CNN iReport

As we got closer to Election Day in Arizona the public began to get inundated by the ads for Prop 102 in Arizona. Pro 102 organizations had poured a ton of money in to this campaign. Those campaigning against the marriage amendment to the constitution didn't either organize as well or were not as well funded as their opponents. The ads that the pro 102 organizations ran showed interviews with people on the street. These interviews talk about the simplicity of the Proposition. I agree it is wording is short and simple, wrong, but simple. The ads ask if the interviewee understands the Proposition. In my opinion, giving voters a false impression of the proposition. One of the ads shows a woman in downtown Phoenix being read the proposition and then asked if she understands it; she replied: "Yes, it's simple to understand. I'm for Marriage." Exactly what the Pro 102 organizations wanted to hear. Most people are for marriage - but it's marriage as defined by and given the same rights by law, that all people who want the option to be married, seek. Obviously it's not simple to understand. The common thread in the ads seemed to be: "I'm for marriage, why would I want an attorney to overturn that? I think it needs to be part of our constitution." Personally, I think the pro 102 organizations played on scare tactics, not only of the homosexual community but of some rogue lawyer potentially overturning the law as it currently stands on the books. I personally don't understand this fear. In my opinion, this proposition needed to be broken down by it's definitions. When dealing with law, legal terms and constitutional issues you must keep these definitions separate from religious terms and definitions. These definitions are not the same. One is based on the rights of people of a land, town, city, county, state, or country and is designed to govern the people as a whole. The other is faith based and defined in accordance with your personal faith and designed to govern a people of a similar faith/belief system. Marriage was, prior to 102 passing, recognized as being between a man and a woman. Voting No would NOT have changed the legal definition of marriage. The LEGAL definition may ultimately (and it should) be ammended to include same sex marriages but, again, the current law does not change. By voting YES for this Proposition the people of Arizona did, however, provide a legal backdrop for discrimination in the state of Arizona. The passing of this proposition, has made a religious, faith, personal belief definition in to an amendment to the states constitution. Technorati Tags: Election Day, Arizona, Proposition 102, marriage, Vote, same sex marriages