Vote NO on Proposition 102 in Arizona
Print View
by: aztogether08
Total views: 5
Word Count: 566
For the second time since 2006, Arizonans will be asked to change the state Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Prop 102, a citizen's initiative on the November 2008 ballot, attempts to block any efforts to allow homosexuals to marry in Arizona. This article will debunk the myths surrounding the ballot measure and give you five reasons to vote NO on Prop 102.
Members of Arizona Together, the coalition that formed two years ago to defeat (successfully) the so-called "Protect Marriage Amendment," have reorganized to deploy an aggressive "No on Prop 102" campaign, yet another so-called "Marriage Amendment." The issue is now being supported by a handful of legislators who seek to cancel the votes of the majority of 1.5 million Arizona voters who demonstrated their views in 2006 when they voted NO on the marriage amendment.
The myths that surround Proposition 102 are plentiful, yet easily disproved. Here are just two of the myths about Prop 102:
MYTH: The only reason this same ballot measure didn't pass in 2006 is because straight people would have been negatively affected.
FACT: Not True. Arizona Together spent $35,000 in voter research after the election to help us understand why we won and to prepare us for the very fight we face today. More than 90% of voters believed they were voting on amending the constitution to ban same sex marriage. That is the same issue we face today.
MYTH: The majority of voters in Arizona support the so-called Marriage Amendment.
FACT: No, they aren't. A majority of Arizona voters support defining marriage as a union one man and one woman. However, only 48% support amending the constitution to add this definition today (August 2008). In 2006, 57% supported amending the constitution in August but only 48% supported it by November.
Still need more? Here are five reasons to Vote NO on Prop 102:
Voting NO on Prop 102 keeps politicians out of marriage. Arizona has a budget deficit and schools across the state need help. But what do politicians spend their time debating? Marriage - even though it's already defined (in state law) as between a man and a woman. Plus, we already voted on it two years ago!
Voting NO on Prop 102 tells the politicians that we aren't dumb. Why won't politicians listen to us? Do they think that we're dumb? In 2006 we voted NO. Now they are back at it, putting divisive issues on the ballot. We must stop them from forcing us into spending time and funds on debating the definition of marriage.
Voting NO on Prop 102 tells 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 like health care, immigration, the energy policy and our economy.
Voting NO on Prop 102 leaves marriage alone. In the State of Arizona, marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman. There's no reason to change the Constitution.
Voting NO on Prop 102 sends a message that we 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 allowed to overturn the voters on this issue.
Article Source: http://articles-collections.com
About the Author
Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) is co-chair of the human interest group, Arizona Together Opposed to Proposition 102. Visit our site and make a secure contribution that will help us spread our message: Vote NO on Proposition 102.
Search more with google:
Rating:
Not yet rated
Comments
No comments posted.
Add Comment
You do not have permission to comment. If you
log in, you may be able to comment.
More articles in this Category
1:
Barbecue Diplomacy with North Korea" or is this Espionage:A Fort Dix Lieutenant Colonel is Implicated in 2008
2:
Give Your Time this Holiday Season
3:
Obama's Public Works Project
4:
Will There Ever Be Peace In The Middle East
5:
The Unprecedented Presidential Transition
