“The fact that the Arizona legislature placed an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot again has been a great disappointment to both of us. This divisive and hurtful measure was already rejected by voters in 2006. In fact, it was rejected by a large majority of voters in Pima County. Why is the legislature wasting time and money on this when there are so many other pressing issues facing us? We urge you to vote NO, again.”

Bob Walkup, Mayor of the City of Tucson
Beth Walkup, Business Consultant, Tucson

“This anti-marriage amendment is extremely divisive at a time when both Arizonans and the nation see the need and echo the call to bring people together. Same sex marriage is already illegal in this state, and has been upheld by the courts. If Proposition 102 passes, that would not change. The only change would be writing this into the Arizona constitution.

“This amendment is morally, religiously, and financially divisive, and would be destructive to many Arizona families. We urge you to vote no.”

Rev. M. Douglas Bobbitt (United Methodist Church)
Sister Anita Valdez (Roman Catholic Church)
Rev. Frank Williams (United Methodist Church)
Sister Lenora Black (Roman Catholic Church)
Rev. Franklyn J. Bergen (Episcopal Church)
Rabbi Thomas A. Louchheim
Rev. Briget Nicholson (United Church of Christ)
Rabbi Helen T. Cohn
Rev. Dr. John C. Dorhauer (Conference Minister, Southwest Conference, United Church of Christ)

“Our elected officials in the Arizona Legislature are entrusted by the people to make decisions on issues of great importance to our community and to confront the real problems Arizonans face.

“Instead, they have chosen to put this divisive, mean-spirited and discriminatory amendment on the ballot - again.

“Voters already rejected this in 2006.

“Why isn’t the legislature addressing the urgent issues of Arizonans, such as jobs, education, the economy, and the cost of gas, food and health care?

“It is time we demanded real action on real problems.

“I urge you to join me - vote no AGAIN on Prop102.”

Congressman Raul M. Grijalva

“Starting this fall, after more than a decade of struggle, Arizona’s public universities and the State of Arizona will finally be able to offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. Until now, the UA and ASU were the only PAC-10 universities that did not offer domestic partner benefits. This fact not only prevented our employees from gaining access to needed health care services, but also interfered with our ability to recruit and retain top faculty and staff.

“It is disconcerting to me that a small group with extreme views would push to change the Constitution of Arizona in a way that would threaten such benefits, even if not explicitly prohibiting them. In Michigan, a similar amendment followed by court actions resulted in the loss of domestic partner health benefits for state employees. I do not believe Arizonans want to take away health benefits from anyone.

“Please Vote "NO" on Proposition 102.”

Dr. Peter Likins, President Emeritus, University of Arizona, Tucson

“This amendment is a repeat of the one that Arizonans already rejected in 2006.

“Didn’t our vote count the first time?

“If passed, it will trigger lawsuits to take away all domestic partner benefits for state, county, and city employees, including public university faculty and staff. And, it will have a chilling effect on private businesses that provide these benefits to their employees. Proponents will deny this, but don’t be fooled!

“This is a cynical attempt to manipulate Arizona voters into approving a so-called "narrower" measure, which people with extreme views will then take to court and try to expand to domestic partnerships.

“How do we know this? Because it is exactly what happened in Michigan recently. Voters approved a so-called "narrow" amendment, and then the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that it applied to domestic partner benefits too.

“Why take away health insurance for employees and their families? Why take away hospital visitation rights? Why take away family medical leave used to take care of sick children or elderly parents?

“It’s time for a new kind of politics in Arizona, one that focuses on real issues like the economy, jobs, the cost of gas and food, education, and health insurance coverage.

“Vote NO -- Again -- on Proposition 102.”

Jason Cianciotto, Executive Director, Wingspan
Peter Lake, Director of Finance, Wingspan

“Pima County and Arizona enjoy rich diversity and our government must not discriminate against any segments of our citizenry based on the biases of mean-spirited elitists. It is disappointing that these types have managed to persuade a majority of our Legislature to put this blatantly discriminatory and unfair measure on the ballot.

“Changing our Constitution to deny how we in Pima County, and others around our great state, choose to deal with our employees’ compensation and benefits takes away local autonomy. This change also would be detrimental to the health and welfare of the public and would go far beyond those directly affected to impact us all very negatively.

“This proposal would do nothing to preserve the institution of marriage, but it would do much to codify and intensify discrimination against a significant, productive and vital segment or our citizenry. I urge you to vote NO on Proposition 102.”

Richard Elías, Chairman, Pima County Board of Supervisors, Tucson

“Conservative religious activists are, once again, trying to tell Arizonans what to do! Just like in 2006, this year’s version of the anti-marriage amendment is a cynical attempt to mobilize extreme right-wing voters for political gain. And who’s behind it? You guessed it --- Karl Rove and his cohorts are the prime suspects. Once again!

“Arizonans have the right to make our own decisions for ourselves. We believe in live and let live here. We don’t think the government should intrude in peoples’ private lives. We don’t think that outsiders should mess with our Constitution.

“Don’t let them make us a pawn in their national political schemes. Vote NO -- again -- on Prop 102.”

Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats
Les Krambeal, Co-Chair
Paul Barby, Treasurer

This is a proposal referred by the legislature to amend Arizona ’s constitution to state that only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Arizona.

A referendum similar to this was defeated in 2006. After having voted against this measure repeatedly, the state senate finally voted to refer it to the 2008 ballot in a maneuver that was challenged and brought before the Senate Ethics Committee. This constitutional amendment would not change the definition of marriage in Arizona . Arizona ’s law defining marriage as being between one man and one woman was enacted in 1996 and has withstood court challenges.

AzCADV Opposition Statement
The passage of Proposition 102 could potentially be harmful to victims of domestic violence.

Resolution Opposing Ballot Referendum 102
by Arizona Democratic Party

Resolution Opposing Prop 102
by Tucson GLBT Chamber of Commerce