Yes on 102

Dear Fans,

On November 4th, 2008, Arizona will be voting on proposition 102, a proposition trying to protecting traditional marriage. It seeks to add an amendment to the Arizona State Constitution that would say, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

I support this propostion for a few different reasons, but here's a couple of them:

I am of the opinion that there has been too much loosey-goosey interpretation of Constitutions by Supreme Court justices at both the federal and state level. A good example is Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The decision didn’t merely say that abortion was now legal, but that abortion was a constitutional right. In other words, the Justices that heard the case of Roe vs. Wade ruled that it was unconstitutional to refuse a woman an abortion.

This monumental decision about abortion didn’t come through the legislative branch of the government at all. The American people didn’t vote for it. Not even a hundred people voted for it. Rather, a handful of Supreme Court Justices suddenly discovered that there had been a right to abortion in the United States Constitution all along, and abortion became legal across the nation.

Curioser and curioser.

Isn’t law-making supposed to be left up to the legislative branch of the government, not the judicial branch? Aren’t the American people, all the millions of them, supposed to vote on the laws they are to be governed by?

I understand the need for lawyers and judges, people to interpret the law. It would neither be feasible nor logistically possible to have the entire American population vote on every tiny case, every area of unclear legislation, etc. etc. etc.

But the American people ought to be consulted on huge issues as much as is possible.

Furthermore, the laws and the Constitution shouldn’t be so confusing and mystical that average people can’t understand them. In my view, if the federal and state constitutions are so fuzzy, we ought to add tons of amendments, very clearly worded, straightforward amendments, so that supreme court justices won’t have to scratch their heads and wrinkle their brows when they’re trying to figure out what the drafters of constitutions meant when they wrote the things so long ago. Clearly worded, straightforward amendments will also help prevent judges with radical political agendas from “legislating from the bench.”

What I like so much about proposition 102 is its clarity. It seeks to add a clearly worded, straightforward amendment to the constitution, so we don’t have to wonder anymore about what the state constitution says about gay marriage.

(Because in my opinion, the Arizona Constitution doesn’t say anything about gay marriage. Kind of like how the U.S. Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion. Homosexual marriage and abortion, in my opinion, were things that just never crossed the Framer’s minds when they wrote the constitution. They were too busy arguing and compromising on establishing a military, establishing the three branches of government, the manner of election, the manner of law-making, taxes, post-offices, the Bill of Rights, voting rights, and other stuff like that. )

Oh, and here’s big news: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has officially endorsed proposition 102, a rare move for the normally politically neutral religious organization.

Bottom line: I'm going to vote yes on proposition 102 and you should too.

And I don't take telling people how to vote lightly. I don't normally don't go around telling people how they ought to vote. But this issue seems important enough for the Church to take a stand on, and uh... I think you ought to vote yes on proposition 102 this November. Thanks.

(By the way, speaking of unconstitutionality, I think Northern Arizona University is doing something that’s unconstitutional, and if I weren’t busy with homework and busy with this blog, I’d sue NAU. Here’s what they’re doing: They’re building that big expensive health/wellness/recreation center, and the students are paying for it in fees. See, the Arizona State Constitution says that higher education in Arizona “shall be as affordable as possible.” I argue that the new health/wellness/recreation center is not a necessary part of higher education. It’s more like a luxurious amenity, and so making every NAU student pay for it is unconstitutional.)

Boy, if I ran a college or if I ran the country, things would be a lot different- I’ll tell you what.

Vote yes on Prop. 102!

Sincerely,
Telemoonfa