AZ Prop 105

[SunDevil]

105 failing hard so far

102 not so much

[HX_Guy]

Here is how everything turned out. I agree with everything except I think the gay marriage thing should have been voted down.

Prop 100 - Protect Our Homes
Precinct data is not available.

Total Number of Votes Percent
YES
1268498 77.2
NO
375487 22.8


Prop 101 - Medical Choice for Arizona
Precinct data is not available.

Total Number of Votes Percent
NO
807857 50.0
YES
806668 50.0


Prop 102 - Marriage
Precinct data is not available.

Total Number of Votes Percent
YES
970628 56.5
NO
747161 43.5


Prop 105 - Majority Rules - Let the People Decide
Precinct data is not available.

Total Number of Votes Percent
NO
1067674 65.8
YES
554892 34.2


Prop 200 - Payday Loan Reform Act
Precinct data is not available.

Total Number of Votes Percent
NO
972706 59.5
YES
661403 40.5


Prop 201 - Homeowners' Bill of Rights Committee
Precinct data is not available.

Total Number of Votes Percent
NO
1273701 78.2
YES
355386 21.8


Prop 202 - Stop Illegal Hiring
Precinct data is not available.

Total Number of Votes Percent
NO
982845 59.3
YES
673602 40.7


Prop 300 - State Legislator's Salaries
Precinct data is not available.

Total Number of Votes Percent
NO
1071776 64.5
YES
588692 35.5

[KEVINphx]

prop 102, i could puke


seriously

[PHX31]

Seems like anything having to do with gay marriage across the country didn't fare too well.

In talking to a lot of people, several said they just vote "NO" on all of the propositions, regardless. They think for the most part they're all special interest driven. So, 105 totally lost, but I now realize that there is already an inherent disadvantage to propositions anyway. 105 was just ridiculous.

I didn't vote on all of the propositions, like 100 and 101. I am still unclear as to what they were for exactly.

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by KEVINphx

prop 102, i could puke


seriously

If it makes you feel any better, the same thing happened in California...CALIFORNIA of all places. I thought it was just this hillbilly place but I guess not.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Not surprised Prop 102 passed here.

What surprises me though, is that Prop 8 in California passed.

Sorry I didn't join the party before, but Ballotpedia is a pretty good, nonpartisan wiki that offers the best explanations on each ballot measure.

[Don B.]

I'm not surprised 102 passed. I predicted loss in Arizona months ago on this issue and I was right.

Even when I was trying to set up a moderated debate between the two sides at the law school last month, I knew we had little chance of winning this issue. The majority thinks it is okay to create subclasses of citizens based on factors that are totally beyond our control.

I'm very surprised about California. In a way, it makes me feel a little better about Arizona. If California couldn't beat back the forces of hate and division, Arizona had no hope.

In terms of the historical significance of these elections, I think that ultimately, they will matter little. A temporal setback, to be sure, but history provides some guidance here. Many states and cities enacted more restrictive Jim Crow laws during the 1940s, even as the legal tide was turning that segregation was inherently unfair. In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was okay during wartime to round up citizens based on race and put them in concentration camps. That was at least ostensibly upset by that same court 13 years later in Brown v. The Board of Education, where segregation was ruled inequal and unconstitutional.

One must think of the bigger picture. In a way, if I were religious, my prayers would have been something like this:

"Dear God:

I know we are hosed in terms of gay rights right now in America. There are too many old people and ignorant people who don't understand that gays are human beings as well. We are going down in flames on these public propositions that appeal to the demagogues and evidence the tyrannic will of the majority.

That's okay, because there was a distinct choice in the candidates for the highest office on this earthly body. One stood for the forces of humility, tolerance, and change, and the other stood for the continued reign of Bush the younger, a/k/a Bush III. So, God, you took the props, but you gave us this one small thing: you let Obama, who publicly acknowledges gays as human beings deserving of full civil and legal rights, the same as everyone else, win the Presidency of the United States of America.

Thank you."

Obama did acknowledge gays in his victory speech. McCain did not. In fact, the very nature of each of their respective speeches (which were both amazing and emotional) and the crowds they catered to evidenced the stark contrasts between these candidates. McCain spoke to an invitation-only, all-white crowd at one of the most expensive and exclusive resorts in Phoenix. Obama spoke to a racially mixed crowd in a Chicago public park that was open to everybody.

With Obama as President, we now have a chance to get intelligent judges on the Supreme Court who know what it was like to be the small guy; to go hungry at night; to struggle and survive, and to look out for the disenfranchised.

Returning to the 1984 decision by Judge Marilyn Patel, a federal district court judge that effectively overturned the 1944 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. The United States via an ancient method called the writ of coram nobis:

As historical precedent it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutions must be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused.

