Prop 102 News

True Marriage Needs No Special ‘Protection’

September 16th, 2008

The following op-ed by Rev. Robin Hoover and Scott Morris appeared in this morning’s Arizona Daily Star:

History is filled with examples of religious and civil leaders taking on the “responsibility” of defining marriage. The endorsement of the mean-spirited Proposition 102 by Catholic bishops earlier this month is yet another attempt to do this.

Probably the oldest restrictions were against marriages between people of different religions or tribes. In Numbers 12, Miriam and Aaron criticize Moses for marrying a Cushite woman. In Ezra 9, the writer denounces those who have married people from other tribes. He makes it clear that God does not approve of this practice.

Other marriage rules were based on societal standing and race.

In the 1700s and 1800s, slaves in the United States could not legally marry. This situation only changed as the institution of slavery was itself made illegal at the end of a bloody civil war. Many argued that it was God who had established and supported the institution of slavery in the first place.

After it became legal for former slaves to marry, there were still laws being created to “protect” the institution of marriage in other ways. Forty-one U.S. states and territories at some time have had laws preventing white people from marrying African-Americans or people of mixed-race parents, and some states have prohibited whites from marrying Native Americans or Asians of certain descriptions.

These laws were justified as enacting what nature or God dictated. The Bible was often quoted to “prove” that such marriages went against the will of God.

Some current members of our congregations participated in the lawsuits that finally served to overturn the last of these “protections.”

This fall, those who would stand in judgment of our relationships are working to again “protect” the institution of marriage from change. Again, they use God’s will, nature itself and the Bible to justify their actions.

They have already gotten the laws in place, but change is coming too fast. Again, our youth, progressive citizens and faith leaders are calling for an end to the practice of marginalizing portions of our society. Again, people of good will are saying that each person should be able to marry the person that he or she loves.

Again, people who believe in a free society are saying that people should not be able to force their will and beliefs on other people. Again, people of faith are saying that true marriage does not need “protection.”

What Is the Cost of Proposition 102?

September 13th, 2008

The following article by Mark Kerr appeared in the Tucson Obsever’s blog:

So what is the cost of Proposition 102, the so-called “marriage amendment”?

According to the JLBC (Joint Legislative Budget Committee), the actual cost for drafting the initial bill was minimal.

With the draft, the bill has to be filed and considered by the Arizona Legislature, the state House of Representatives and state Senate.

For Fiscal Year (2008) that ended on June 30, the operational budget (staff (including elected officials) and expenses) for the Arizona House was $18,174,200 and for the Arizona Senate, $9,183,100, totalling $27,357,300.

So for one “legislative day,” the cost (including the leap day) would be $74,746.72.

During the past session, there were three Concurrent Resolutions dealing with the subject SCR (Senate Concurrent Resolution) 1038, HCR (House Concurrent Resolution) 2065 and SCR 1042.

These three measures took a total of 20 days, SCR 1038 - 3, HCR 2065 - 6, and SCR 1042 -11. This was the only bill dealing with putting a proposed amendment on the November 4 general election ballot.

With the twenty days the Arizona Legislature (as well as the staff) dealt with this issue, it brings the cost to $1,494,934.43.

Next is making registered voters in Arizona aware of this and other ballot proposals, as well as judges up for consideration in the state’s publicity pamphlet.

According to Kevin Tyne with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office, $1.2 - $1.3-million was spent on the 2006 publicity pamphlet, which had 19 ballot propositions and consisting of 240 pages.

For the 2008 election, the publicity pamphlet will consist of only 121 pages (50.416% of the 2006 version). Using the low figure given by Tyne and multiplying it by the 2008 pamphlet percentage size, the total cost will be $605,000.

Proposition 107 was the ballot measure in 2006, consisting of seven pages (ballot measure, arguments, etc.) or 2.92% of the publicity pamphlet for this election.

In 2008, Proposition 102 will consist of 10 pages or 8.27% of this year’s publicity pamphlet.

So with that, multiplying the 2008 percentage size for Proposition 102 to the total cost for this year’s pamphlet, the cost will be $50,033.50.

In 2006, the Center for Arizona Policy and their supporters, paid Sproul and Associates, a conservative, anti-LGBT political consulting firm to get the signatures needed, 183,917 valid, registered Arizona voters to qualify for the ballot, costing, according to the campaign reports for Protect Marriage Arizona (Committee #: 200602711), $252,884.55 or $1.375 per signature.

With that rate, and the new signature requirements due to the increase numbers of registered voters (230,047), the cost or “gift to the Center for Arizona Policy,” was $316,314.63.

