Arizona’s bishops earlier this month voiced their support for Proposition 102, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would limit marriage to heterosexual couples.
But there’s another side to the story that was not reported. There are numerous religious groups opposing the measure, including Tucson’s Jewish Community Relations Council. Religious leaders from the Disciples of Christ, Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran Church of America are among those in opposition.
Those against 102 say it is morally, religiously and financially divisive. They are also concerned that it could be destructive of many families in this state. Many of the religious leaders opposing the measure say it’s wrong for the other side to be using the Bible as an argument as the Bible does not preach intolerance.
Among the individual local clergy in opposition are Rabbi Thomas Louchheim of the Reform Jewish Congregation Or Chadash, the Rev. David Wilkinson of St. Francis in the Foothills United Methodist Curch, the Rev. Anna Bell of Mosaic United Methodist Church and the Rev. Susan Manker-Seale of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Northwest Tucson.
Bishops Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix and Gerald Kicanas of Tucson have voiced their support on the measure, which will appear on the Arizona Nov. 4 general election ballot. It will be a yes or no question.
“Our support is based upon our church’s teachings on the sanctity of marriage as a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of love,” the bishops’ statement reads.
“We believe Proposition 102 is in alignment with our deeply held moral beliefs regarding marriage. We believe that without constitutional protection, Arizona’s present law on marriage could be changed — to the detriment of society — either by court action or legislative action.”
Bishops Olmsted and Kicanas say vote yes. The Mormons say vote yes. The right-wing evangelicals say vote yes. Phoenix politicians say vote yes. A strange crew. The people say stop putting this crap on the ballot every election. Vote NO on 102.
Marriage was defined thousands of years ago. People choosing to change the plans and designs for humans do not have the right to change tradition for everyone. Just because people change doesn’t mean it’s right. We all have rights, but those rights do not include changing the definition of marriage for the whole state. Vote YES on Prop 102.
You know something, the fact that it has to become both a religious & a political issue is just ridiculous. I’m only 18-years-old, & even I know that there is only one person who controls their mind & their heart…& that is the person themselves. Does God control my mind? No. Do politicians control my mind? No.
Now, why do you want the law to dare say that you cannot marry the person that you love? If this proposition gets passed, underneath its stated words, that is what it will say. Within its stated “marriage can only be a union between a man & a woman,” to a man/man & woman/woman couple, it will say that they cannot make a union of the love in which they share for one another, all because you people decided they can’t with this stupid proposition, all because of your own beliefs. Because you are so self-centered & bent on yourself, you don’t bother to think of the feelings of others, & don’t care to take them into consideration. If you vote yes on Prop 102, it’s only because al you care about is what you think & believe, making you self-centered.
For the record, I am straight, I have a wonderful girlfriend, but both her & I find this Prop 102 just sickening.
To Forgy Forgut (the 2nd post) “People choosing to change the plans and designs for humans do not have the right to change tradition for everyone.” “We all have rights, but those rights do not include changing the definition of marriage for the whole state.” If you truly believe we all have rights then we are not changing anything, if you feel it is morally incorrect then that is your right, and you have the right to not view a marriage between a man/man or a woman/woman as not a true marriage but you do not have the right to take that right away from someone else! Do you have the right to take away some one else’s right to happiness? Now thank you Democracy for if the majority of the population votes yes or no on anything then YES we do have the Right to change that definition within the State, note this only changes the right within the STATE and again you have every right not to change your own personal views on anything! They use family values and so on for examples of what No on 102 will take away. I have 2 children of my own from a ‘traditional’ marriage, but I now have a happy family in my current relationship with my Girlfriend, let me please clarify that you don’t have to be heterosexual to have family values! I would hate that one day when we are ready show our love through marriage that we would not have the same rights because someone that does not even know me or my family has judged us as being untraditional or without values. If you choose not to accept my family that is fine but please do not force the state to devalue our love or our right to love, whom ever we want. Do not allow the State to Judge us and tell us we are unaccepted.
hmm. I personally think that you should vote YES! on 102. If the definition of marriage would be changed, then…the whole system would be changed. If a priest (who would morally oppose a gay marriage due to religious beliefs) were to deny a marriage of a couple he could be sued, or get his license taken away. Wouldn’t that take away the priests’ rights of freedom of religion? People often say that the government should not have interference with ideas of marriage, but…hasn’t it been doing just that for…well, forever?
In order for someone to get married, they first have to get a license from the state. This license makes sure that things like, plural marriages, incestual relationships, and other weird things are not happening in matrimony. In other words could you not say that the government controls those issues? If the government shouldn’t be able to control marital issues, I guess polygamy and incestuous relationships should be legal as well.
