The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

97° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat


    Proposition 102 supporters may discriminate against more than same-sex couples

    In recent weeks, the Arizona Daily Wildcat has been a forum for debate over Proposition 102, which will be on Arizona’s November ballot in an attempt to define marriage as between a man and woman. Though opponents have reason to feel discriminated against, it’s trite and immature to simply label proponents as socio-bigots, so I’d like to take a downplayed spin on the subject and muse over something many Proposition 102 supporters overlook.

    Many support this bill because they want to maintain the Arizona definition of marriage, but the issue is broader in terms of characterizing a solid family and marriage. The Proposition 102 support Web site,, states, “”Marriage between one man and one woman. Can it get any simpler than that?”” Well, life is extremely complicated and the changing times are going to keep it that way.

    This bill imposes traditional standards on everyone and incorrectly assumes heterosexual couples are essential to all functioning families and marriages, as if no troubled child has ever come out of a conventional family. Some argue that gay marriage can complicate this particular family structure and confuse the offspring, but in today’s world, there are so many different types of families that we can’t assume everyone can have a mother and a father.

    Besides discriminating against homosexual couples, no one has really picked up on the fact that some supporters of this bill are also terribly insensitive to single parents and children who have only one parent for reasons beyond their control.

    A recent Daily Wildcat mailbag writer and graduate student, Bruce Pixton unfairly stated Sept. 30, “”Husband and wife are the foundation for strong families.”” Pixton may find comfort and truth in this statement, perhaps in regards to himself, but what does he have to say to me and millions of others who have only one parent, not because of divorce, but because our other parent died of natural or unnatural causes? Are we doomed to have an unstable, dysfunctional family simply because we don’t have the luxury of having two healthy parents? Since I’m not lucky enough to fit into this category, I guess I’m not a product of one of the “”strong families”” Pixton described.

    If supporters of Proposition 102 are going to go down this road, they need to realize that they are not only standing against same-sex couples, but single mothers and fathers, some of which would love to still be married to their significant others. It’s unsettling that someone would act as if a conventional family is the only proper type of family in Arizona.

    Proposition 102 supporters have many reasons for their standpoint, but everything circles back to an overly discussed but obvious question: Why should it matter to an outsider if a homosexual couple wants to get married? How is this going to disrupt a bystander’s existence at all? Is someone truly narrow enough to believe that gay marriage will devalue and destroy the institution of marriage as a whole? Anyone who falls into this category should have a talk with married strangers, many of which resulted from Las Vegas drunken nights.

    If the bishops and Proposition 102 supporters are going to argue the value and beauty of marriage, they should take a look at the national divorce rate to see that many heterosexual U.S. citizens aren’t actually taking it seriously. A 2007 study from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the provisional divorce rate in the U.S. (excluding California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota) was 3.6 divorces per 1,000 people. Why is it more socially acceptable for the United States to have an embarrassingly high divorce rate than to allow gay marriage?

    The Proposition 102 hype still greatly revolves around equal rights for homosexuals, but it sets a dangerous precedent. If Arizona is going to continue to prohibit gay marriage in favor of the definition, it’ll be easier for everyone to believe one way is the only way. Where does that leave everyone else?

    – Laura Donovan is a creative writing junior. She can be reached at

    More to Discover
    Activate Search