What is the cost of Proposition 102 (and Arizona’s same sex marriage law)? At this point, $1,861,282.56.

How You Can Get The Word Out

September 12th, 2008

Help get the word out about the detrimental effects this amendment might have on Arizona’s families. Talk to everyone, your friends, co-workers, family members, grocery store clerks, and church members. Tell them how this will affect you personally.

You may want to talk about how:

  • It is already illegal for two people of the same sex to marry in Arizona and how this initiative is a waste of money.
  • Arizonans already voted on and defeated a similar amendment in 2006. Extremists groups are pushing policy too far to the right.
  • We have more important issues to focus on, like the economy, jobs, the price of gas and food, education, and health care.
  • Phoenix politicians are trying to change our laws and intruding in our private lives.

We have added two new resources on our web site to help you do this.

  1. Write to the media: If you want to write a letter to the editor or a guest opinion, we have information on where to send it. We also have a list of web sites for 53 local newspapers around the state.
  2. Give Media Interviews: What do you say when a reporter walks up to you and asks for your opinion? We have several suggestions on how you can put a human face on the issue.

If you’d like to be part of the No on Prop 102’s Media Rapid Response Team, contact  Vicki Gaubeca at .

Tucson GLBT Chamber of Commerce Opposes Proposition 102

September 12th, 2008

The Tucson GLBT Chamber of Commerce (TGLBTC) opposes Proposition 102, the Arizona Constitutional Amendment that would put into our constitution wording similar to current statute that limits marriage in Arizona to people of the opposite gender.

The TGLBTC believes this Amendment is unwise, ill-timed and wasteful of public resources. Just two years ago, the people of Arizona soundly rejected a similar proposition. But now, radical activists, funded largely with out-of-state dollars, would once again enshrine into our constitution a negative, discriminatory, hateful message that a certain class of people is not welcome in Arizona. As a part of our Constitution, it could eventually come into conflict with evolving national policy, causing undue expense and legal wrangling – all of which could be avoided by simply leaving the current statute intact

Supporters of Prop 102 have argued that this initiative is solely a ‘social issue’ and not a concern for businesses. We strongly disagree! Proposition 102, if successful, can only worsen the current economic crisis. By positioning Arizona as unfriendly to the GLBT community and potentially to domestic partnerships in general, it rekindles past stereotypes of our state and once again hampers our ability to compete with neighboring states. It discourages inward movement of individuals, families, educators and corporations and drives out those who are already here. Thus, Prop. 102 is both anti-business and anti-economic development.

The Tucson GLBT Chamber of Commerce encourages all business and professional organizations and business leaders to oppose this ballot initiative and to focus our efforts around what is really important to businesses large and small — economic growth and development.

The Tucson GLBT Chamber of Commerce is committed to helping our members grow their businesses and succeed by providing a forum to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender business community and its allies for the purpose of networking, creating increased visibility and strengthening relationships among business community members.

They Will Lie Again

September 11th, 2008

The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) has started their public campaign. It’s full of lies. And once again they are attempting to use Arizona citizens to push their narrow agenda on our state.

As you know, voters defeated CAP’s so-called “Protect Marriage Amendment” two years ago.  It will be on the ballot again this November because a few Phoenix politicians gave in to the pressures of CAP. How dare they try to overturn the voters on this issue?

CAP will stop at nothing to win. They deliberately mislead Arizonans whenever and wherever they can. Their latest fundraising appeal provides a fresh example of their distortions. CAP’s president Cathi Herrod recently wrote:

“Radical homosexual groups from Arizona as well as California, Colorado, and Washington, DC are launching one of their most aggressive and well-funded campaigns ever right here in Arizona…Their ‘early money, early victory’ strategy is essentially an attempt to buy the election before it even gets started.”

The truth is they are the ones collecting big money from out of state.

In fact, CAP set up a political action committee known as “Yes for Marriage” to promote Prop 102 and easily collect out-of-state funds. As of August 13, CAP had raised about $3 million — including $20,000 from Colorado Springs-based Focus On the Family and an additional $14,000 from CAP’s own coffers.

We worked together last time to defeat CAP’s attempts to bully the state. With only seven weeks before the election, now is the crucial moment to make it happen again. That is why we are asking you to give an emergency donation today.

As a volunteer-led effort, every dollar you give to No on Prop 102 goes directly to defeat Prop 102. We need to raise $75,000 by the end of September to pay for radio ads, including some in Spanish. A donation in any amount will help! A donation of $102 will provide 1,000 information cards to be distributed to likely voters. Please take a few minutes to give a donation online today.

