Proposition 102

Proposition 102, if approved by Arizona voters, will amend the Arizona Constitution by adding the following article related to marriage:

“Marriage - Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”


What are People Saying About Prop 102?


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



Community Leaders

“The fact that the Arizona legislature placed an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot again has been a great disappointment to both of us. This divisive and hurtful measure was already rejected by voters in 2006. In fact, it was rejected by a large majority of voters in Pima County. Why is the legislature wasting time and money on this when there are so many other pressing issues facing us? We urge you to vote NO, again.”

Bob Walkup, Mayor of the City of Tucson
Beth Walkup, Business Consultant, Tucson


“This anti-marriage amendment is extremely divisive at a time when both Arizonans and the nation see the need and echo the call to bring people together. Same sex marriage is already illegal in this state, and has been upheld by the courts. If Proposition 102 passes, that would not change. The only change would be writing this into the Arizona constitution.

“This amendment is morally, religiously, and financially divisive, and would be destructive to many Arizona families. We urge you to vote no.”

Rev. M. Douglas Bobbitt (United Methodist Church)
Sister Anita Valdez (Roman Catholic Church)
Rev. Frank Williams (United Methodist Church)
Sister Lenora Black (Roman Catholic Church)
Rev. Franklyn J. Bergen (Episcopal Church)
Rabbi Thomas A. Louchheim
Rev. Briget Nicholson (United Church of Christ)
Rabbi Helen T. Cohn
Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer (Conference Minister, Southwest Conference, United Church of Christ)


“Our elected officials in the Arizona Legislature are entrusted by the people to make decisions on issues of great importance to our community and to confront the real problems Arizonans face.

“Instead, they have chosen to put this divisive, mean-spirited and discriminatory amendment on the ballot - again.

“Voters already rejected this in 2006.

“Why isn’t the legislature addressing the urgent issues of Arizonans, such as jobs, education, the economy, and the cost of gas, food and health care?

“It is time we demanded real action on real problems.

“I urge you to join me - vote no AGAIN on Prop102.”

Congressman Raul M. Grijalva


“Starting this fall, after more than a decade of struggle, Arizona’s public universities and the State of Arizona will finally be able to offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. Until now, the UA and ASU were the only PAC-10 universities that did not offer domestic partner benefits. This fact not only prevented our employees from gaining access to needed health care services, but also interfered with our ability to recruit and retain top faculty and staff.

“It is disconcerting to me that a small group with extreme views would push to change the Constitution of Arizona in a way that would threaten such benefits, even if not explicitly prohibiting them. In Michigan, a similar amendment followed by court actions resulted in the loss of domestic partner health benefits for state employees. I do not believe Arizonans want to take away health benefits from anyone.

“Please Vote "NO" on Proposition 102.”

Dr. Peter Likins, President Emeritus, University of Arizona, Tucson


“This amendment is a repeat of the one that Arizonans already rejected in 2006.

“Didn’t our vote count the first time?

“If passed, it will trigger lawsuits to take away all domestic partner benefits for state, county, and city employees, including public university faculty and staff. And, it will have a chilling effect on private businesses that provide these benefits to their employees. Proponents will deny this, but don’t be fooled!

“This is a cynical attempt to manipulate Arizona voters into approving a so-called "narrower" measure, which people with extreme views will then take to court and try to expand to domestic partnerships.

“How do we know this? Because it is exactly what happened in Michigan recently. Voters approved a so-called "narrow" amendment, and then the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that it applied to domestic partner benefits too.

“Why take away health insurance for employees and their families? Why take away hospital visitation rights? Why take away family medical leave used to take care of sick children or elderly parents?

“It’s time for a new kind of politics in Arizona, one that focuses on real issues like the economy, jobs, the cost of gas and food, education, and health insurance coverage.

“Vote NO -- Again -- on Proposition 102.”

Jason Cianciotto, Executive Director, Wingspan
Peter Lake, Director of Finance, Wingspan


“Pima County and Arizona enjoy rich diversity and our government must not discriminate against any segments of our citizenry based on the biases of mean-spirited elitists. It is disappointing that these types have managed to persuade a majority of our Legislature to put this blatantly discriminatory and unfair measure on the ballot.

“Changing our Constitution to deny how we in Pima County, and others around our great state, choose to deal with our employees’ compensation and benefits takes away local autonomy. This change also would be detrimental to the health and welfare of the public and would go far beyond those directly affected to impact us all very negatively.

“This proposal would do nothing to preserve the institution of marriage, but it would do much to codify and intensify discrimination against a significant, productive and vital segment or our citizenry. I urge you to vote NO on Proposition 102.”

