A ballot measure Arizona voters will decide this November has proved polarizing. If the measure passes, marriage would be defined in the Arizona Constitution as a union between a man and a woman.
A citizen initiative that similarly aimed to outlaw same-sex marriage in the state constitution — but also could have prevented the state from offering domestic-partner benefits to unmarried same-sex or opposite-sex couples — was narrowly defeated in 2006.
Proponents of this election’s Proposition 102 say it is about letting the people speak for themselves. Opponents call it prejudice.
“We don’t believe that discrimination of any sort should be written into the constitution. It is a waste of Arizona voters’ time and money,” said Becky Corran, co-chair for the organization No on Prop. 102. “Prop. 102 is a mean-spirited effort to mobilize the conservative vote. Why do this when a law already exists?”
An Arizona law already on the books, Arizona Revised Statutes 25-101, states “marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.” Corran said the law was passed in 1975. Because of the constitutionality of the existing law, Gov. Janet Napolitano opposes the proposition, according to news reports.
Up until Aug. 26, the proposition only listed the proposed constitutional amendment: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”
However, Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard settled a suit out of court agreeing to add to the ballot a note that it already is illegal for same-sex couples to marry in this state.
Michelle Baer, a spokeswoman for Yes for Marriage, said the initiative was placed on the ballot so that the citizens of Arizona can choose for themselves the definition of marriage.
“[The proposition] is not against anyone. Marriage is a unifying issue,” Baer said. “Marriage between a man and a woman is something that most people believe, and it’s been around since the beginning of civilization.”
English linguistics senior Catherine Smith said she also supports the proposition because it gives a voice to the people.
“[The proposition] is not open to interpretation to judges who aren’t elected,” Smith said. “Marriage is between one man and one woman, and it’s always been like that. Biologically that’s the way men and women are created, and that’s the way it’s been for thousands of years.”
Ray Ceo, Jr., co-director for the gay-advocacy group Human Rights Campaign at ASU, said he disagrees.
Ceo, an English junior, is also a columnist for The State Press.
“Gay marriage is a question about equality. Marriage is when two people love each other and want to celebrate their love together by spending the rest of their lives together,” Ceo said. “Arizona is my home. I was born here, raised here and my family is mostly here. I cannot imagine having my wedding any place else.”
Ceo said he had always planned on going to NAU, until he learned about Proposition 107, the previous attempt to ban same-sex marriages.
He decided on ASU instead, where he thought he could affect more change.
“Maricopa County as a whole I knew would need people educating voters about the real issues at stake, and I wanted to be the one educating voters,” Ceo said. “I was raised to believe that, in this nation, all people are created equal; I intend to see that through.”
Reach the reporter at philip.haldiman@asu.edu
