Category Archives: Marriage
As we celebrate 10 years of The Arizona Conservative, here’s one of the more memorable reports on appalling and outrageous behavior by the left-stream media:
I Have No Dog in the Fight’ and other Arizona Media Myths
July 6, 2006
No one in the Arizona media better epitomizes liberal bias than Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services. It is unclear whether Fischer obtained his journalism degree from a box of Crackerjax or from the “Acme School of Pseudo-Journalism.”
What was apparent once again today were his bias and unquestioned disdain for all things conservative relating to respect for life/marriage/family. The boorish Fischer behaved atrociously, not to mention unprofessionally, in the events surrounding Protect Marriage Arizona’s submission of ballot initiative signatures at the Secretary of State’s Office in Phoenix.
Fischer is an agenda-driven “journalist” who has made a disreputable career of starting off his so-called “straight news stories” by ripping conservative ideas and legislative bills. Today, he teed off on an initiative designed to prevent judicial activists from circumventing the democratic process and changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual and polygamous “marriages.”
As members of the Protect Marriage Arizona coalition waited for colleagues to arrive at the state capital with the signatures of 307,576 eligible voters who want to protect current marriage laws with an amendment to the state constitution, Fischer could barely contain himself. He asked gleefully if the petitions had been lost or possibly delivered to the wrong location.
A person knowing of Fischer’s biases responded, “You wish …” To which, Fischer said, “I have no dog in the fight,” and then he walked away.
Minutes later, the coalition forces had transported several boxes of petitions up seven floors to Secretary of State Jan Brewer’s office, as a large media entourage watched. The boxes had barely been placed on the office floor when Fischer, salivating for the taste of conservative flesh, led the charge. Leo Gozdich, president of The National Association of Marriage Enhancement, answered a media question, and then Fischer and the media “pack dogs” surrounded him and verbally tore into him. Gozdich explained the benefits and value of marriage to society, all of which was lost on the intellectually challenged, emotionally-driven media.
Fischer was front and center harassing Gozdich. “Why do you not want civil unions,” Fischer angrily asked Gozdich.
Gozdich said, “We are protecting traditional marriage.”
“Who’s tradition!” shouted an alleged “reporter,” obviously emboldened by the alpha “reporter’s” aggression.
As the rancor grew between the attack dogs and Gozdich, Nathan Sproul cut in. “The story today,” said the campaign consultant for PMA, “is that we have submitted over 300,000 signatures. This speaks to the grassroots movement to protect marriage in Arizona.”
When Bob McClay, reporter for KTAR Radio (Phoenix) asked Sproul his name, Fischer bared his “fangs” and shot in, “He’s paid.” As if Sproul would not want to protect marriage if not paid for his services.
“Our singular intent is to preserve marriage,” Sproul said, unfazed. Sproul said the idea behind Protect Marriage Arizona is to put the issue of heterosexual marriage on the election ballot and let the people decide.
“Isn’t that pretty elitist?” Fischer asked snottily.
“It used to be that blacks and whites couldn’t marry either.”
Gozdich, himself a former Columbia University journalism student, had seen enough. “We live in a democracy … you’re engaging in debate, not in journalism,” he told an over-the-edge Fischer.
Another alleged “reporter” – not wearing any badge and who could have been a homosexual activist posing as a reporter – wedged his way to the front and fired another hard-edged and loaded question across the bow of the PMA leaders. Sproul calmly said, “We are 100 percent confident we will be able to defend the legal challenge in Superior Court and in the Arizona Supreme Court.” Sproul, too, had had enough by now and he declared the press conference over.
He and the coalition members then departed via the elevator.
“Why are you cutting off the press conference?” shouted Fischer, anxious for more verbal sparring.
On his way to the elevator, Gozdich said that the New York Supreme Court had just yesterday delivered a ruling in defense of traditional marriage. Not that any of this would matter to intellectually starved media reps in attendance plying leftist theology.
Fischer continued ranting and raving as the ravenous pack waited for its own elevator. “They should answer our questions! They cut off the press conference!” The media “groupthink swarm” then moved as one unit into the elevator and headed down to the first floor. Fischer, spoiling for a fight, rambled on barely coherent: “Sproul’s been investigated before. In Nevada, he was destroying Democrat registrations … they cut off the press conference … I love Nathan saying ‘we’re off the record here’ …. And Nathan saying ‘we weren’t prepared for a press conference.’”
