Prop 102 is a proposition to amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
This is the product of ignorance and bigotry and I hope to see it crushed tomorrow night. The supporters’ web site is chock full of painful and downright stupid comments:
Vodpod videos no longer available.
“I think Prop 102 will protect marriage in Arizona from judges.”
Heaven forbid they touch this topic! We must completely bypass the branch of government intended to interpret law.
“It’s preserving the family.”
Whose family? Yours? That’s your job, not a legislator’s. Oh, someone else’s family… then what do you care?
Merriam-Webster defines family (highlights are mine):
1: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household2 a: a group of persons of common ancestry : clan b: a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : race3 a: a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : fellowship b: the staff of a high official (as the President)4: a group of things related by common characteristics: as a: a closely related series of elements or chemical compoundsb: a group of soils with similar chemical and physical properties (as texture, pH, and mineral content) that comprise a category ranking above the series and below the subgroup in soil classification c: a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language5 a: the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children ; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family <a single-parent family> b: spouse and children <want to spend more time with my family>6 a: a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera bin livestock breeding (1): the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2): an identifiable strain within a breed7: a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters8: a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographic area
Hmmm… I don’t see “man and woman” anywhere in there.
“It’s cut and dry.”
Stupid and thoughtless. Why don’t you just say it? “My opinion is correct and there is no room for discussion of how this could hurt thousands or millions of people. Don’t care, can’t hear you, na na na na na na na!!!!”
“It needs to become an amendment so that the people could have the last word.”
Don’t you mean to add, “the people who agree with me, anyway. The rest don’t matter.”
Here’s hoping the people this will affect most do have the last word. It’s easy for you to stand in front of a microphone with your husband and your traditional, patriarchal family and talk about how simple this is. But the truth is, it shouldn’t matter to you whether or not same-sex partners are married. Just because it hurts your sensibilities and damages your perception of a perfectly ordered world (which I can only assume must be a real bitch to maintain!), doesn’t mean you get to declare who can and can’t be married.
Here’s a news flash. Let’s talk strictly about heterosexual married couples for a second. I can think of several that have ended badly, or are loveless, miserable and suffocating. Why do these people get to be married – doesn’t their misery destroy your perfect ideal of the “family?” Well, it should.
The government has no right to dictate who can and cannot be married. Two hearts committed to each other are married with or without a piece of paper. The paper is only for the purpose of registering a marriage for the sake of spousal rights. Well, it should be, anyway. I was married to my husband long before the officiator signed his name to our license. I was in love with, committed and faithful to him. We shared a deep attraction, a home, dreams, plans.
That is marraige. That is family. If I was born with the mechanism that determines homosexuality, I would not have held that attraction, and I would have found someone else with whom I connected on that level. And I would be married to them, in my heart at least, and ideally, officially, in a state that appreciates the nature of love.
It saddens me that all a defeat of Prop 102 will bring about is avoidance of this egregious bigotry in the state constitution. I wish it meant that people in love are afforded equal rights across the board, regardless of the sex of each of the parties.
Please, don’t impose any idealistic notions of what a family is “supposed” to be on those who don’t share them. It’s not your place. It’s not mine, either. The opportunity should be afforded to a couple to determine that for themselves.