For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, will be limited. Select races will be covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.
Arizona Marriage Protection, Proposition 102 (2008)
Marriage and Family
|Not on ballot|
- 1 Aftermath
- 2 Election results
- 3 Text of measure
- 4 Supporters
- 5 Opposition
- 6 Polls
- 7 Path to the ballot
- 8 Related measures
- 9 See also
- 10 External links
- 11 References
|1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 6.1 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30|
Arizona Proposition 102, known by its supporters as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It was approved.
It amended the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Same-sex marriage was already prohibited in Arizona, and Arizona courts had upheld that ban. Proponents argued that a constitutional amendment provided a higher legal level of protection for their preferences about same-sex marriage than does a statute. In particular, that a constitutional amendment would withstand judicial scrutiny better than a statute.
Arizona was the only state whose voters have rejected a same-sex marriage ban. The 2006 rejection of Proposition 107 was widely attributed to provisions interpreted to prohibit government recognition of domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Twenty-six states had constitutional amendments that bar the recognition of same-sex marriage at the time of Proposition 102.
On October 17, 2014, a federal judge ruled Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, Attorney General Tom Horne announced that he would not appeal the decision, and same-sex marriages officially became legal in the state. Attorney General Horne also instructed all county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
|Arizona Marriage Protection|
|Overturned Case:Connolly v. Jeanes and Majors v. Horne|
Text of measure
The official short title of Proposition 102 was:
The full text of the legislation enacted by Proposition 102 is available here.
|historical ballot measure article requires that the text of the measure be added to the page.|
Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, and fifteen other Republican state Senators sponsored the bill in the state legislature to put Proposition 102 on the ballot. House Speaker Jim Weiers and 30 other members of the House proposed an identical bill. The group Yes for Marriage subsequently became the official campaign organization in favor of the ballot initiative.
- Tim Bee, R-Tucson
- Jim Weiers
- Center for Arizona Policy
- John McCain
Donors to Yes on 102 campaign
Some of the larger donors to the campaign included:
- Wilford and Kathleen Andersen, Mesa, $100,000
- LeSueur Family Trust, Mesa, $100,000
- TTEE's Wagner Family Trust, Peoria, $100,000
- Jeff and Holly Whiteman, Mesa, $100,000
- Derek and Danielle Wright, Peoria, $100,000
- Pete King Corporation, Phoenix, $100,000
- Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix, $100,000
In December, Dan Frazier, who describes himself as a "gay rights supporter," filed a complaint against the "Yes for Marriage" committee with the Arizona Secretary of State on the grounds that when the campaign filed its mandatory financial disclosure forms throughout the campaign, it listed an occupation for only about one out of five of its donors. Election official Joe Kanefield, acting on the complaint, sent a letter to the "Yes for Marriage" campaign. The campaign provided Kanefield with "several hundred pages of affidavits saying the information had been requested from the donors." Kanefield said that this satisfied the legal requirements.
Supporters made the following general claims in support of the amendment:
- In May, 2008 California judges voted to redefine marriage.
- On October 10, 2008 Connecticut judges also voted to redefine marriage.
- The same thing can happen here.
- A “YES” vote prevents judges and politicians from redefining marriage and leaves marriage’s essential meaning in the hands of the people of Arizona.
"Yes on 102" campaign video
According to Barbara McCullogh Jones, Executive Director of Equality Arizona, "No one can deny this bill was nothing more than a referendum on the LGBT community – a political fundraiser to fuel the anti-gay industry in Arizona."
The website Vote No On Prop 102 has been created to oppose the ballot amendment.
Opponents of Proposition 102 included:
- Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix
- Grace St. Paul's Episcopal Church
- Congregation M'kor Hayim
- Mosaic United Methodist Church
- St. Francis in the Foothills United Methodist Church
Opponents made the following general claims against the amendment:
- Voters already rejected this amendment in 2006.
- Lawmakers should trust and respect the will of the voters.
- Arizona has more important issues to address.
- Propositions like 102 do not protect the sanctity of marriage, but do amount to an undue involvement of government in people's private decisions.
"No on 102" campaign video
- See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.
A statewide telephone poll of 976 registered voters was conducted by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University and Eight/KAET-TV.
The poll found:
|Month of Poll||In Favor||Opposed||Undecided|
|Sept 2008||49 percent||42 percent||9 percent|
Path to the ballot
Investigation of debate conduct
On July 27, the Ethics Committee of the Arizona Senate voted 3-2 on Monday to formally investigate a complaint filed by state senator Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, that Republican Sen. Jack Harper broke Senate rules on June 27, the last day of the 2008 legislative session, when he ended the filibuster tactics of other state senators seeking to postpone or prevent the vote to put Prop. 102 on the ballot.
The Senate Ethics Committee voted along party lines 3-2, to dismiss the complaint on August 12, 2008.
Voters in 30 states have approved legislatively-referred constitutional amendments or initiated constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages at the ballot box. The first constitutional prohibition was in 1998, and the latest one occurred in May 2012. Most of these amendments define marriage along the lines of a "union of one male and one female."
