Arizona Proposition 102:
Ban on Gay Marriage
This measure would amend the state constitution so that only a union between one man and one woman would be valid or recognized as a marriage in the state. A similar measure was on the ballot in 2006 but failed.
Note that "man" and "woman" are terms not defined, so may or may not apply to TS and IS people, depending on whatever the legislature may decide this week.
Arkansas Initiative 1:
Ban on Gay Couples Adopting Children
This measure would prohibit unmarried "sexual partner[s]" from adopting children or from serving as foster parents. The measure specifies that the prohibition applies to both opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples.
There are 3000 orphans up for adoption in Arkansas, and only 1000 couples who qualify now. Discrimination is more important than Children's welfare.
California Proposition 8:
Ban on Gay Marriage
This measure would amend the state constitution to specify that only marriages between one man and one woman would be recognized as valid in the state. If passed, the measure would trump a May 2008 ruling by the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage.
(Provisional) PASS 52:48
This is the first time that a state constitution has been explicitly amended to remove existing human rights.
Florida Amendment 2:
Ban on Gay Marriage
This measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In order to amend the Florida constitution, 60 percent of voters must vote in favor of the amendment.
This measure also precludes giving any of the rights associated with marriage, such as hospital visitation or pension benefits, to unmarried couples whether same- or mixed-sex.
And in Hamtramck, from the Citizen :
Hamtramck voters join nation in coming out in record numbersConsequently, from the Detroit News:
“I’m voting no,” said Jonathon Richards. When asked why he replied, “I just do. It goes against my personal world view. … I don’t agree that (gays) should have equal rights. They shouldn’t be allowed to share benefits.”
When asked if the civil rights movement of the 1960s was in any way related to gays fighting for rights Richards said no.
“That was race, gays have a choice,” Richards said. “Many of the homosexuals I know have had some situation, or I’ve heard some horror story where they had a major change in their life that made them gay.”
He said that he doesn’t feel that they should be allowed to share benefits if they live together. Richards has lived in Hamtramck for five years.
Ahmed also said he’d vote against the “Human Rights” ordinance, saying there are already state and federal laws protecting people. “Why do another one?” he said.
(Editor’s note: the most controversial part of the ordinance grants anti-discrimination protection for gays and lesbians. There are no Michigan or federal laws giving them protection.)
Residents on Tuesday repealed a controversial human rights ordinance that's less than a year old.And yet it's important enough to get a ballot specifically to remove existing Human Rights. We understand. Michigan, by the way, voted 57:41 for Obama. Some issues transcend Blue and Red.
The ordinance, approved by the City Council in January, bans discrimination in areas such as housing, employment and city contracts. It includes protection for sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
Hamtramck was the 17th Michigan municipality to provide some sort of nondiscrimination protections, including Royal Oak, Ferndale, Birmingham, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Detroit, Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Saginaw and Grand Rapids.
"We don't want any group to get special freedom and discriminate ourselves," said Akm Rahman, co-chairman of Hamtramck Citizens Voting No to "Special Rights."
"This is unnecessary. We have a lot of other things that need to be done (such as) taxes, crime and economic development. Those are more important issues."