Arizona Proposition 102 and Special Interests

A friend dropped by the office and we had a discussion about this particular amendment. My friend couldn't understand how this whole thing had become a political issue. "Shouldn't we be able to govern ourselves without more and more laws?" the friend asked. The problem with that question is this: certain segments of the population won't leave the political issue alone. Many special interests within the US want to push for their position over all others. These special interests compete for political power, entitlements, or legal favors according to their concept of fairness or rightness.

For the past few hundred years or so, the special interests in the US representing differing attitudes toward marriage have vied for political power. Back in the mid 1800s, New York women wanted a claim within marriage to extend the right of private property to them as well. So New York passed a law protecting property rights for married women. In the 1960s and following years, many laws governing divorce were enacted to protect property rights for both partners dissolving a marriage. Custody laws came next. Laws governing marriage and divorce became more and more numerous, with an explosion of mostly divorce laws within the last decade. Each of these was prompted by a special interest trying to extend political power over the interests of others.

The point is that at certain times, special interests within US society have pressed the legal issue to get a law changed. With Arizona Proposition 102, the legal issue was pressed by gays and a few other special interests who wanted to create a legal system in which they were franchised. This push by these particular special interests has come to a legal struggle within the past few years. Gays tried to change the system within the state legislatures, but found resistance to their claims. As a recent tactic, they have found the court systems sympathetic to their cause and have found willing judges to declare marriage definition laws unconstitutional in Massachusetts, California, and recently Connecticut. In response to the political push of the gay special interests, those favoring a traditional definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman have found favorable response in the state legislatures, which have passed marriage definition amendments to state constitutions in 26 states as of today.

Because gays and a few other special interests have pressed the issue, the question of the definition has come to a head in Arizona as well. Like my friend, most folks would like see this as a non-issue, perhaps from a sense that government has its hand in too many areas, or perhaps because of a personal desire to just "live and let live." I am actually within the camp that thinks government has too much control and rules too much of our lives. But when one special interest pushes for non-legal, court appointed solution to their beliefs, I have to support the republic and the democratic system.

This proposition comes as a result of several special interests pushing to have a court solution to their beliefs. These special interests brought this problem to Arizonans whether we wanted government involvement or not. Now the pro-marriage special interest is pushing back, trying to join with the 26 other states who passed some form of this amendment. Personally, I think that this question should not be a political issue, but when it gets pushed into the political arena, I find the responsibility to put aside my personal preferences and enter into the public arena.

We must not allow the special interests or the courts to determine our laws. We must pass Proposition 102 to keep our laws where they belong - with the people.