Proposition 102 Update - Lie, Lie My Darling: By Mark R. Kerr

It is so wonderful to see Cathi Herrod, Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer and the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) spin themselves into overdrive in regard to Proposition 102.

From the Arizona Daily Star story about not informing the voters about same-sex law: " ... Peter Gentala, attorney for Arizonans for Marriage (as well as Counsel for CAP), is objecting.

"In a letter to (Arizona Secretary of State Jan) Brewer, Gentala said a poll conducted after voters defeated the 2006 proposal shows some people who voted against it — voters who were exposed to the language about existing state law — said they thought they were voting for the constitutional ban, reported Capitol Media Services.

"Gentala also said telling people same-sex marriages already are against the law 'includes an argument against the proposition.' He cited comments by Gov. Janet Napolitano, who, in announcing her opposition to Proposition 102, said it is unnecessary because 'we already have a statute that defines marriage.'

Gentala, staff attorney for the Center for Arizona Policy, which worked to convince legislators to put the issue on this year's ballot, refused to comment on his letter to Brewer."

Yes, a statute, on the books since 1996, Arizona Revised Statutes 25-101 and 25-112 that were upheld in the case Standhardt v. Superior Court , resulting in states adopting measures approving of same-sex marriage would not be recognized in Arizona!

How can one comment on something so wrong but further in the story, " . . . backers point out that California also had a law banning gay marriage until that state's Supreme Court ruled in May that gays are constitutionally entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to wed."

A wonderful lie here by the proponents of Proposition 102, since Arizona's laws are still on the books and upheld since California same-sex marriages aren't recognized in Arizona!

The falsities continue in the story when "Brewer said mentioning existing Arizona law 'confuses people.' 'The bottom line is, we're dealing with the constitution, and they want to kind of muddy it up with the statutes,' she said. 'And I don't agree with that.'"

Jan darling, you may not agree with that but Arizona Revised Statute, 19-125 (Form of ballot, Section D) reads:

"D. There shall be printed on the official ballot immediately below the number of the measure and the official title of each measure a descriptive title containing a summary of the principal provisions of the measure, not to exceed fifty words, which shall be prepared by the secretary of state and approved by the attorney general or the ballot shall comply with subsection E of this section:

"A 'yes' vote shall have the effect of ______________________.

A 'no' vote shall have the effect of _______________________.

"The blank spaces shall be filled with a brief phrase, approved by the attorney general, stating the essential change in the existing law should the measure receive a majority of votes cast in that particular manner. In the case of a referendum, a 'yes' vote shall have the effect of approving the legislative enactment that is being referred. Below the statement of effect of a 'yes' vote and effect of a 'no' vote there shall be printed the corresponding words 'yes' and 'no' and a place for the voter to put a mark as defined in section 16-400 indicating his preference."

The subsequent case is going to be heard in Maricopa County Superior Court.