Friday, April 7th, 2006...12:00 am
I Cried About This for, I Dunno, Seconds
An alert that went out from United Families Arizona, one of the groups pushing for the so-called Marriage Protection Ammendment:
In the past couple of months, pro-marriage supporters in two states, California and Florida, have failed to gather enough signatures to put marriage protection amendments on their ballots. The anti-marriage activists have started to brag that these failures show that support for traditional marriage is declining and that it is a good sign that they are going to eventually succeed in legalizing same-sex marriage.We here in Arizona can help show that this is not true by putting the Protect Marriage Amendment on the ballot in November but we need your help to do it!
To get this amendment on the ballot, the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition, which United Families Arizona is a member of, must turn in 183,917 valid signatures of registered voters by July 6th We are making good progress, but we need a lot more help to reach that goal.
Polls show that the marriage amendment should win in November if we can get it on the ballot. Passing this amendment will not only protect marriage in Arizona, but send a strong signal to the rest of the country that marriage is important and we WILL defend it.
Organizers are having a lot more trouble collecting the signatures they need than they thought. They have been working on this since last summer, but still apparently haven’t gotten their act together. They were also stymied in their efforts to collect in front of some churches, since they seem to take that whole thing about their tax-exempt status seriously.
Wait, couldn’t they pay for signatures? R-Cubed’s spies tell us that neither of the big signature gathering firms that work Arizona has been contracted to work on this effort. One has actually refused to carry it all together, worried that it will turn off people to signing other things that they are working on.
By the way, Republican mastermind and accused voter registration form destroyer Nathan Sproul is one of the people helping out this effort. Gosh, this sort of failure will be so bad for his reputation as an organizer. Too bad, Nate.
12 Comments
April 7th, 2006 at 7:06 am
A couple of years ago they tried to do something like this in New Mexico. They had trouble getting enough signatures to get something similar on the ballot, also the Sec. of State in NM went on the record as saying that she would not put it on the ballot because they were collecting in illegal places. This caused a big fight between the SoS and the AG.
Needless to say that most people don’t have a problem granting ‘marriage rights’ as long as we don’t call it ‘marriage’. This is where I find fault with my own people, why are we so hell bent on calling it ‘marriage’, I personally think that we should not be so damn worried about what it is called, but be concerned about what rights it grants.
I also know that most people don’t give two hoots who somebody is sleeping with. They are more concerned with keeping a job, and buying gas. LGBT and straight alike have these concerns.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Culture of Corruption? I guess Bob Ney has some company in West Virginia’s CD 1. See Friday’s Wall Street Journal for the details. I know that out of fairness Tedski will soon be covering this story.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:00 am
If you’ve ever wondered what Phx Kid looks like, look up “Non sequitur” in the dictionary, and you will find his picture.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:19 am
OK Tom, you got me, I am off topic.
Back on topic, maybe they have barely enough signatures for the Protect Marriage Amendment but are trying to scare the troops into making a last push to put them over the top. I think it is telling that they are not realizing the signature count at this time. There could be too reasons. They have so few it’s hopeless. The other scenario is that they have enough but want a larger cushion just to be sure, so they press the panic button. I think it is the second case but we will see. None of this is crucial, if they don’t win this year they will be back next cycle.
April 7th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Sorry - releasing not realizing
April 7th, 2006 at 10:05 am
They were also stymied in their efforts to collect in front of some churches, since they seem to take that whole thing about their tax-exempt status seriously.
That, and there are several churches against the Protect Marriage Amendment.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Just FYI, in regards to:
“The other scenario is that they have enough but want a larger cushion just to be sure, so they press the panic button. I think it is the second case but we will see.”
It’s the first one.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
kr are you predicting that the marriage amendment will not make the ballot?
April 7th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Actually, since it’s a ballot initiative, IRS guidelines allow non-profit c(3) organizations to support it as much as they choose. Most (if not all) churches are c(3)’s for the tax-exempt status, and as such, they are free to do as they choose with ballot initiatives.
Perhaps you’re thinking of supporting or opposing specific candidates, which c(3)’s are not allowed to do.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
And those gay homosexuals who want special, special rights prance down Central Avenue waving their Canadian flags! We must continue to be as offended as possible at everything they do.
Or, we could get a life and move on.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
What ever became of the criminal charges against Nathan Sproul for voter fraud in Oregon?
April 7th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
If this fails to make the ballot, that’s a huge win. Not just for the common idea of, oh, say treating people like people regardless of who they’re attracted to; but also for the fact that the right-wing evangelicals aren’t going to have the gay-marriage bogeyman to help their GOTV effort.
Leave a Reply