Apparently the only way to defeat a marriage amendment is to deceive voters. Two years ago an Arizona marriage amendment was defeated by a 51-48 margin. Post-election polling indicated about 6 percent thought they were voting to preserve marriage by voting “no” on that Proposition – enough to change the outcome.
They have Attorney General Terry Goddard to thank. Goddard made sure that the ballot language was confusing, by emphasizing that a “no” vote retained an existing state law that prohibited same sex marriage. The more accurate description would have been to say that “a no vote fails to enact a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
In reality, a “no” vote on any initiative doesn’t change anything, and therefore leaves in place every existing state law. So it’s ridiculous to highlight one law that it leaves in place, and you would only do so to confuse voters and serve a political purpose. The proposed constitutional amendment in 2006 had completely different language that bore little resemblance to a separate state law addressing “void and prohibited marriages” like those between close relatives.
This year, Goddard struck again — fighting to retain similar confusing language. So don’t be fooled — if you want to retain marriage as the union of one man and one woman, vote YES on 102 – a simple, clear amendment that allows “we the people” to end the debate and take this decision out of the hands of politicians and activist judges.