Prop 102

I am not a real political pundit. No one really looks to me for political advice and I rarely make any political predictions. I'm no expert. So it was somewhat of a surprise to me when I realized I did make a prediction a couple of years ago and it has actually come true. Back in 2006, we here in Arizona voted on a proposition (Prop 107) that would have banned homosexual marriage and would eliminate "domestic partnership" rules. It failed by a margin of 48.5% to 51.5%.

Back then I wrote, "I suspect it will come back later to bite us. Polls suggested that a proposition to ban homosexual marriage would have been approved by 75% of the voters. Arizonans didn't shoot down Prop 107 because they want to legalize homosexual marriage. None of the 'No on Prop 107' arguments were predicated on 'legalize homosexual marriage' or the like. No! The push against Prop 107 came from the second line in the proposition that said, in essence, 'We do not have to recognize as married anyone who is not married.'" I knew then that if we wanted to take another stab at defining marriage to be between one man and one woman, the opponents would throw this back in our faces. "We already voted on this!" Not true, of course. We denied the call for eliminating domestic partnerships.

So now we're looking at Prop 102. I have never seen a clearer, more easily understandable proposition. Right or wrong, it is certainly unambiguous, certainly free of "legaleze."

Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.

Twenty words ... that's all there are. If passed, it will modify our state constitution. The polls have it leading slightly.

You know what the opposition is saying. "It's an anti-gay measure." No, it isn't. It doesn't address homosexuals at all. It simply defines one English word -- marriage -- using what the California Supreme Court recognized as "the longstanding and traditional definition." It doesn't say anything about domestic partnerships or any such thing. "We already voted on this!" No, we didn't. That never was the issue in that vote.

The law requires truth in advertising, but never let it be said that we should have truth in politics.

And to Governor Napolitano (and those like her) who are asking, "What's the point?" (there is already a law on the books that defines marriage as between a man and a woman), I do have an answer. The point is "Look at California! They had a law on the books. It was thrown out."

I was pretty sure in 2006 that this would be the approach by opponents. I was right. Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.