Another “reporter” in the elevator — Dennis Welch of the East Valley Tribune, said, “we’re the media scum.” The temptation is strong to make a statement about truth in advertising, but no additional comment will be added here.
At last, the elevator reaches the ground floor, the door opens and “alpha dog” Fischer lunges out looking for and finding a likely victim — Secretary of State Jan Brewer, waiting for an upward bound elevator. “Have you ever had a relationship with a homosexual,” Fischer asked. Brewer laughed him off and walked on. I
t was obvious that the homosexual activists who oppose PMA did not need to be there today. The media did their dirty work for them.
The one bright spot of the morning came minutes later in the Wesley Bolin Plaza parking lot, where McClay conducted a fair, civil, and unbiased one-on-one interview with Gozdich.
Imagine that, a real interview conducted with professional deportment, rather than a debate from a reporter. There is hope for the Arizona media after all.
Seventeen years experience dealing with the “Top-Down” direction imposed nationally by the Republican Party elites and in Arizona chiefly by Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, is why I support Andy Thomas for Governor. Andy Thomas has a proven track record of supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution and the Republican Party Platform, and he carries the arrows and battle scars that come with that fight.
I have served as a precinct committeeman, State and County Member-at-Large, two terms as Legislative District 11 Chairman and two terms as Maricopa County Chairman. When I stood up and exposed elected Republican officials for not following the Republican Platform or the U.S Constitution, I was attacked by the McCain-led Republican establishment. No effort was spared by this group to silence me and others who dared to challenge the McCain ruling cabal. This cabal consists of the politicians, Chambers of Commerce (business owners who depended on the cheap labor of illegal aliens to staff their operations while we pay through our taxes for their benefits), columnists, radio hosts, lobbyists, bloggers, the “Interfaith-Social Justice” liberal class, and the agenda driven liberal lawyer class. More here.
What I experienced was nothing compared to what the McCain cabal had in store for their primary targets: Senator Russell Pearce, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. These were the three stalwarts who stood for the “rule of law,” represented the Republican grass roots, and most significantly for the McCain surrogates, opposed the illegal alien invasion. These three had to be stopped or the rest of the country would be tempted to replicate the Arizona actions that addressed the illegal invasion.
Have you ever known a more direct campaigner than Andy Thomas? I have not. Andy tells you his core beliefs, what he represents and the actions he will take once in office to correct government failings. Others will equivocate about the issues, lie about their true beliefs, and avoid addressing the issues once in office. Andy Thomas will not prevaricate. From my experience, I know who the good guys are in the Republican Party and who the bad guys are. Andy Thomas wears the whitest of the white hats.
In the Republican Party, we have a large quantity of “bipartisan” joiners with the Democrats. We have very few fighters for the conservative side of an issue. Even Rubio and Christie, whom we believed were with us, have shown their true colors when they flipped using the “patented” McCain Flip-Flop. We know that Andy Thomas is a fighter representing the base of the party and there will be no flip from him and his record proves it.
It is clear to me that our judicial branch of government no longer fulfills the original intent of our Founders in interpreting the law while being the least powerful branch of government. They are now not only the most powerful, but hold veto power over all conservative initiated legislation when their liberal friends in the ACLU file suit to stop conservative passed legislation.
They wield this power with a liberal bent worthy of their liberal education and the liberal dominated American and Arizona Bar associations to which they belong. Judges are selected from this liberal dominated class of lawyers. It is no surprise to me that these lawyers attacked Thomas where they could dominate the proceedings. It is also no surprise that everyone from the Maricopa County Republican Committee to conservative columnist Michelle Malkin to even liberal writers at the Arizona Republic denounced the attack on Andy Thomas.
A panel from the Arizona Bar pulled Andy Thomas’ law license. However, the federal Grand Jury (which is so noted for the ease of securing an indictment on minimal evidence that the term “they would indict a ham sandwich” refers to the Grand Jury) which looked at the same case at the request of the Obama Justice Department refused to indict him or Sheriff Joe Arpaio for lack of evidence. The Grand Jury is made up of the non-lawyer class and rejected as insufficient the same evidence the lawyer class used to pull his license. What does that tell you about how out of touch, liberal and dishonest our courts have become?
