Dec. 2, 2008
Why Arizona Flipped On Gay Marriage
The Weekly Standard: A Look At Why Arizona, Which Rejected A Ban Two Years Ago, Saw It Breeze Through In 2008
-
Photo
(AP)
-
Timeline
Gay Marriage Goes Global
A look at the nations that have passed laws recognizing same-sex marriage.
Arizona voters last month approved an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as "only a union of one man and one woman"--just two years after they rejected a similar though broader amendment, making Arizona the first state in the Union to reject a ballot initiative aimed at preventing gay marriage. What happened between 2006, when Proposition 107 was narrowly rejected, and 2008, when Proposition 102 breezed through?
The Prop. 107 campaign unfolded against a backdrop of consistent success for ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage. In 2004, 11 states had passed such measures by large margins, and 7 more would pass them in 2006. Yet Prop. 107 had several strikes against it. Its proponents lost the money race, outraised almost two to one by the opposition. And in a terrible year for Republicans generally, Arizona was especially bad: Democrats picked up retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe's seat and defeated conservative star J.D. Hayworth. At bottom, though, the content of Prop. 107 was probably decisive.
Cathi Herrod, president of the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, told me the length and complexity of the ballot initiative cost the "yes" campaign between 5 and 11 percent of the vote. In particular, the opposition was able to frame the debate around the amendment's most controversial provision, which read: "The State of Arizona and its cities, towns, counties or districts shall not create or recognize a legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to marriage." This would have eliminated the domestic partnership status that some Arizonans already enjoyed under local law in Tucson, the state's second largest city.
Opponents of Prop. 107 focused special attention on elderly cohabiting heterosexual couples who took advantage of Tuscon's domestic partnership provisions to secure benefits they would lose if they married. Some voters feared Prop. 107 would end Arizonans' access to the benefits their partners received under some companies' and state and local governments' health plans, though leaders of the "yes" campaign doubted the proposition would affect most benefits or the right to hospital visitation.
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."
In last month's vote, the proponents of Prop. 102 shed their financial disadvantage, receiving over $7 million in contributions and swamping the mere $600,000 raised by the opposition. And they ran what Herrod describes as a "first class campaign," with five television ads and even more radio spots.
The ads highlighted the simplicity of the ballot initiative and cast doubt on the opposition's argument that Arizona statutory law already defined marriage as between a man and a woman. With courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and neighboring California delivering gay marriage to their states by judicial fiat, proponents of traditional marriage in Arizona could see the need to enshrine the definition of marriage in the state constitution. California voters themselves saw the need, approving a ballot initiative last month that nullified the imposition of gay marriage by the state's supreme court in May.
Sam Holdren, public affairs director of Equality Arizona, which opposed Prop. 102, blamed California's ballot initiative for fundraising difficulties in Arizona. "We were only able to talk to a limited number of voters with a very narrow message," said Holdren, while the supporters "were able to inundate people's mailboxes and phones. They had a lot of money to run a really effective campaign."
Arizona's religious leaders played no small part in turning out their congregants to vote for Prop. 102. Herrod said she had heard of evangelical pastors who spoke in favor of the amendment from the pulpit. Catholic Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix taped a short message that explained why traditional marriage is a "nonnegotiable issue" for Catholics, an unprecedented move. The diocese believes the tape was played at every mass in its jurisdiction.
While this angered some liberal Catholics, Ron Johnson, the executive director of the public policy agency for the three Arizona dioceses, said Bishop Olmsted's message led to a 32-point uptick in support for Prop. 102 among churchgoing Catholics.
Johnson disputes the notion that the gay marriage amendment is simply an instance of faith groups' trying to impose their "values" on the public. "Marriage is the foundation of the family, and the family is the basic cell of society," he argues. "It's important to religion, but it transcends it because of the natural law and the benefits to society."
Not everyone thought so. Beth Walkup, wife of Tucson's mayor and co-chair of the "no" campaign, tried to capitalize on a bias against social issues. "How can Phoenix politicians continue to waste our time and money with divisive issues, when they should be addressing the important issues facing our state?" she asked in a radio ad.
In the end, about 97 percent of Arizonans who went to the polls on November 4 thought Prop. 102 was important enough to merit their attention. Those voters endorsed Prop. 102 by 56-44 percent. The initiative won every county in the state except Pima (Tucson), and even there the vote was extremely close.
"Arizona voters spoke loud and clear," says Herrod, "that marriage is a very important issue, that marriage is a timeless value."
So did voters in Florida and even California, bringing to 29 the number of states that have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. At the same time, many liberal commentators and several conservative ones were predicting the ultimate victory of gay marriage, as younger people enter the electorate and societal trends push our politics in an inevitable direction.
It is worth noting, however, that exit polls in Arizona showed that only 51 percent of 18-24-year-old voters rejected Prop. 102. Herrod said reaching this group is a priority for the Center for Arizona Policy. Until the younger generation starts to get married and begin families, it is probably too soon to declare traditional civil marriage dead. After all, with Arizona voters' embrace of Prop. 102, traditional marriage has now been codified by every state that has put the question to a popular vote.
