Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.

Prop. 102 talk continues

Of all of the comments that my letter from last week (in which I called supporters of Arizona Proposition 102 "bigots") inspired, I take most exception Lidia Perez's response, despite the fact that she will also be voting no on the proposition. She called my words "ill chosen and misunderstood."

On the contrary, I gave careful deliberation to (and understand) my use of the word 'bigot.' I stand by it, because homophobia should be as taboo as racism in our society.

Most of us agree that those who oppose equal rights for all ethnic groups are 'bigots.' The opposition to gay rights is just as discriminatory and hurtful regardless of justifications based on religious belief. Although holding religious convictions does not, in itself, make one a bigot, neither does it excuse bigoted actions.

After all, Judeo-Christian scripture was invoked by Civil War era anti-abolitionists to support slavery and the KKK still uses religion to justify its hateful (and inexcusable) ideology.

Although Lidia will vote no on Proposition 102, she appears unwilling to admit that the marginalization of people in committed homosexual relationships is the civil rights issue of our day. For heterosexuals, marriage comes with many legal rights involving medical and social security benefits, hospital visitation, taxation, estate planning and other tangible privileges. Legal partnerships endowed with the same rights regardless of sexual orientation are the only just and humane policy.

However, in law, calling one type of partnership “marriage” and another a “civil union” amounts to a policy of “separate but equal.”

History has clearly shown that this approach is misguided and easily abused. Either we should abolish the term “marriage” from U.S. law and call all legally recognized, committed relationships “civil unions,” or allow gay marriage. My wife and I are fine with either solution.

Caley Orr

PhD Candidate

A clarification needs to be made. People writing editorials have been throwing out the term "separation of church and state" without knowing what it really means.

This is one of the most common mistakes made by people talking about politics. It has been used frequently when talking about the Proposition 102.

People have claimed that we should not pass Proposition 102 because there is separation of church and state. But separation of church and state means that our country cannot have an official religion.

Jefferson wanted this because in England they had an official church, which everyone had to belong to. The separate of church and state made it so no religion could be our nations official religion.

Any state can have its own official religion if it wants. You can pray in school if you want to. Separation of church and state has been taken way out of context and has been abused.

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with Proposition 102.

Ethan Anderson


Continue supporting student journalism and donate to The State Press today.

Subscribe to Pressing Matters



This website uses cookies to make your experience better and easier. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.