The Republican and Democrat ruling class consider Thomas dangerous because they know that once elected he will keep his campaign promise to attack corruption by both the Republican and Democrat office holders. The “cabal” will devote a great amount of money and effort to defeat him. They have started with “He can’t win” (because of all the baggage from their charges). The Republican establishment also stated that Senator Cruz of Texas was not able to win. But he did, and now is our most effective conservative advocate in the U.S. Senate.
Andy Thomas won the only straw poll in the race so far, by 10 points over his closest competitor. The poll was done by a website that opposes Andy’s candidacy. He is picking up signatures and $5 Clean Elections contributions from voters with amazing ease. I know because I have been at the meetings collecting them for him.
We are not going to reverse the slide into oblivion by the Republican Party by selecting the same type of liberal leaning, milquetoast Republicans for our candidates. If we do, we will get promises to seal the border, enforce immigration laws and oppose Obamacare. But we would only continue to see their promises reversed and conservative principles abandoned while they surrender to Democrats and yet claim victory through bipartisan legislation. This legislation always moves the political spectrum to the left. Don’t you think fifty years of this process is enough?
Which is easier to take, a dagger to the chest from a Democrat governor or one to the back from another McCain-supported Republican governor? But there is another choice. That is why I will vote for Andy Thomas as governor, secure in the knowledge that our laws will be upheld. You will recall that Andy supported legislation to force judges to deny bond to criminal illegal aliens, he followed the law and prosecuted employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens and he prosecuted illegal aliens as co-conspirators in human trafficking cases.
Do you really believe there are only 11 million illegal aliens in the country, that there is very little inflation, that the border has never been more secure, and that the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare will save us money? Where do our leaders come up withthis malarkey? It is from all the people I described in the second paragraph. Andy has assured me that he will faithfully consult the conservative grassroots of the party as he has in the past. They have been ignored too long and the party has suffered enormously because of it.
In our hearts, we all know that Andy Thomas would do the best job as governor. Let’s make sure he gets there. He is running as a “clean election candidate.” You can reach Andy through Facebook (search: “Andrew Thomas Republican” in Facebook to find it) and volunteer to carry petitions and get five dollar donations for him. Please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and volunteer to carry a petition and get $5 donations for him. The Thomas Kick-Off event flyer is linked here.
Rob Haney is the Immediate Past Chairman Maricopa County Republican Party
By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
The key message for Arizonans from the U.S. Supreme Court is this: Your right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman is preserved.
It’s important to note that the Court did not find a Constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.”
Here are the facts:
- Defense of Marriage Act – The Court struck down DOMA as violating the Fifth Amendment in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion.
- California’s Proposition 8 – The Court ruled that the defendants of Prop 8 did not have standing to argue before the Court, and therefore remanded the case back to Federal District Court and vacated the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion.
Though Center for Arizona Policy disagrees with aspects of the Court’s decision, we are grateful that the Court did not undermine the will of Arizona voters who strongly supported our state’s 2008 marriage amendment.
In DOMA, CAP believes that the court erred in claiming that a state that has redefined marriage can force that definition on the federal government for purposes of federal marriage laws.
In Prop 8, the court has ensured that the state-by-state debate about marriage is allowed to continue. Truly the debate over marriage has just begun.
Marriage is more than just a personal promise, it serves a public purpose. It is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. Social science data has proved this time and time again.
Center for Arizona Policy is committed to continuing to stand for marriage and to defeat any efforts to redefine this essential union.
By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
Another legislative session has come to a close, and once again, Arizona lawmakers had the opportunity to vote on pro-life, pro-family legislation.
Center for Arizona Policy’s Family Issues Voting Record is now available online for you to discover how your state legislators voted.
After accessing the Voting Record, please take time to share this important resource. It’s vital that your friends and family discover how their legislators voted on these important bills.
While this session had significant challenges, CAP was able to continue its record of success in promoting life, marriage and family, and religious liberty in public policy. Here is a recap of the session:
- Another successful session: In total, nine CAP-supported bills were signed into law this year. Since the organization’s founding in 1995, 123 CAP-supported bills have become law – 60 in the last 5 years alone!
- Medicaid: The most hotly debated issue of the legislative session was whether or not to expand Medicaid to childless adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level. While Medicaid typically falls outside of CAP issue areas, the proposed expansion meant more dollars and patients to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood who also provide Medicaid services.