By Kevin Vance
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard.
 |
"Arguably the most influential opinion journal at the White House" - The New York Times For more information and to subscribe, click here. |
Video and Galleries from Opinion
-
Video
Robert McNamara's Life
-
Video
Ginuwine On Jackson
-
Video
Andy Sheds Some Clothes
Fact is that Constiutions are there to protect rights of minority interest from the will of the majority.
It has become a symbolic issue now. Gay marriage is accepted by the young, the open minded, and the rational. It is a symbol of the declining relvance of the church as a political force and the older, waning generation who are ruled by fear and prejudice. It no longer has much to do wit the question of marriage--everyone knows gay marriage is right and soon to be legal everywhere. The question has become why we should ever allowed the pseudo-religious organizations to perpetrate their evil agenda through fraudulent tax evasion, deception, and political manipulation.
Of course, no religion sees it that way and most call it a sin to say what is right in "gods eye"--called taking the name of the lord in vain. But really who cares what you or your "god" think? It has nothing to do with government and it is a perversion to try to encode your fears and prejudice into law.
PEOPLE ARE STUPID.
No legal body can force a church to marry anyone. It''s in the 1st amendment.
It''s no wonder our country is going down the drain. It''s full of sheep who vote away their own freedoms.
You people make me want to puke.
Posted by govwatch
Actually, this is a rights issue; constitutionally, whatever rights are afforded one group of people in the United States must be provided to all people.
To say that one group has to right to sign a legal contract while another group does not is discrimination and a violation of the principles this country was founded upon.
This isn''t a new concept; once upon a time there were laws that said interracial couples couldn''t get married; funny enough those laws were created by the same Xenophobic mentality that allowed these laws to be written; just like those, these laws too will be overruled.
Thank God we live in a free country; much to the dismay of those who wish to speak for God, this isn''t a religious issue, it''s a legal one, which means inevitably rational thinking will win.
PEOPLE ARE STUPID.
No legal body can force a church to marry anyone. It''''s in the 1st amendment.
It''''s no wonder our country is going down the drain. It''''s full of sheep who vote away their own freedoms.
You people make me want to puke.
------------------------------------------------------
Posted by roger3815
-----------------
Your angry tone has a certain "arousal" quality to it... What are you wearing right now?
Posted by paris1969 at 06:21 PM : Dec 02, 2008
While I agree, I am curious as to what you think should be the determining factor and why?
And for those folks who object to sharing the word "marriage" -- you come up with another word that''s good enough, then you use it for yourself. See, can''t huh? We''re stuck with [civil]"marriage", so just learn to share.
Posted by sonogirlaz
This statement is absolutley true and is a wonderful post. Thank you.
No rights have been conferred or removed.
Any argument based on "rights" is wrong.
Should a person be able to marry their dog?
What about incest marriage? What about pedophilia? Should these people be able wed in HOLY matrimony?
Stop making exceptions for homosexuality. It is immoral under God''''s eyes and it goes against one of the most cherished values in our culture and throughout history: FAMILY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Christ_Truth
Gee Divorce is also Immoral in your God''s eyes so why not outlaw divorce. You bible thumpers run to your bible whenever it is convenient to judge others. But judge not lest you be judged. Stop cherry Picking your bible phrases and man up. You better not be working on Sunday''s either, cuz you must keep the Sabbath Holy...... I could go on an on.. Don''t sleep with your wife when she is on here menstral cycle cuz she is unclean etc etc etc....
rule. One nations under who''s God?
I am not going to put your hate filled diatribe here, you put it on way too many times already but it is interesting that everything you denegrate straight people for you do yourself in your post.
Hypocrite.
The ggay people ask for tolerance, until they do not get what they want, then their hate comes through in full force.
There are so many ggay pride parades and so on but then they want to try to become straight by getting married.
There is no reason they need to change the meaning of the word marriage from one man and one woman. If there are advantages like Social Security benefits that you cannot get if you are not married then change that issue, not the meaning of marriage. Fight the right fight.
If the ggays want to have a union other than Domestic Partnership, come up with one on your own and call it what you want, other than marriage, maybe garriage?
Posted by govwatch
Actually, this is a rights issue; constitutionally, whatever rights are afforded one group of people in the United States must be provided to all people.
Posted by Zendigity
No, you are wrong there skippy. A woman has the right to go , legally, into the women''s room. A man does not.
Govwatch is right, this issue was never about marriage in the first place. It is about forcing one''s way of life and sexxual-orientation down the throats of others and forcing them to accept you. I do not want to change the definition of the word ggay to mean one man and one woman, why does someone want to change the definiton of the word marriage from one man and one woman?
And if these two people ever fall below the $250,000 income threshold, they shall be considered unmarried.
1. Only two people whose combined income is over $250,000 shall be allowed to marry. If said combined income falls below $250,000 they will no longer be married.
2. All women must receive notarized permission to marry from either their father or the groom.
3. All inter-racial and inter-religious marriage are banned, regardless of income.
4. Divorce is banned, unless of course your income falls below $250,000 which automatically makes you unmarried.
-
by caldwellptr
December 5, 2008 12:25 PM PST
- Did our constitution ever invalidate the section determining the monetary value placed on an individual?
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 40 Comments