Richard Elías, Chairman, Pima County Board of Supervisors, Tucson


“Conservative religious activists are, once again, trying to tell Arizonans what to do! Just like in 2006, this year’s version of the anti-marriage amendment is a cynical attempt to mobilize extreme right-wing voters for political gain. And who’s behind it? You guessed it --- Karl Rove and his cohorts are the prime suspects. Once again!

“Arizonans have the right to make our own decisions for ourselves. We believe in live and let live here. We don’t think the government should intrude in peoples’ private lives. We don’t think that outsiders should mess with our Constitution.

“Don’t let them make us a pawn in their national political schemes. Vote NO -- again -- on Prop 102.”

Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats
Les Krambeal, Co-Chair
Paul Barby, Treasurer


Discriminatory gay marriage ban has no place in AZ

Published: 09.08.2008, Tucson Citizen

Once again, the citizens of Arizona have an initiative on the November ballot to change our state’s constitution.

Two years ago, we voted “no” on Proposition 107; this year it’s Proposition 102, a slightly different version.

It would amend the Arizona Constitution to deny the option of marriage to same-sex couples. Not only did we vote “no” two years ago, but state law also already defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

In fact, the Legislature voted “no” on this bill twice this year before it finally passed. So why is it on the ballot yet again?

It was forced upon legislators by extremist fundamentalist lobbyists representing a little-known group, the Center for Arizona Policy.

This group was in debt $500,000 from failing to pass this initiative in 2006 and needed money badly. In fact, the Senate president rebuked their tactics on the floor of the Senate, saying, “They have confronted members (legislators) in hostile ways and have threatened and coerced them, in my opinion.”

Their strategies were appalling yet successful. (After pushing this bill through Legislature this year, they received $600,000 in contributions from national groups such as evangelical leader James Dobson’s Focus on the Family.)

Another force was a “directive” from the Republican Party to get it on the ballot.

Many seats are at stake in the Arizona elections. In a phone call to state Senate President Tim Bee, U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl coerced Bee to put the bill up for a vote. Republicans needed this bill to get out their fringe voters this fall.

A third force is that of fear and discrimination. One such example is Sen. Sylvia Allen, who on the floor of the Senate described her moral superiority and the need to protect families.

She indicated that same-sex marriage will signal the end of civilization as we know it.

Ward Connerly, a conservative black Republican, has run successful legislation opposing affirmative action. Interestingly, his arguments involve honoring our constitution and fighting discrimination.

He says gay marriage is not ‘eroding the concept of marriage.’ If marriage is that fragile, that giving people who are gay equal benefit (would cause harm), then we’re in big trouble.

“I believe in the institution of marriage,” Connerly says, “but I also believe in freedom. I believe in treating people equally.”

Unfortunately, his Republican counterparts in our Legislature don’t.

They overruled the Senate president and suspended rules in order to force a vote on this bill.

And after several defeats, while on the verge of losing that vote once again, they blatantly broke Senate rules on the last day of the session by shutting off Sen. Ken Cheuvront’s microphone in midsentence in order to pass this heinous legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor even admitted to me on the floor that he knew he was breaking the Senate rules. He chose dishonorable tactics.

Cheuvront is openly gay. The former president of the Young Republicans now is a moderate Democrat and has served 12 years in the Legislature.

He is a powerful senator, smart, capable, hardworking - a contributor to his community and his state.

He works side by side with Republicans on key business, tax and health-care issues. In other words, he’s a friend of the Republicans.

On the last day of the session, they threw that respect and friendship out the window. They turned on him, verbally smearing gays.

We are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, artists, athletes, teachers, etc., who are gay and are denied the 1,000-plus benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

We, like Cheuvront, contribute to our communities, yet we can’t enjoy the same rights as a couple who met and married after a drunken weekend in Las Vegas.

We pay taxes as others do, yet more than 1,000 benefits are denied to us. That’s not equality, that’s discrimination.

Perpetuating fear, extremists claim that “activist” judges will overturn our state law.

But it was California’s GOP-nominated conservative judges who declared it unconstitutional to deny equal rights to LGBT citizens.

Those judges weren’t gay rights activists. They understand the words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men (and women) are created equal.”

Opponents say, “Let the people vote.” We did vote in 2006, they just didn’t like how the people voted. Don’t write discrimination into the Arizona Constitution. Vote no on Prop. 102 - again.


additional information
For more information, go to

Sen. Paula Aboud is an openly lesbian Democratic state senator for District 28 who also is denied the rights and benefits most of her constituents enjoy. E-mail:


Copyright 2008 by Terms Of Use Privacy Statement

Paid for by No on Prop 102 | Jim Burroway and Becky Corran, Co-Chairs | Cynthia Garcia, Treasurer
Site by Simple Software      |      Questions? email