Nobody in the press has mentioned the nonviolence perspective. Why should I criminalize someone else’s personal behavior? Today we have replaced guns with lawyers but the principle is the same. Only love, patience and longsuffering can change behavior. To use the force of law for this surely doesn’t jive with the beatitudes. In summary, proposition 102 wants me to:
1. Judge gays.
2. Use (indirect) force against gays.
3. Persecute gays.
So I think this time I’ll vote the way Jesus would vote, not how my church leaders tell me to vote.
I believe it is time to seperate church from state and look at this from a financial point of view. Marriage, when upheld by the state, is for legal and financial reasons. If you dont believe that gay or lesbian couples should get married, then dont let them in your church, let your god scorn them, and picket all you want about it being “Unnatural” and “Against the Faith”. But dont deny a happy, loving couple the right to share financial burden, medical coverage, and legal responsibilities- it is wrong. I will be voting NO on 102. This is discrimination, it is taking rights away from citizens, friends, family, and tearing the community apart- not bringing it together. This is segregation all over again- and we all know how that turned out.
All I have to say is that our country was founded on God and the bible many years ago.
Unfortunately, the generations thereafter have lost what it means to be a Nation under God. God instituted marriage between a man and a woman. It was never meant to be man and man or woman and woman in marriage.
Prop 102 gives the state the right to negate my relationship and prevent me from taking care of my family the same way that you heterosexual couples can. Now I cannot have medical coverage for my partner and do not have the rights to to visit him in the hospital or have the legal rights to own our house in the case of his death. This is a travesty. You see the right to marry is not simply an issue. These are our lives that you are meddling in by creating laws to take away our freedoms and rights. I wonder how you would feel if others did this to you. If others took away your rights and influenced your family in this way. I do not think you would feel to good about that. I respect that you may disagree with homosexuality and that is your right. However, when you start influencing the law because you disagree with gays that simply is unacceptable. No wonder why the gay community is furious. I am furious. And believe me, I will not support any business or individual that has voted to take my rights away. You have no right to tell me who I can love and who I can’t. This is my life and I love my partner so leave us alone.
Secondly, I should not be forced to believe in a religion that I view is loaded with lies and delusions about groups of people. The church supported the denial of rights to women and blacks in the past. Now the same is happening with gays. I mean seriously people, wake up. The church is not truth. Please people, stay out of my life and leave my family alone.
Also whoever posted this comment and signed God to it, you really have a problem. There is no evidence that there is anything mentally wrong with gay people. You might want to read some published psychological studies about homosexual families being compared to heterosexual families. Wow, you might even learn something. Wouldn’t that be something. However, you seem to also have a delusional disorder believing that you are right and just. Again you have no evidence to support your beliefs except a bible. A book that has been changed and edited over and over again. Read your history about it. Perhaps you might also want to research the bible and understand the cultural context before spewing your self righteous beliefs.
Bishops Olmsted and Kicanas say vote yes. The Mormons say vote yes. The right-wing evangelicals say vote yes. Phoenix politicians say vote yes. A strange crew. The people say stop putting this crap on the ballot every election. Vote NO on 102.
— Douglas Noffsinger 09/18/2008 05:19 PM #
Marriage was defined thousands of years ago. People choosing to change the plans and designs for humans do not have the right to change tradition for everyone. Just because people change doesn’t mean it’s right. We all have rights, but those rights do not include changing the definition of marriage for the whole state. Vote YES on Prop 102.
— Forgy Forgut 10/01/2008 01:16 AM #
“Religious Divide”? 800 Pastors met in phoenix last month in support and 20-30 in Tucson in opposition……That is what you call a divide?
— John 10/05/2008 07:43 AM #
You know something, the fact that it has to become both a religious & a political issue is just ridiculous. I’m only 18-years-old, & even I know that there is only one person who controls their mind & their heart…& that is the person themselves. Does God control my mind? No. Do politicians control my mind? No.
Now, why do you want the law to dare say that you cannot marry the person that you love? If this proposition gets passed, underneath its stated words, that is what it will say. Within its stated “marriage can only be a union between a man & a woman,” to a man/man & woman/woman couple, it will say that they cannot make a union of the love in which they share for one another, all because you people decided they can’t with this stupid proposition, all because of your own beliefs. Because you are so self-centered & bent on yourself, you don’t bother to think of the feelings of others, & don’t care to take them into consideration. If you vote yes on Prop 102, it’s only because al you care about is what you think & believe, making you self-centered.
For the record, I am straight, I have a wonderful girlfriend, but both her & I find this Prop 102 just sickening.