The following constitutional bans were approved by voters, but later overturned by courts:
- Alaska Marriage Amendment, Measure 2 (1998)
- Nevada Marriage Amendment, Question 2 (2002)
- Montana Marriage Verification, Measure CI-96 (2004)
- Oklahoma Marriage Question 711 (2004)
- Oregon Marriage Measure 36 (2004)
- Utah Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Amendment 3 (2004)
- Kansas Marriage Amendment (2005)
- Alabama Sanctity of Marriage, Constitutional Amendment 774 (June 2006)
- Colorado Definition of Marriage, Initiative 43 (2006)
- Idaho Marriage Definition, HJR 2 (2006)
- South Carolina Amendment 1, the Marriage Act (2006)
- Virginia Question 1, Marriage Amendment (2006)
- Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2006)
- Arizona Marriage Protection, Proposition 102 (2008)
- California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008)
- Florida Definition of Marriage, Amendment 2 (2008)
- North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage, Amendment 1 (May 2012)
Cases overturning the following bans have been appealed to higher courts and are currently stayed:
- Note: Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis County and the state recognizes same-sex marriages.
- Mississippi Marriage Definition, Amendment 1 (2004)
- Arkansas Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Proposed Constitutional Amendment 3 (2004)
- South Dakota Marriage Amendment (2006)
- Texas Definition of Marriage Act, Proposition 2 (2005)
The following constitutional bans were approved by voters and have been upheld or not overturned by courts:
- Nebraska Marriage Definition Amendment, Initiative 416 (2000)
- Louisiana Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (September 2004)
- Georgia Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2004)
- Kentucky Marriage Amendment (2004)
- Michigan Marriage Amendment, Proposal 2 (2004)
- North Dakota Definition of Marriage, Constitutional Measure 1 (2004)
- Ohio Issue 1, the Marriage Amendment (2004)
- Tennessee Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Amendment 1 (2006)
The following constitutional bans were defeated by voters:
- Note: Arizonans defeated a measure in 2006, but approved one in 2008, which has been overturned.
- 2008 ballot measures
- Arizona 2008 ballot measures
- Same-sex marriage measures raised over $100 million in 2008
- 2008 Arizona Election Results
- Ballot proposition guide for Prop. 102 - English
- Ballot proposition guide for Prop. 102 - Spanish
- Arizona Secretary of State, 2008 Initiative applications
- Arizona Republic's Guide to Proposition 102
- Video introduction to Proposition 102 prepared by the Arizona Secretary of State
- National Conference of State Legislatures Ballot Measures Database
- Marriage proposition sparks passionate debate, Arizona Republic, October 13
- 2 years after loss, Ariz. considers marriage amendment again, Baptist Press, October 10
- Checking in with gay marriage bans, The American Prospect, October 9
- Volunteers support traditional marriage proposition
- Same-sex marriage on the ballot in Arizona, a second time
- $101.1 Million Raised Around Same-Sex Partnership Ballot Measures In 2008
- Video of arguments for Prop 102, from a forum sponsored by the Arizona Secretary of State
- Yes on 102, campaign video.
- Campaign finance report for Yes on 102 committee, covering period August 14-September 22
- Campaign finance report for Yes on 102 committee, covering period June 1-August 13
- Arizona Together : Help Defeat Prop 102
- Video of arguments against Prop 102, from a forum sponsored by the Arizona Secretary of State
- No on Proposition 102, campaign video.
- Campaign finance report for Arizonans Together, covering period August 14-September 22.
- Campaign finance report for No on Prop 102, covering period August 14-September 22.
- Fox News: "AZ marriage measure dies after rights added for unmarried couples," April 3, 2008
- AZ Central, "Arizona gay marriage legal; couples marry immediately," October 17, 2014
- Arizona Elections Division, 2008 Election Results
- Arizona Secretary of state 2008 ballot measures summary
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Arizona Central: "160 donors back state marriage measure," September 7, 2008
- Gay & Lesbian Times, "Arizona marriage ban advocates vastly out-fundraise opposition," October 9, 2008
- Arizona Republic, "Big money behind some ballot props," October 27
- Yuma Sun, "State: Backers of gay marriage ban did not properly fill out campaign donor list," December 30, 2008
- DailyWildcat.com: "Prop. 102 another cause for concern," Oct 1, 2008
- Tucson Weekly, "Familiar Feeling; After making history in 2006, Arizona voters again have to decide on the definition of marriage," September 25, 2008
- Arizona Explorer, "No on 102," October 8, 2008
- Tucson Citizen, "No on 102: Keep government out of our private lives," October 11, 2008
- AZpbs.org: "Cronkite-Eight Poll," September 30th, 2008
- Arizona Central: "Legislature puts gay marriage proposal on ballot," June 27, 2008
- Tucson Citizen: "State senator faces ethics probe in same-sex marriage debate," July 29, 2008
State of Arizona
|State executive officers||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Director of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Commissioner of Lands | Director of Labor | Chairman of Corporation Commission | State Mine Inspector |