backers of the Arizona measure have raised more than $7 million to promote it, with major financing coming from Focus on the Family Action, the conservative Colorado organization that is also backing a ballot measure in California that would reinstate that state’s ban on same-sex marriages.

But officials favoring Proposition 102 say the vast majority of contributions have come from inside Arizona.

State Representative Steve B. Yarbrough, Republican of Chandler, said the court decision in California had been a “pretty persuasive point” for putting the proposed constitutional amendment to a vote.

“It allowed folks like myself to go to state senators and say, ‘See, see, see,’ ” Mr. Yarbrough said.

But opponents of the Arizona measure say that unlike in California, in Arizona there is no effort in favor of same-sex marriage that threatens to overturn the current ban.

“Their claim that we have to protect marriage from attack is ridiculous, because there’s no such attack,” said State Representative Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat and chairwoman of Arizona Together, which opposes Proposition 102. “It’s a fake threat.”

The opponents have raised less than a tenth of the money raised by supporters, a gap they say may have to do with the amount of national money pouring into the fight over the California measure, which is expected to be one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns ever.

Barbara McCullough-Jones, executive director of Equality Arizona, a gay rights group in Phoenix, said she had no doubt that the highly publicized California campaign was affecting fund-raising in Arizona and Florida, which is also voting on a constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage.

“On a larger political landscape, Arizona is not necessarily the type of state to move public policy on a national stage,” said Ms. McCullough-Jones, who wrote an opinion piece, “Will Arizona Be Abandoned?”, in July. “And that reality comes up against activists in this state again and again.”

Ms. Sinema, the state lawmaker, said the California measure carried higher stakes for same-sex couples.
“Look, if on Nov. 5 this passes, gay marriage will be illegal in Arizona, and on Nov. 5, if this fails, gay marriage will be illegal in Arizona,” Ms. Sinema said of Proposition 102. “But people in California have something to lose.”

Still, many gay rights activists in Arizona are hoping for a repeat of 2006, when most everyone was surprised by the defeat of the effort to bar same-sex marriage.

Jason Cianciotto, the executive director of Wingspan, which serves the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in Tucson, said he vividly remembered watching the 2006 returns come in.

“I called a colleague and I said ‘I think we might pull this out,’ and she said, ‘If we do, I’ll eat my hat,’ and lo and behold we won,” Mr. Cianciotto said of the 2006 vote. “And I look forward to skeptics eating their hats this time as well.”

If voters were clear on existing law, many might decide there’s no reason to adopt the amendment.

Changing the state Constitution is a very serious step that has ripple effects through the legal system. The possibilities for unintended consequences are enormous. And they can only be fixed with another trip to the voters for another change in the Constitution.

That was glaringly obvious with the previous run at a constitutional amendment defining marriage. The proposition, defeated in 2006, was very broadly written, extending to local governments and applying to domestic partnerships of any type.

This time around, the language is narrower. Proposition 102 states that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state.

This is not quite as straightforward as it sounds. The amendment clearly aims to disallow same-sex marriages that are legal in a few other states.

Refusing to recognize another state’s contracts brings up federal constitutional issues. What about other types of same-sex legal partnerships?

Lawyers could use up a lot of billable hours parsing the exact meaning of “union” and “marriage.”

Arizona must get beyond the acrimony fueled by the fight over Proposition 102.

Already, the state has gone a long way toward rejecting the notion that sexual orientation has any bearing on a person’s rights or place in society.

As gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals no longer feel compelled to hide in the closet, we see that they’re our friends, colleagues and, often, family members.

Personal relations are dispelling the clouds of prejudice and ignorance.

Supporters of Proposition 102 call themselves “Arizona for Marriage.”

They’re right to worry about the condition of marriage. The institution is in sorry shape.

Statisticians vary on how to interpret the numbers, but as many as one out of two marriages ends in a breakup.

The divorce rate has improved in recent years, but a big reason is that fewer people are getting married.

Too many men are fathering children without shouldering the responsibility of creating a family.

One-parent households, closely linked to poverty, are more common than ever.

None of this has anything to do with whether same-sex couples can or cannot get married.

Arizona could use strong advocates of marriage. They should spend their time and energy hunting for real ways to shore it up.

Proposition 102 is a needless distraction. Voters should reject it.

Molique: Proposition 102 is 20 simple and clear words that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Since marriage isn’t currently defined in Arizona’s constitution, politicians or activist judges could easily redefine it. Passing Proposition 102 is the best way to prevent that from happening.