— James Decker 10/09/2008 09:03 AM #
To Forgy Forgut (the 2nd post) “People choosing to change the plans and designs for humans do not have the right to change tradition for everyone.” “We all have rights, but those rights do not include changing the definition of marriage for the whole state.” If you truly believe we all have rights then we are not changing anything, if you feel it is morally incorrect then that is your right, and you have the right to not view a marriage between a man/man or a woman/woman as not a true marriage but you do not have the right to take that right away from someone else! Do you have the right to take away some one else’s right to happiness? Now thank you Democracy for if the majority of the population votes yes or no on anything then YES we do have the Right to change that definition within the State, note this only changes the right within the STATE and again you have every right not to change your own personal views on anything! They use family values and so on for examples of what No on 102 will take away. I have 2 children of my own from a ‘traditional’ marriage, but I now have a happy family in my current relationship with my Girlfriend, let me please clarify that you don’t have to be heterosexual to have family values! I would hate that one day when we are ready show our love through marriage that we would not have the same rights because someone that does not even know me or my family has judged us as being untraditional or without values. If you choose not to accept my family that is fine but please do not force the state to devalue our love or our right to love, whom ever we want. Do not allow the State to Judge us and tell us we are unaccepted.
— Stephanie Hahn 10/09/2008 10:51 AM #
hmm. I personally think that you should vote YES! on 102. If the definition of marriage would be changed, then…the whole system would be changed. If a priest (who would morally oppose a gay marriage due to religious beliefs) were to deny a marriage of a couple he could be sued, or get his license taken away. Wouldn’t that take away the priests’ rights of freedom of religion? People often say that the government should not have interference with ideas of marriage, but…hasn’t it been doing just that for…well, forever?
In order for someone to get married, they first have to get a license from the state. This license makes sure that things like, plural marriages, incestual relationships, and other weird things are not happening in matrimony. In other words could you not say that the government controls those issues? If the government shouldn’t be able to control marital issues, I guess polygamy and incestuous relationships should be legal as well.
— Landon 10/14/2008 10:39 PM #
Nobody in the press has mentioned the nonviolence perspective. Why should I criminalize someone else’s personal behavior? Today we have replaced guns with lawyers but the principle is the same. Only love, patience and longsuffering can change behavior. To use the force of law for this surely doesn’t jive with the beatitudes. In summary, proposition 102 wants me to:
1. Judge gays.
2. Use (indirect) force against gays.
3. Persecute gays.
So I think this time I’ll vote the way Jesus would vote, not how my church leaders tell me to vote.
— Brad 10/15/2008 08:21 AM #
I believe it is time to seperate church from state and look at this from a financial point of view. Marriage, when upheld by the state, is for legal and financial reasons. If you dont believe that gay or lesbian couples should get married, then dont let them in your church, let your god scorn them, and picket all you want about it being “Unnatural” and “Against the Faith”. But dont deny a happy, loving couple the right to share financial burden, medical coverage, and legal responsibilities- it is wrong. I will be voting NO on 102. This is discrimination, it is taking rights away from citizens, friends, family, and tearing the community apart- not bringing it together. This is segregation all over again- and we all know how that turned out.
— Val 10/23/2008 01:27 AM #
All I have to say is that our country was founded on God and the bible many years ago.
Unfortunately, the generations thereafter have lost what it means to be a Nation under God. God instituted marriage between a man and a woman. It was never meant to be man and man or woman and woman in marriage.
— John 11/05/2008 07:09 AM #
homosexuality is an abomination to me. That’s not what I had in mind when I made you. Don’t let the devil control your mind.
— God 11/08/2008 09:56 PM #
Prop 102 gives the state the right to negate my relationship and prevent me from taking care of my family the same way that you heterosexual couples can. Now I cannot have medical coverage for my partner and do not have the rights to to visit him in the hospital or have the legal rights to own our house in the case of his death. This is a travesty. You see the right to marry is not simply an issue. These are our lives that you are meddling in by creating laws to take away our freedoms and rights. I wonder how you would feel if others did this to you. If others took away your rights and influenced your family in this way. I do not think you would feel to good about that. I respect that you may disagree with homosexuality and that is your right. However, when you start influencing the law because you disagree with gays that simply is unacceptable. No wonder why the gay community is furious. I am furious. And believe me, I will not support any business or individual that has voted to take my rights away. You have no right to tell me who I can love and who I can’t. This is my life and I love my partner so leave us alone.
Secondly, I should not be forced to believe in a religion that I view is loaded with lies and delusions about groups of people. The church supported the denial of rights to women and blacks in the past. Now the same is happening with gays. I mean seriously people, wake up. The church is not truth. Please people, stay out of my life and leave my family alone.
Also whoever posted this comment and signed God to it, you really have a problem. There is no evidence that there is anything mentally wrong with gay people. You might want to read some published psychological studies about homosexual families being compared to heterosexual families. Wow, you might even learn something. Wouldn’t that be something. However, you seem to also have a delusional disorder believing that you are right and just. Again you have no evidence to support your beliefs except a bible. A book that has been changed and edited over and over again. Read your history about it. Perhaps you might also want to research the bible and understand the cultural context before spewing your self righteous beliefs.
— Barry 12/14/2008 06:16 PM #