You might’ve heard of this fellow here in Arizona, State Sen. Tim Bee. He’s a gentle, warm, balding, mildly effeminate conservative who had some down-home Texas support this summer when President Bush stopped by for a private fundraiser in the Foothills – a soirée that apparently only the gold-encrusted super elite were able to get into.
Our current commander-in-chief was also quick to ensure the event was not recorded, probably in case one of his famous blunders or bloopers ended up on YouTube.
Sen. Bee wants to inject his trademark sting into this year’s election by being the face behind Proposition 102, the fluffier sequel to 2006’s Proposition 107, which would legally define marriage in the state as being between a man and a woman.
A recent support ad for Prop. 102 had a disturbingly serene female voice that cooed to vote yes on this definition, while a perfectly straight couple walked by a shady tree with their kids into the sunset. It made discrimination seem so pleasant, if a bit sedated.
Sen. Bee has been battling hard to unseat U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the 8th Congressional District come November, and Arizona will be one of three states with hopes of having such a Proposition on the ballot, the other two being California and Florida.
A feature article by the Tucson Weekly mentioned the subtle differences between this year’s initiative and 2006’s, reporting that “”Prop. 107 differs from today’s Prop. 102 in a big way: Prop. 107 asked voters to not only define marriage between a man and a woman, but to bar government recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships. Prop. 102 only constitutionally defines marriage – and is therefore expected by many political observers to pass on Nov. 4.””
In surprising religious news, the Tucson Citizen stated on Friday that various members and leaders of churches in Tucson like Grace St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Congregation M’kor Hayim, Mosaic United Methodist Church and St. Francis in the Foothills United Methodist Church have voiced their opposition to Prop. 102.
According to Citizen writer Anne Denogean, when Sen. Bee was questioned this year by a member of their editorial board about why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, “”Bee couldn’t come up with a good answer. In fact, for a full 20 seconds, he was rendered speechless.””
It seems that all’s not well in the Bee hive. Is it possible that Sen. Bee is one of these conservatives that isn’t necessarily against gay marriage but just wants to add more honey to this pesky bucket to satiate the base?
Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, the rich and charitable in the liberal utopia known as Hollywood have coughed up money in an attempt to kill California’s version of this initiative, Proposition 8, including director Steven Spielberg and wife Kate Capshaw (who donated $100,000), Brad Pitt and of course, Ellen DeGeneres, freshly married to Arrested Development star Portia de Rossi.
It’s unlikely that any big time celebrities will throw in a buck to terminate Arizona’s – instead it’ll be up to ordinary citizens to voice their opposition and squash what is a fundamentally unsound, discriminatory and regressive proposition.
It seems like whenever we’re about to take a few steps forward, the powers that be yank us several more back as a reminder that we still have a long way to go.
What those in favor of Prop. 102 don’t seem to understand is that this is more than a gay rights issue – it’s an extension of our inalienable civil rights. Is it the responsibility of the government to define what marriage is?
I’d like to think that all humans are capable of loving another person; whether it’s someone of the same gender or not is highly irrelevant. Heck, some even view zoophilia as a form of love, but that might be best left for another discussion.
It’s time to hatchet this ridiculous proposition once again, and let’s hope it stays gone.
– Matt Wavrin is a media arts senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