Lewis: According to state law, marriage in Arizona is already defined as between a man and a woman and has been upheld as constitutional by our courts. Given this fact, politicians dedicating resources to debating marriage is a waste of time. Politicians need to stay focused on more monumental issues that face Arizonans such as the economy, the cost of gasoline, immigration and the mortgage crisis.

2. What about the state law against gay marriage in Arizona?

Molique: There’s a big difference between a law and a constitutional amendment. A law can be easily changed by politicians or activist judges; a constitutional amendment cannot. The California Supreme Court decision overturning California’s state marriage law shows that marriage can be redefined by judges unless the people define marriage in the state constitution.

Lewis: Arizona law states that marriage is only between one man and one woman. This statute has been in effect for more than 12 years, and recently, the Arizona courts upheld the law, saying that it’s already constitutional. The definition of marriage is protected by state law and by our courts. 3. How much out-of-state influence is involved in this campaign, either for or against?

Molique: Very little in the YESfor

Marriage.com campaign. The YESfor Marriage.com coalition is made up of a diverse group of Arizonans of all ethnic, political and religious backgrounds. We’re very proud of the fact that 98.65 percent of all donations have come from Arizonans.

Lewis: The prophet of the Mormon Church has instructed members of the Mormon Church to give of their “time and means” to this proposition and they have done exactly that. Nearly 90 percent of the $7 million raised by the YES on Marriage campaign has come from Mormon donors. Why is the Mormon Church - run out of Salt Lake City, Utah - so intent on changing things in Arizona? 4. A recent poll showed 49 percent of Arizonans in favor of the proposal and 42 percent against, with 9 percent undecided. What does the close split tell you about the issue itself?

Molique: We expect Proposition 102 to pass with well more than 50 percent of the vote. That 49 percent of Arizonans in that poll support marriage as the union of one man and one woman tells us that this issue is one that transcends and is supported by all political parties, social cultures and religions.

Lewis: It is evident that Arizonans are not concerned with debating marriage because it is already defined as between a man and a woman, and because we already voted on this two years ago. Arizona families are much more concerned with the economy, gas prices, their mortgage.

5. This is the only proposition that came out of the Legislature. Why was this so important to do now, with the state facing another $1 billion deficit?

Molique: Proposition 102 has nothing to do with the state’s budget deficit. That’s an issue for the state Legislature. Proposition 102 has everything to do with securing the definition of marriage in our state constitution.

Lewis: Politicians in the state Legislature have forced this issue on us not just once, but now twice. In 2006 we voted no, and now they are back at it again, putting divisive issues on the ballot again. It is time that we tell our politicians to start listening to us and stop treating us like we are dumb. We need to work together to solve important problems that threaten Arizona families such as the economy, the mortgage crisis, gas prices and immigration issues.

Arizona Republic Article 10/13/08

Proposition 102 — NO
What it would do: A constitutional amendment that says marriage in Arizona can only between one man and one woman.

Pro: Arizona law carries this marriage definition, but the courts could overturn it as happened in California and Massachusetts.
Con: Arizona Supreme Court already upheld current law.
Our view: Marriage should become a private religious institution, not the subject of government sanction and discrimination.

by Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic

For the second time in two years, Arizonans will be asked to change the state Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

Proposition 102, a citizen’s initiative on the November ballot, attempts to block any efforts to allow homosexuals to marry in Arizona.

“We are not against anything,” said Barbara Willis, president of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, a ministry organization that has poured $100,000 into the campaign supporting Proposition 102. “We support marriage as one man and one woman.”

Organizers of the campaign working against the measure argue that a similar proposal failed in 2006 and that it’s insulting to put the issue before voters again, especially when it comes to the weighty matter of amending the Constitution.

“Our question is, ‘Do they think we’re stupid?’ ” said state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, who is chairwoman of Arizona Together Opposed to Prop. 102. “Do they think we’re dumb?”

Three states - Arizona, California and Florida - have a marriage amendment on the Nov. 4 ballot.

In 2006, Arizona voters narrowly rejected a constitutional amendment that contained the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage, as well as a provision that would have prohibited government agencies from providing benefits to domestic partners.

That vote gave Arizona the distinction of being the only state in the nation to reject a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Twenty-five states have amendments that bar same-sex marriage.

Supporters of one-man/ one-woman marriage are back this year with a trimmed proposal aimed solely at the definition of marriage, calculating that the domestic-partner prohibitions helped doom the 2006 vote.

This time, the measure is not weighted down with multiple clauses and provisions. Proposition 102 is 20 words long.

“Because it’s so clear, it’s very easy for people to get their arms around it,” said Kelly Molique, a married Scottsdale mother of two who has volunteered to talk in support of the amendment. “It keeps it real simple.”