Our day will come. That day may be 10, or 20, or 30 years away, but it will come. It will take the courts to drag us kicking and screaming into the 21st century, so that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will have equal validity to all:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

--don

[HX_Guy]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

What surprises me though, is that Prop 8 in California passed.

A LOT of the props. that didn't pass really surprised me in California. I really always thought of California as a very progressive state and this is really making me rethink that.

Two other props they had were Prop 7 Renewable Energy Gen., which would require that by 2025, half of energy in California would need to come from a renewable source. It failed 65% to 35%.
The other was Prop 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles, which had to do with giving incentives for buying alt. fuel vehicles and for funding alt. fuel/energy technology and that failed 60% to 40%.

The prop to build a high-speed train from LA to San Fran looks like it will pass so that should be interesting.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I used to think the drive from Phoenix to LA on I-10 was bad until I drove the 5 from OC to the Bay Area. The treachery of driving the Grapevine, not to mention the stink of cattle farms and Bakersfield is tough to get out of your car...

With airline prices being so ridiculously high, I'm glad to see people finally realizing how much an asset HSR will be in connecting the two areas. They've been talking about it for years.

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

A LOT of the props. that didn't pass really surprised me in California. I really always thought of California as a very progressive state and this is really making me rethink that.

Two other props they had were Prop 7 Renewable Energy Gen., which would require that by 2025, half of energy in California would need to come from a renewable source. It failed 65% to 35%.
The other was Prop 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles, which had to do with giving incentives for buying alt. fuel vehicles and for funding alt. fuel/energy technology and that failed 60% to 40%.

The prop to build a high-speed train from LA to San Fran looks like it will pass so that should be interesting.

In some ways I'm surprised, in other ways not so much. Los Angeles (the city) is for the most part Democratic, not including West Hollywood, Long Beach parts of Ventura County and the like (each their own municipalities). The problem is the San Fernando Valley and the exurbs of Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties. With the population boom in those areas, they counter-balance the "progressiveness" of certain parts of L.A. and Ventura counties.

This time around, I was really hoping the liberal-minded voting blocs of greater LA would trump the exurbanites, but I was wrong. Needless to say, the Bay Area (including all seven or eight counties that make up the metro) are far more progressive than their southern counterparts (including San Diego and its environs). After all, Southern California was influential in launching the political careers of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

[PHX NATIVE 929]

Ah yes, believing in the sanctity of marriage to be defined strictly as one man and one woman as it has been for centuries automatically makes someone "Hateful", "Divisive", "a Hill Billy" and "Ignorant".

That seems reasonable...

How dare voters vote in line with their faith.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Do/believe whatever the hell you want in church, but why deny two people in love with one another, regardless of their sex, the benefits of civil unions and/or marriage?

Marriage ain't real estate: The value of a heterosexual marriage will not diminish if gay and lesbian couples are allowed the same legal benefits.

[Sekkle]

Originally Posted by PHX NATIVE 929

How dare voters vote in line with their faith.

Yes, and how dare anyone on a message board disagree with the outcome of a vote or feel slighted when rights granted to others are denied them.

[Tempe_Duck]

Originally Posted by Don B.

I know we are hosed in terms of gay rights right now in America. There are too many old people and ignorant people who don't understand that gays are human beings as well. We are going down in flames on these public propositions that appeal to the demagogues and evidence the tyrannic will of the majority.

That's okay, because there was a distinct choice in the candidates for the highest office on this earthly body. One stood for the forces of humility, tolerance, and change, and the other stood for the continued reign of Bush the younger, a/k/a Bush III. So, God, you took the props, but you gave us this one small thing: you let Obama, who publicly acknowledges gays as human beings deserving of full civil and legal rights, the same as everyone else, win the Presidency of the United States of America.

Don,

First off I don't mean this to come off as offensive but by asking for the laws to allow same sex marriage isn't that asking for an additional right. Currently we all have the same rights, we are all allowed to marry some of the opposite sex. To me it seem to me that your asking for additional rights. If I am missing something please help me see it.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Tempe_Duck

To me it seem to me that your asking for additional rights. If I am missing something please help me see it.

As it stands (and as I understand it), homosexual couples are not allowed the same legal benefits married heterosexual couples receive (in regards to insurance, hospital visitation rights and the like) because at this point, they cannot get married nor have a civil union. If anything, it seems like gays and lesbians are asking for the same treatment/legalities that married couples currently receive.

[Sekkle]

Originally Posted by Tempe_Duck

Don,

First off I don't mean this to come off as offensive but by asking for the laws to allow same sex marriage isn't that asking for an additional right. Currently we all have the same rights, we are all allowed to marry some of the opposite sex. To me it seem to me that your asking for additional rights. If I am missing something please help me see it.

