Tucson Citizen Comes Out Against Proposition 102

(From the September 8 editorial page of the Tucson Citizen.)

Our Opinion: Vote no on gay marriage ban
Proposed constitutional amendment would codify discrimination
Tucson Citizen

How can you tell that supporters of Proposition 102, yet another attempt to amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages, are fighting a losing battle?

Look at the image of the two tuxedoed gents at right. It's one of a series of Hallmark cards being rolled out to celebrate same-sex weddings.

Hallmark Cards Inc. isn't exactly a radical, subversive group; its profits depend on accurately discerning the mood of Americans.

The Hallmark folks get it. They know which way the wind is blowing on the issue.

Our state has shown that it, too, gets it. In 2006, Arizona became the first state in the nation to vote down a gay marriage ban because, as surveys later indicated, it was unfair and none of the government's business. The 2006 amendment would have denied domestic benefits to unmarried couples.

But supporters of Prop. 102 don't get it.

The proposition is unnecessary: There's already an Arizona law banning gay marriage. And despite claims by its advocates of the modesty of the proposal's intentions, its passage would hurt the state.

Supporters of the amendment argue that it's necessary to keep "activist judges" from overturning Arizona Revised Statute 25-101(C): "Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited."

You don't have to be a left-wingnut jurist, however, to see that a ban is wrong. The justices of the California Supreme Court, which earlier this year overturned that state's gay marriage prohibition, aren't "activist."

Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republican governors, and they saw the law for what it was - discrimination.

The California court didn't rely on an arcane technicality to overturn the ban. Its ruling simply was based on recognizing that "the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one's choice" is part of the California Constitution.

Free choice: not a radical concept.

The Hallmark cards also illustrate that tolerance is good business. A UCLA study estimates the same-sex wedding business will pump more than $600 million into the California economy over the next three years.

That kind of impact shouldn't be lost on recession-wracked Arizona.

The rest of the nation already identifies us as the land of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Minutemen: hostile, extremist and small-minded. Confirming that perception by passing Prop. 102 only makes the state less attractive to tourists and to companies and entrepreneurs thinking of locating here.

Constitutions historically have been altered to expand rights. Think of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which secured civil rights for former slaves. Or the 19th Amendment, which gave women the vote.

But, as Sen. Paula Aboud chronicles in a guest column, a conservative fringe group bullied Arizona legislators into putting Prop. 102 on the ballot, even though it would imprint the state constitution with the language of intolerance.

We need to send a message to the rest of the U.S. that discrimination is not what Arizona is about. We need to send a message to legislators - think of it as dropping them a card - to stop monkeying with our constitution and to get to work on real issues facing the state.

On Nov. 4, vote "no" on Proposition 102.