Molique said she, like many others in Arizona, assumed that marriage was between one man and one woman.

In fact, that is the case in Arizona, in practice and in law. Since 1996, Arizona has had a law that contains the one-man/one-woman definition. In 2003, a homosexual couple challenged the law as unconstitutional before the Arizona Court of Appeals. They lost their case, and in 2004, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to review the matter, which kept the door shut on same-sex marriage in this state.

And that, opponents such as Sinema say, is why Proposition 102 is not needed: The battle has been won. Not only is there a law banning same-sex marriage, but the law has been upheld in court and no one is agitating to allow such a practice.

Not so fast, say opponents of same-sex marriage. Without a constitutional guarantee, a court in the future could follow in the steps of a California judge who last spring ruled that the state’s one-man/one-woman marriage law was unconstitutional. The ruling touched off a series of same-sex marriages.

“A supreme court of Arizona could, in five years, have a different view of things,” said attorney Tim Casey, who is working in favor of Proposition 102. “You just never know what’s going to happen.”

That’s why a constitutional amendment is needed, on top of the law, he said. A law can be declared unconstitutional, but the constitution can’t be found unconstitutional.

Supporters such as Molique and Frank Macias, chairman of Yes for Marriage, say they don’t see much change in Arizona if Proposition 102 passes.

But if it fails, Macias says, anything is possible. “Who knows what the danger could be?” he said.

Macias, who has been married for more than 30 years, said the Yes campaign is not anti-gay but, rather, in favor of one of the fundamental building blocks of society.

“We’re certainly not against the homosexual, the gay people,” he said. “If they want to establish their own relationships, that’s OK.”

Sinema says nothing will change if Proposition 102 fails because marriage in Arizona involves a man and a woman.

And if it passes?

“We start throwing the kitchen sink into the Constitution,” she said, foreseeing other matters being enshrined in the Constitution when simple laws would do. “Why not put everything in the Constitution? Instead of having a Legislature, let’s put everything in the Constitution.”

Kelly Frieders is a Christian, a registered Republican and a straight, married mother of 10-year-old triplets. On paper, Frieders should be a supporter of state Sen. Tim Bee’s run for the U.S. House against Democratic incumbent Gabrielle Giffords.

Instead, Frieders is angry at Bee, because of his efforts to get Proposition 102 on the ballot, a legislature-produced measure sponsored by Bee to constitutionally define marriage in Arizona as legally being between one man and one woman.

Frieders says she doesn’t agree with supporters of Prop 102, who want to make the proposed amendment a religious issue.

“I’m really disappointed. I’m really upset with the direction the Republican Party has gone. I’m a Republican because I believe in less government and being financially conservative. Seems to me Prop 102 is about more government, not less,” Frieders says.

Frieders and others against Prop 102 are also upset that Bee and his fellow legislators ignored the fact that in 2006, Arizona voters narrowly defeated another anti-gay-marriage initiative, Proposition 107.

However, 2006’s Prop 107 differs from today’s Prop 102 in a big way: Prop 107 asked voters to not only define marriage between a man and a woman, but to bar government recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships. Prop 102 only constitutionally defines marriage–and is therefore expected by many political observers to pass on Nov. 4.

When Prop 107 was defeated, however, it was a moment of pride for those who fought the measure, like Frieders. Out of seven states that had anti-gay-marriage ballot measures that year, Arizona was the only state where a measure failed.

“In 2006, the big mantra was, ‘Let the people decide,’” Frieders says. “Well, the people did decide. They seem to forget that.”

In Pima County, organizations such as Wingspan and Arizona Together have partnered under the “No on Prop 102″ banner to try to convince voters the proposition isn’t worth their vote. Becky Corran and Vicki Gaubeca, No on Prop 102 volunteers, say not only is the amendment hateful, but redundant: A1996 Arizona law already bans same-sex marriage. That law was ruled constitutional in 2003 by the state Court of Appeals and left untouched by the Arizona Supreme Court.

“What’s amazing this time around is there are so many other issues that are more important, like the economy. This doesn’t seem that important,” Gaubeca says. “It’s almost insulting that this small group of politicians decided to ignore the will of the voters. It feels offensive, and it undermines the intelligence of Arizona voters.”

However, Corran, a No on Prop 102 co-chair, says people of faith like Frieders give her hope this latest initiative will be defeated, especially since those who support the initiative–including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Arizona Catholic bishops–are painting the initiative as a religious issue.

On Tuesday, Sept. 23, more than 30 church and synagogue leaders were slated to jointly express their opposition to Prop 102. Frieders spoke at a similar event two years ago, and jokes that she then shared her “coming-out story”–as a straight, married mother against Prop. 107.