We are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, but a gay man or a lesbian woman is not allowed to marry their partner. Men are not allowed the same rights as women and women are not allowed the same rights as men in that men are not allowed to marry men, women are not allowed to marry women.

In any case, prop 102 was not "asking for the laws to allow same sex marriage" or "asking for an additional right". Instead, it explicitly denies a right to a group of people.

Apart from all that, is it wrong to ask for "additional rights"? If so, why when it does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else? For example, should blacks and women have been kept from voting forever simply because universal sufferage, when it became law, was granting people rights they didn't have before?

[PHX NATIVE 929]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Do/believe whatever the hell you want in church, but why deny two people in love with one another, regardless of their sex, the benefits of civil unions and/or marriage?

Marriage ain't real estate: The value of a heterosexual marriage will not diminish if gay and lesbian couples are allowed the same legal benefits.

So then you clearly could not vote against:

-Polygamous marriages

-Incestual marriages

-Minors entering into marriage

Because, after all, who are you to dictate your morals on them? So long as they are consenting, then it's always OK.

Right?

Right???

Of course, you'll likely tell me that's a silly line of thought. But where do you draw the line on your "tolerance"? How do you determine whether incestual relationships and the others are unnatural/unethical/etc.? Are you limiting their "rights"?

Now comes the part where you call me a Right Wing Religious Wacko that lives in the stone ages, rather than directly answering the questions thoughtfully and rationally.

Or, perhaps you'll recirculate a chain email that sarcastically tries to debunk gay marriage "myths"...

[Don B.]

For those of you that voted for this Prop 102 (which violates Article II, Section 13 of the Arizona Constitution), let me rebut the common arguments against allowing gays to marry:

10 reasons people think gay marriage is bad...........

1) Being gay is not natural.
And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses,polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicon breasts.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed;
And we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples,and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children,
Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. (Did I miss the lesson where Jesus says He hates gays?)

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.
Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

--don

[PHX NATIVE 929]

10 reasons people think Polygamous marriage is bad...........

1) Being a Polygamist is not natural.
And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses,polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicon breasts.

2) Polygamous marriage will encourage people to be Polygamous.
In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing Polygamous marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all;
Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Polygamous marriage were allowed;
And we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples,and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously Polygamous parents will raise Polygamous children,
Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Polygamous marriage is not supported by religion.
In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. (Did I miss the lesson where Jesus says He hates Polygamous folks?)

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Polygamous marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms.
Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


Gosh but Polygamists were born with an instinctive urge to be polygamists. How dare you try to take away their right to love multiple wives! Get your ethics/morals/Bible thumping out of my face!!!

[Tempe_Duck]

Originally Posted by ForAteOh

We are all allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, but a gay man or a lesbian woman is not allowed to marry their partner. Men are not allowed the same rights as women and women are not allowed the same rights as men in that men are not allowed to marry men, women are not allowed to marry women.

In any case, prop 102 was not "asking for the laws to allow same sex marriage" or "asking for an additional right". Instead, it explicitly denies a right to a group of people.

Apart from all that, is it wrong to ask for "additional rights"? If so, why when it does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else? For example, should blacks and women have been kept from voting forever simply because universal sufferage, when it became law, was granting people rights they didn't have before?

I can see your point. In regards to Prop 102, I know it wasn't asking for the right. It was basically just moving it from a law to a part of the AZ constitution.

Don, how can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional it self. Ignoring the fact that the US constitution is above state constitutions.

[SunDevil]

Originally Posted by PHX NATIVE 929

So then you clearly could not vote against:

-Polygamous marriages

-Incestual marriages

-Minors entering into marriage

Because, after all, who are you to dictate your morals on them? So long as they are consenting, then it's always OK.

Right?

Right???

Of course, you'll likely tell me that's a silly line of thought. But where do you draw the line on your "tolerance"? How do you determine whether incestual relationships and the others are unnatural/unethical/etc.? Are you limiting their "rights"?

Now comes the part where you call me a Right Wing Religious Wacko that lives in the stone ages, rather than directly answering the questions thoughtfully and rationally.

Or, perhaps you'll recirculate a chain email that sarcastically tries to debunk gay marriage "myths"...

Polygamy - outlawed in large part due to the way in which it was being practiced by a large majority of it's practitioners... that is, women were being forced into marriages, often as minors (and I will get to them). This takes away choice and "freedom of contract" considering marriage is pretty much a contract. Other than that, I see no harm in consenting adults entering into such a marriage.

Incest - can do measurable harm (genetic) to offspring from such a relationship. these offspring are innocents and US law has historically protected innocents from harm being inflicted upon them. Thus, incest has a strong reason for being outlawed

Minors - Cannot enter into contract, are considered innocents. Both these issues are mentioned above. Minors have no legal standing to contract and thus cannot actually consent to marriage. Plus, the whole issue of them being innocents.