Something More for Paton & Co. to Remember

Three, yes three, seperate people wrote me in response to this morning’s post on the generation gap in voting on prop. 107 back in 2006. That was the last attempt to outlaw gay marriage (actually, it would have had hardly any effect on the already illegal instituition of gay marriage, but would have had a huge effect on unmarried straight couples.)

The folks that wrote me directed to this post on the gay political blog Box Turtle Bulletin, wherein the author actually checked out the results in District 30, represented by Senator Tim Bee and Reps. Marian McClure and Jonathan Paton. What he found was that the so-called Protect Marriage Arizona amendment was actually defeated 52.5% to 47.5% in what is the most conservative district in Southern Arizona (the fact that it was beaten there, in the most conservative precincts of Congressional District 8 may have something to do with Bee quieting his buzzing about it).

So, it can’t be said enough: why are these three still signed on with the current gay marriage bill?

3 thoughts on “Something More for Paton & Co. to Remember

  1. Good question. As a voter, taxpayer, and person who supports gay marriage, I can only believe that they support it because they support it. If they are doing it to please their base only, then they have made their choice.

    It is, yet another reason, why I say that Tim Bee plays the part of a moderate when it suits him, but he is no moderate. If you believe he is stronger on education, the environment, women’s issues, civil rights, then you are a conservative and should vote for him. If you are moderate or liberal, then you need only go to to learn much much more about him.

  2. What’s really funny about this whole thing is that I think Tedski is selling the “No on 107” side short in this whole thing. They were unbelieveably successful in framing the proposition not on gay marriage but on domestic partner benefits. Pretty much all the polling reported in the papers on Prop. 107 showed that people were strongly in support of the ban on gay marriage but would vote against the proposal because it also contained language that would bar benefits to domestic partners.

    Interestingly enough, this has been left out by Tedski. I voted yes on 107 and was disappointed when it was defeated but I can at least admit that the “No on 107” side ran a wildly successful campaign of framing the question in a way that it would affect old people (no doubt a large portion of District 30) and thus would allow it to be defeated in AZ.

    The question in front of the legislature this session only dealt with marriage until it was successfully amended in the House and killed. The most important thing we need to remember here was that the question on the ballot was successfuly divided by the “No on 107” side. With that in mind, to say people want gay marriage in this state is somewhat misleading.

  3. T. J.- You are correct that the “No on 107” people did a great job of framing the issue. Also, a majority of Arizonans may be against gay marriage. However, let’s remember why this was on the ballot, since, as Tedski has pointed out, gay marriage is already illegal in Arizona. This was on the ballot to drive out republicans to vote in a year when they knew they were in trouble. Since the language in the bill went so far as to affect domestic partners, the “No on 107″camp shed light on this and the repubs plan backfired.

    This year they are trying again, why? Because they are in trouble again! I also feel that John McCain being on the ballot may actually hurt Republican turnout. Some “true conservatives” will stay home because they can’t stand him (his choice of a running mate may help this a little) and other repubs figure he will win Arizona anyways so why bother? So, here we go again with getting an issue on the ballot that is a moot point since the Republicans are running scared. They know they may lose another, even two, congressional seats, lose the house and even county races farther down the ballot if an issue like this isn’t there. Why else would they push to ban something that is already illegal again?

Comments are closed.