“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.”
by Robert Heinlein




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

AZ Making Progress

A libertarian leaning registered Republican in my state has filed the paperwork to start a ballot initiative to change the definition of marriage in AZ to “two persons” instead of “a man and a woman”.  Obviously, my wookie-suit says “well, that’s not enough!”, but the pragmatist in me says that’s a great first step!

I intend to sign the petition and hopefully can/will find time to help collect signatures.

h/t to Dave and Reason

8 comments to AZ Making Progress

  • Derek D.

    I’ll sign it.
    Hit me up at my email address.

  • As of now, I don’t even know where they are in the process, but I’ll keep an eye out and will let you know / post here.

  • Archer

    “Two persons” isn’t good enough? What would be your ideal definition?

    (Seriously – not trolling. I’ll probably end up agreeing with you. I’m just curious, because “two persons” is a far broader definition than some would agree with.)

  • I would honestly prefer that the government not recognize the word “marriage” at all. Let the government recognize civil union contracts of whatever number of people of whatever genders choose to enter into said contract (so long as they are consenting).

    I think for our current climate and the fact that my ideal scenario will probably never occur, I’m loving this idea.

  • Archer

    Sounds good to me. (Didn’t I say I’d probably agree? 😉 )

    Personally, I’d have a caveat in my civil union contract that says any fundamental changes to the structure of the relationship (i.e.: adding or removing member[s] of a polyamorous union) must be agreed to by all involved persons. And the normal “divorce” conditions/sanctions apply (child support if applicable, alimony, etc.).

    But that’s just me. I may be generally supportive of polyamorous and same-sex unions (generally, I’m pro-whatever-floats-your-boat; it’s your home/family/bedroom/life, not mine), but I still believe in the sanctity of the union, and I think there should be consequences for violating it. YMMV.

    But I agree with your central premise: the government should NOT be requiring any particular conditions to form a civil union, or honoring some unions but not others.

  • I would substitute *two persons* for *two homo-sapiens*, or *two human beings*.

    I say this because you have the whacked element that will insist that *dogs are people too*, and there will be some lawyer looking to make his mark that will argue for it.

    Just sayin’…lets keep it species-specific right at the outset, and I haven’t got a problem with it.

    and don’t tell me that it doesn’t need to be made species-specific…PETA has filed suit in the past (most recently that I’m aware of was in 2011) alleging that animals have the same rights as homo-sapiens. If a court would decide in their favor, then the same right to marry would exist for animals as humans. Sorry, but Peggy-Sue having a thing for Fido the Great Dane just ain’t something I would condone.

  • dave w

    remember ‘if you love it so much why dont you marry it’
    those days are getting closer.

  • Volfram

    @ Dragon: I would add that children are also people. Corpses are…were… people, in many ways the law requires them to still be treated as people(like people, corpses aren’t considered objects and therefore can’t be bought or sold)

    It doesn’t matter how you word it, someone’s going to be unfairly barred from getting screwed.