Proposition 102 Update - On To The Voters: By Mark R. Kerr

As previously reported on Tuesday (August 26), Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard had settled their dispute over the wording and information to be provided to voters in the publicity pamphlet and ballot in regard to Proposition 102 but another lawsuit was filed.

Peter Gentala, lead mouthpiece for the Center for Arizona Policy, acting as the counsel for yesformarriage.com and the confederate flag hoisting Republican state Senator, Ron Gould had filed suit seeking an injunction in Maricopa County Superior Court. Since Goddard and Brewer settled their differences, according to reports, but not to the liking of Gentala and his organization, who wanted to limit the information provided to the voters or in other words, not tell the truth as stated under A.R.S. (Arizona Revised Statute) 19-125, Section D ., which states:

"The Secretary of State must ensure that 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."

Gentala said he still believes the wording is unfair and is designed to convince voters that Proposition 102 is unnecessary.

Really? What about A.R.S. 25-101? A.R.S. 25-101 - Void and prohibited marriages - A. Marriage between parents and children, including grandparents and grandchildren of every degree, between brothers and sisters of the one-half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews and between first cousins, is prohibited and void. B. Notwithstanding subsection A, first cousins may marry if both are sixty-five years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce. C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.

Or Peter for that matter, A.R.S. 25-112? A.R.S. 25-112 - Marriages contracted in another state; validity and effect - A. Marriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by section 25-101. B. Marriages solemnized in another state or country by parties intending at the time to reside in this state shall have the same legal consequences and effect as if solemnized in this state, except marriages that are void and prohibited by section 25-101. C. Parties residing in this state may not evade the laws of this state relating to marriage by going to another state or country for solemnization of the marriage.

Then for that matter? the case of Standhardt v. Superior Court (2003), , upholding these two statutes in a ruling by the Arizona Superior Court (Maricopa County) and that the Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, making the decision precedent!!

Fair, why then did you Peter Gentala cite these in your arguments before the Governor's Regulatory Review Council in a plea asking them to vote down Governor Napolitano's decision to extend medical and dental benefits to the domestic partner's (same and opposite sex) and subsequent families of state employees?

As was done in 2006, so shall be again this election year, victory over hate in 2008. Donate to Arizona Together and most importantly to Vote No on Proposition 102, the local grass roots effort, which includes the same individuals who helped to deliver Pima County into the "No" column by such a wide margin, it was a major contributor to the overall victory to defeat the proponents (Cathi Herrod and the Center for Arizona Policy) in 2006 and will do the same this time as well.