Well, AZ is joining the rest of the nation in taking up that critical issue of our time: two boys kissing. Forget terrorism and the debate about our civil rights in an era of proliferate WMD... each state better ensure that we don't "sanction" gay relationships or we'll be heralding the end days.
The Treasurer of the AZ Green party got it right in his response to the proposed constitutional amendment (here in AZ) defining marriage. His argument appeals to the religious amongst us -- but it is worth quoting:
Churches, temples and mosques have married people for thousands of years. They've done just fine, and will continue to do fine, without government defining marriage for them. Isn't it up to each faith to decide who, among them, marries, and whose marriage to bless? We've no more business voting, on who can be married, than we do in voting about who can be baptized.
And, if you don't like how your church defines either, then go to another church, or no church at all. That's religious freedom!
Legal rights, not religion, are the voters' business. When two people ask government to protect their promises to each other, it's a contract. Government should welcome such commitments, because it provides for stability and predictability. Government should be happy when people commit to take responsibility for each other, because it means fewer people needing state help. Government should welcome families forming, all kinds of families. Families are good. When we stop butting into religious concepts, like marriage, we can see that.
"And, if you don't like how your church defines either, then go to another church, or no church at all." -- isn't that the core of religious freedom?
Why the theocrats who try to define every aspect of our life cannot see this obvious truth scares me.