Definition of Marriage: Protected by Arizona

Headlines in Sunday's Arizona Republic read "Rally for Rights," "Marriage Bans Protested."

These were the unbiased starters for an article which handled both sides of the issue very eloquently.

Ok, who was I fooling? The Republic was biased in their reporting of Saturday's Proposition 102 protest. They previously opposed the proposition, writing in one of their October editorials, "Proposition 102 is a needless distraction. Voters should reject it."

Activist Annie Loyd was interviewed at Saturday's protest and stated the following: "I've been gay all my life and a lot of us, we were patiently waiting for people to get it, and now that you're saying (we are) second class citizens in the United States of America in the year 2008 is completely unacceptable."

Prop 102 was not about reducing individuals to second-class status. People with legal status in the United States have the opportunity to achieve success whether or not they are gay.

Prop 102 was not about "rights" for individuals. The constitutional amendment dealt specifically with the definition of marriage: Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. No one's rights were seized.

Prop 102 was not about banning marriage. Marriage was already defined in the Arizona Revised Statutes. However, as we've seen in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut, an activist state court has the power to overturn these laws.

Prop 102 was about taking that power away from state courts. Prop 102 was all about letting the people of Arizona decide if they wanted to protect this definition in the Arizona Constitution. Prop 102 did not outlaw a single choice or right of the people of Arizona.

Prop 102 was passed by a majority of the people. Enough said.