Arizonans know that there are more important issues to work on: a declining economy, rising home foreclosures, higher energy prices, lack of health care and an educational system that is not meeting the needs of the future generation.

We have an exciting campaign plan to repeat our success in defeating this proposition.  Prominent members of the community are backing No on Prop 102, including University of Arizona President Emeritus Dr. Peter Likins and Tucson First Lady Beth Walkup. A growing coalition of pastors and faith leaders are speaking out against the amendment. But we still need you. Please give a generous donation today. And take a few hours over the next few weeks to join the grassroots volunteer work of No on Prop 102.

The citizens of Arizona have already said NO. Arizona voters know what’s best for the state. Let’s not let special interest groups bully Arizona into their agenda. No means NO.

The stakes are high. Please give generously today.

Why Each State Is Important

September 11th, 2008

Timothy Kincaid, at the blog Box Turtle Bulletin, shares his thoughts on why all three anti-marriage amendment battles — in Arizona, California, and Florida — are important. About Arizona, he writes:

Arizona has the distinct privilege of being the only state to date that has rejected efforts to instill anti-gay marriage discrimination into its constitution. Anti-gays have claimed that the only reason for their failure was because their last attempt in 2006 also sought to ban other forms of partner recognition and are now offering a “more benign” amendment that only bans same-sex marriage.

The Arizona battle is of tremendous importance.

If anti-gays win in Arizona, this will send a message that persistence pays off. And then future states (like Florida, if we win there) can expect that they will be back each election with an increasingly “nuanced” amendment until they win. But if Arizona rejects Proposition 102, the financial backers of anti-gay marriage amendments will be a bit more reluctant to throw their money into losing efforts.

This state has the unique opportunity to tell anti-gay organizers that “no” means “no” and not to come back for more.

You can read the whole thing here.

ASU WebDevil: Ballot Measure Proves Divisive

September 10th, 2008

From Arizona State University’s online campus paper:

A ballot measure Arizona voters will decide this November has proved polarizing. If the measure passes, marriage would be defined in the Arizona Constitution as a union between a man and a woman.

A citizen initiative that similarly aimed to outlaw same-sex marriage in the state constitution — but also could have prevented the state from offering domestic-partner benefits to unmarried same-sex or opposite-sex couples — was narrowly defeated in 2006.

Proponents of this election’s Proposition 102 say it is about letting the people speak for themselves. Opponents call it prejudice.

“We don’t believe that discrimination of any sort should be written into the constitution. It is a waste of Arizona voters’ time and money,” said Becky Corran, co-chair for the organization No on Prop. 102. “Prop. 102 is a mean-spirited effort to mobilize the conservative vote. Why do this when a law already exists?”

Read the rest of the article here.

Tucson GLBT Chamber of Commerce to Support No on Prop 102

September 9th, 2008

The Tucson GLBT Chamber of Commerce is joining forces with Wingspan and the No on Prop. 102 campaign to defeat Prop. 102, the proposition to create a constitutional amendment outlawing same-gender marriage.

Please help us meet our goal of raising $102 from 102 people to defeat Prop. 102 TODAY. Email or call Ben McDonald (520) 891-1231 or .


Money will go directly toward radio ads with Beth Walkup, UA President Emeritus Peter Likens, and Congressman Raul Grijalva. Can you help fight back against this divisive and discriminatory amendment by making a donation TODAY?

We are in a good position to defeat Prop. 102:

  • Polls shows most Arizonans see this as a waste of time and want real action on real problems
  • We already defeated this type of proposition in 2006
  • Same-gender marriage is already illegal in Arizona
  • Polls in California show that 54% oppose a similar measure there, and analysts believe Arizona is poised to defeat Prop 102 AGAIN!


Can you help TGLBTC by donating $102 or whatever you can afford? Your donation will show the force of our GLBT business leaders in helping defeat Prop. 102.

Email or call our PR Chair, Ben McDonald to donate $102 at 891-1231 or

Visit for more information and visit the chamber’s website, for their position on this amendment.

Thank you for you help and solidarity!

Tucson Citizen Endorses “No” for Prop 102

September 8th, 2008

These editorials in the Tucson Citizen show broad-based support for defeating Prop 102:

Our Opinion: Vote no on gay marriage ban
Proposed constitutional amendment would codify discrimination
Tucson Citizen, Sept. 8

Discriminatory gay marriage ban has no place in AZ
Tucson Citizen, Sept. 8

Statewide Efforts

September 8th, 2008

Other communities across Arizona are organizing to defeat Prop 102, including Flagstaff, Prescott and Bisbee. For more information about these groups or to start your own, contact Becky Corran, .