“I said that why I believe in this fight is not in spite of those things, but because of those things: Marriage, family and faith are important to me. Bringing this up again focuses our government on all the wrong things, and that’s why I got involved again.”

Frieders says she was first inspired to get involved in gay civil rights issues after the 1998 death of Matthew Shepard, the Wyoming college student brutally murdered for being openly gay. Then, in 2000, a man was stabbed coming out of a Fourth Avenue café by a man yelling, “Jesus hates fags.”

“It bothered me, especially when it came from the name of my god. That’s not what Christ is about to me. That’s not what Jesus really believed,” Frieders says.

Scheduled to joining Frieders at Tuesday’s faith rally were the Rev. Kate Bradsen and her partner, Carol, who met in Episcopalian seminary in Cambridge, Mass. The Bradsens, who moved to Arizona after graduating in 2005, were also involved in the campaign to defeat Prop 107 in 2006.

“They’ve tried to make it seem like this came from all these people of faith. … Christianity is about more than this,” Kate Bradsen says. “I just don’t think this is what the state Constitution is for. … We defeated this in 2006. This time, we need to tell the politicians that no means no. I think Arizona is better than that. Arizona is more about people minding your own business.”

Bee filed the amendment proposal on Feb. 11, getting the remaining Republican senators to join as sponsors. At first, it seemed certain the initiative would be on the fall ballot, as it had enough support in both the state House and Senate. But it stalled in the Senate for months as the state budget crisis grew. Word was that Bee didn’t plan on moving the initiative forward at all.

But he did. On Friday, June 27, Senate President Bee was credited for reaching out to Democrats to get the budget passed, as one of only four Republican senators who voted in favor of what was considered the Democrats’ state budget.

In the waning hours of the session, he also allowed the marriage amendment to move forward.

Before it passed, however, Democratic opponents staged a rousing filibuster to delay the vote. During the filibuster, Sen. Jack Harper, of Surprise, chairing the session, cut off Tucson Sen. Paula Aboud, who is gay, by turning off her microphone and ending the filibuster. Critics contend Harper broke Senate rules by doing so.

The Weekly called Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, the organization leading support for the initiative, through YESforMarriage.com. The Weekly was instructed to call a media information line for YESforMarriage.com, but as of press time, no one has returned the calls.

Corran and Gaubeca say raising money to defeat Prop 102 is a priority–but not much has been raised so far. According to the YESforMarriage.com campaign finance report, dozens of Prop 102 supporters have signed checks for $10,000, and a few others for $100,000, helping the campaign raise $608,000 as of late August.

The last report filed as of press time by No on Prop 102 shows the opposition group has raised not quite $8,000.

1.    Vote NO - keep politicians out of marriage.  Arizona has a budget deficit and our schools need help. But what does the state legislature spend their time debating? Marriage—even though it’s already defined in state law as between a man and a woman and even though we voted on this two years ago.

2.    Vote NO - tell the politicians that we aren’t dumb.  Why won’t politicians listen to us? Do they think we’re dumb?  In 2006 we voted no, now they are back at it, putting divisive issues on the ballot. We must stop spending time debating the definition of marriage.

3.    Vote NO - tell politicians to get to work on real issues that matter to Arizona families.  Voting on the marriage issue isn’t important to people, we must focus on more important issues: health care, immigration, energy policy, the economy.

4.     Vote NO - leave marriage alone.  Marriage in Arizona is already defined in state law as between a man and a woman.  There’s no reason to change the Constitution.

5.    Vote NO again. Trust the people. Voters made their views known on the issue of marriage two years ago by defeating the so-called “Protect Marriage Amendment.” Forty nine legislators should not be able to overturn the voters on this issue.

“Apparently some politicians don’t trust the decision made by the people two years ago,” said Arizona Together spokeswoman Cynthia Leigh Lewis. “Voters need to ask themselves ‘why are we voting on this again?’ I think the conclusion is clear; Prop. 102 is an unnecessary distraction from more pressing issues that face Arizona.”

Marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman in state law. Given this fact, dedicating time to debating marriage is a waste of resources. Politicians need to stay focused on more monumental issues that face our state’s citizens such as the budget deficit, health care, energy policy, funding for our schools and stopping illegal immigration.

Commenting further, Lewis said, “Politicians should trust the people and stay out of marriage. They are wasting time rehashing resolved issues, time that could be spent focused on more important matters.”

The “No on Prop. 102” campaign led by Arizona Together seeks to send a strong signal to the legislature to focus on more important issues.