Arizona is the first state to vote "no" to an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage.
The only thing I can think of is that "expediency worked". OmegaDad told me he thought the sponsors of the bill were idiots for having two clauses--the first defining marriage as between one man and one woman, the second banning any legal union purporting to give the same legal benefits. He thinks they would have won if they had been separate measures.
Part of me would like to think it's the wild & wooly anti-government individualism--akin to Libertarianism--that lurks in the backwaters of the state.
The other part of me is just pouting that their lousy motto--"Takes away healthcare"--won the day.
It's definitely going to be contested; the result is close--51% to 49%. But still...
Technorati: Election, gay marriage, civil rights
4 Comments:
-
At 11/08/2006 09:07:00 AM,
Johnny said… -
At 11/08/2006 03:05:00 PM,
Jennifer said… -
At 11/10/2006 05:29:00 AM,
Miss Cellania said… -
At 11/10/2006 09:34:00 AM,
Kate said…Johnny--Ah! So they've shot their political wad, so to speak, and won't be able to use it in the 2008 elections to rally the troops? Hmmm.
Jen--Sad? In that it was self-centered expediency that blocked that ballot? Yeah. But, still, it failed. And I'm glad.
Miss C.--Hah. I like it. No legal foot because they...um...shot themselves in the foot?? ;-)
An interesting addendum to this thought is that for the states that have passed this ban, they can't trot it out again in 2 years.
Unless, of course, some nutjob comes out with a "Really, really ban same-sex" proposition just to rally the GOP.
By the way, I made up that phrase "really, really". I have no idea how that would be constituted.