Not so fast

The Center for Arizona Policy has sent out an e-mail promising to continue the process of getting a defense of marriage proposition on the ballot in November. The House added a poison bill amendment to HCR 2065 that passed in part because two of the original sponsors, Brown and Mason, were not present for the floor vote. Later the House voted to remove the floor amendment from the bill. A yes vote would have preserved the original language of the bill defending traditional marriage. A no vote sided with the Kyrsten Sinema amendment derailing the legislation. Four Republicans joined the Democrats in preserving the Sinema amendment; Burns, Hershberger, McClure, and Reagan. Two of these legislators, Burns and McClure, sponsored the original legislation. Remember their actions when they tell you that they sponsored the bill.

hcr-2065.jpg

Feel free to contact these Republicans through their legislative and/or campaign websites:

State Representative, Jennifer Burns
Jennifer Burns – District 25

State Representative, Pete Hershberger
Pete Hershberger – District 26

State Representative, Marian McClure
Marian McClure – District 30

State Representative, Michele Reagan
Michele Reagan – District 8


Comments

  1. You know, when you think you can learn to like Michele Reagan, she’ll suddenly screw you on marriage, or parental consent for 11-year olds trying to get abortions without telling their parents. The rest of them rarely fail to disappoint us, so we get used to it. Why is it that Michele is so consistently bad in her votes, yet I’m surprised and bothered by it every time as though it was the first time? She’s really no better than Pete Hershberger or Marian McClure, so maybe its time to just give up on her. Thank God for term limits.

  2. GOP Spartan says

    Time to start hunting for solid, principled Republicans to replace the lot.

    I’ll be seeking out “fresh” Republicans to replace the “old guard” that has consistantly let our party down when it comes time to stand on principle.

    Time for some new blood in Phoenix.

  3. Well, Hershberger and McClure are term-limited now, so replacements are already on the way. Burns may or may not run, and she only has one term left. Reagan has one more term, but she wants the Carolyn Allen seat in the Senate that will come open at that time. There are good conservatives running for all of the seats except for Reagan’s. Thank goodness.

  4. Live Free or Die says

    Hershberger is running for the Senate. The weaking Senate leadership team allready kisses O’Hallern and Allen’s fannies by keeping bills of the board that might embarrass them.(state equalization property tax and the reconsideration of Gorman’s bill to stop Nappy’s domestic partner benifits plan). With a couple more Rinos in the caucus we might a well let Napalitano be our leader.

  5. Mike Triggs says

    If you really want an amendment, nothing is stopping you from getting the 153,000 plus signatures needed to put the messure on the ballot. Or, supporters could PAY people to get the signatures. That worked two years ago . . . well, paying to get iton the ballot worked, you just couldn’t get a majority of the state’s voters to write discrimination into our AZ Constitution.

  6. As Mike Bryan posted on his Blog for Arizona, “several members of the GOP caucus stood up to the homophobes and bashers in their own party. Reps. Michele Reagan of Scottsdale and Pete Hershberger, Marian McClure and Jennifer Burns of Tucson all did the right thing by voting to protect the rights of domestic partners. I suspect that, one way or other, their party will try to make them pay for their temerity.”

    Of course he’s right.

    You’re all haters. As Mike wrote:

    “While it is almost always useful to thwart the legislative agenda of the GOP, Sinema’s amendment also reveals the GOP’s purely instrumental interest in this issue. They are only interested in using the meme of “defending marriage” to bash gays, they are not interested in actually “protecting” marriage (maybe because they know it’s not really under any threat).

    Anyone who has an ounce of sense recognizes that that marriage is hardly threatened by gay couples doing it; if anything is under threat by gays marrying, it is the gays’ cultural power as hip outsiders. But this backpedal by so many in the GOP on this bill which “protects” marriage, merely because domestic partners (possibly including gays) got some ancillary rights regarding inheritance and medical decision-making with the Sinema’s amendment, truly reveals the GOP’s political agenda.

    They will only accept a bill that will purely and exclusively thump the gays, not one that “protects” marriage at the cost of some compromise on the issue of domestic partnership rights. Sinema’s amendment applies to all domestic partners, potentially including gays, making the bill useless for the GOP’s polemical purpose of mere gay-bashing to energize their Christian Fundamentalist base.”

    It’s too bad you have absolutely nothing left to deal with — in a time of endless war and dire economic times — but demonizing others, of treating some people as less than human.

    Are any of you under 30? Because there are very few people in the Milennial Generation who like this kind of bashing.

  7. Or, as another blogger wrote at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion:

    “This issue is so important to legislative leaders because, apparently, there are thousands of gay people forcing our youth into homosexual marriage. This is so important that early in the session even Tim Bee took a break from hobnobbing in DC and showed up to vote on this thing. The funny part is this little bit, taken from legislative staff’s summary of the bill:

    Laws 1996, Chapter 348 stipulates that marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited. Marriages that are considered void and prohibited in Arizona that are solemnized in another state or county are also not valid in Arizona. A.R.S. § 25-112 also specifies that parties residing in Arizona may not evade the laws of Arizona relating to marriage by going to another state or country for solemnization of the marriage.

    That’s right…it is already illegal.

    Not only that, there was an attempt to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage two years ago that failed (the only such attempt that has failed nationwide, by the way). Pollsters and other political observers pointed out that that particular initiative banned recognition of all domestic partnerships. Folks, as it turned out, were actually supportive of laws protecting those.

    So, Sinema amended the bill not to legalize gay marriage, but to protect domestic partnerships, something Arizonans have demonstrated support for. What is the reaction of these folks? Were they happy that their bill now reflected the needs and wants of a broad portion of the constituency they are sworn to represent?

    Naw.

    They pulled the bill. Kinda makes you wonder what their real motives are. We owe a big thanks to Sinema for laying bare their true motives.”

    The true motives are hate, hate and hate.

  8. wondersnevercease says

    Question, does Arizona recognize ‘common law’ marriage?

  9. Kathleen says

    I dont know why the morals of the people dont just follow thru with the I do’s .. Does no one beleive in marriage anymore? Are they all gonna be throw away from here on out? If so why bother why dont we just banish marriage if thats the case. Then maybe we can stop some of the THROW AWAY family an THROW AWAY kids that goes on far too much in this state . We can then just call it the THROW IT ALL AWAY state… instead of taking money from the state as your only reason to stay married why dont we all dig a little deeper an review to see what,who an how it may affect the people you are married to.
    Where did our pride in ourselves go!

Trackbacks

  1. Cuckold says:

    Cuckold…

    What a great article. I stumbled into your site when I was searching for movies and I must say I really enjoyed your post. Will be back to check more out in the future!…

Leave a Reply