Difference between revisions of "Arizona Marriage Protection, Proposition 102 (2008)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Investigation of debate conduct)
(Additional reading)
Line 172: Line 172:
* [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/10/13/20081013aztalk-newsmaker1013.html Marriage proposition sparks passionate debate], Arizona Republic, October 13
* [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/10/13/20081013aztalk-newsmaker1013.html Marriage proposition sparks passionate debate], Arizona Republic, October 13
* [http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/261732 Ballot issue on marriage still a hot button], Arizona Daily Star, October 10
* [http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=29104 2 years after loss, Ariz. considers marriage amendment again], Baptist Press, October 10
* [http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=29104 2 years after loss, Ariz. considers marriage amendment again], Baptist Press, October 10
* [http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2008&base_name=checking_in_with_gay_marriage Checking in with gay marriage bans], The American Prospect, October 9
* [http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2008&base_name=checking_in_with_gay_marriage Checking in with gay marriage bans], The American Prospect, October 9

Revision as of 17:12, 7 July 2011

Voting on
Marriage and Family
Wedding rings.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

Arizona Proposition 102, known by its supporters as the Marriage Protection Amendment, appeared as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Arizona, where it was approved. It amended the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

2008 election results

Marriage Protection
Yes or no Votes Percentage
Approveda Yes 1,258,355 56.2%
No 980,753 43.8%
Total votes 2,239,108 100%

Results according to the Arizona Secretary of State.[1]

Same-sex marriage is already prohibited in Arizona, and Arizona courts have upheld that ban. Proponents argued that a constitutional amendment provides a higher legal level of protection for their preferences about same-sex marriage than does a statute. In particular, that a constitutional amendment will withstand judicial scrutiny better than a statute.

Arizona is 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. [2]

Twenty-six states have constitutional amendments that bar the recognition of same-sex marriage.


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.

Supporters include:

  • Tim Bee, R-Tucson
  • Jim Weiers
  • Center for Arizona Policy
  • John McCain

Donors to Yes on 102 campaign

Through October 22, about $7.6 million had been raised by financial donors to the "Yes on 102" campaign. This is approximately 17 times the amount that opponents have raised.[3],[4], [5]

Some of the larger donors to the campaign include:

  • 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 says that this satisfies the legal requirements.[6]

Supporting arguments

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.

  • 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[7]

Opposing Arguments

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.[8]
  • Arizona has more important issues to address.[9]
  • Propositions like 102 do not protect the sanctity of marriage, but do amount to an undue involvement of government in people's private decisions.[10]

"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.[11]

The poll found:

Month of Poll In Favor Opposed Undecided
Sept 2008 49 percent 42 percent 9 percent

Path to the ballot

In the final hours of the state legislative session in late June, state senators voted to place the measure on the November 2008 ballot.[12]

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 complaint accuses Harper of "abruptly" transferring the right to speak from one of the senators participating in the filibuster to a supporter of Prop. 102.[13]

The Senate Ethics Committee voted along party lines 3-2, to dismiss the complaint on August 12, 2008.

See also

Suggest a link

External links

Basic information




Additional reading