CAP worked with lawmakers to address this issue, though ultimately, no efforts to prevent further funding of the abortion industry under Medicaid expansion were successful.
- Vetoes: We’re grateful for Governor Brewer signing the nine CAP-supported bills into law this session. Sadly, she vetoed three CAP-supported bills, including two religious freedom bills, SB 1178 and HB 2446, along with a school choice measure, HB 2617.
- Coming Back Next Year – These three vetoed measures will be back next session, along with SB 1069, which brought abortion clinics up to par with every other medical facility by allowing for warrantless, unannounced inspections and took measures to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion under the Medicaid expansion. SB 1069 did not receive a vote in either house.
Bisbsee city officials will not attempt to do an end-run around Arizona marriage law by allowing the counterfeit civil unions it approved last week.
Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne had threatened to take the city to court for defying state marriage law, and the city backed down.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said in an email alert tonight: “Today, the City of Bisbee acknowledged what we’ve said all along: Bisbee lacks the legal authority to enact a so-called “civil unions” ordinance that grants marital-type benefits to unmarried individuals. The city now plans to revise the recently adopted ordinance.”
Also, Herrod said the power to grants marital benefits is a power reserved to the state and the voters of Arizona. In 2008, Arizonans strongly voted in support of marriage being defined as the union of one man and one woman.
“While this debate is far from over, today’s announcement is a victory for the rule of law, and the will of voters,” Herrod said.
Thank you for permitting me to speak.
I am supporting this marriage amendment.
My mother was very seriously ill. From infancy I grew up with a homosexual father. I loved my Dad, but my father exposed me to diverse sexual subcultures. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual subcultures did not have boundaries and principles of morality and monogamy. Rather it was experimentation, pansexuality, many sexual partners, and self-indulgent lifestyles. Gender and sexual orientation were blurred. Unisex dressing, transsexualism, and transient and anonymous multiple partners were common. My father and his associates were not limited by gender nor age. They frequented public areas. By age ten, for example, I was exposed to a gay nude beach, a sex shop, and a gay cruising park. My father had partners in the home from my infancy. All our vacations were to key GLBT areas where cruising was available.
I was traumatized by six years old in my household. I was stuttering, blacking out and having nightmares caused by molestation, physical and verbal abuse, and abandonment. My father would leave us alone for days to be with his partners. At eight, two of my father’s partners committed suicide. My father intimidated me into silence, making me fearful for my life, and unable to talk about my father’s lifestyle. Alcohol, drugs, gay bars and parties were part of the scene. Youthfulness, beauty, art, fashion, and travel were prized. However, the painful losses my father’s friends experienced were devastating. My father and his partners were involved in domestic violence and he dropped them like commodities. Males who were minors were at risk in my home of being preyed upon sexually.
Dad had encouraged me to be more open sexually, while teaching me by example that sex was gratuitous. I could not look to my father as a moral agent in my life. This left me confused about my sexual identity, and my feelings and roles as a girl and woman. My father could not show affection or affirmation to females, making me believe it was better to be a boy. He doted on his male partners – time, communication, affection and sex – travelling and buying them gifts, leaving me feeling worthless. If particular judges had their way, I would have had at least three “psychological” parents – men I would not have wanted to be named my parents.
I felt worthless and began seeking other boys’ affections by age twelve. Long-term, I became depressed, anxious, and suicidal. I was in and out of counselling between the ages of sixteen and thirty. All my family members were severely impacted.
My father left his associations within the subcultures in the late eighties, succumbing to death by AIDS in 1991 at the age of fifty-one. Many of his partners have died of AIDS, some in their early forties.
Children have no voice when they grow up in a homosexual household. Children are unwillingly forced to tolerate their parent’s sexual choices and living arrangements. If I spoke about what happened around my father, I would risk being sent to the streets or a group home. I was silenced for over forty years, afraid to share the reality of what I had lived through. I waited until both my parents had died before speaking publicly. Most other adult children feel that they cannot speak about their experiences until their parents have passed away. By the way, I know of 14 children who grew up with a homosexual parent, including myself. All of us have been negatively impacted long term. This includes adult children who have not been able to cope with their difficulties growing up – Some have tried to numb the pain with drug and alcohol addictions and sexual promiscuity.
My first thirty years around my father and his partners showed me how not to live my life. Marriage exclusively between a man and a woman is the best environment for children. Children need to see gender as male or female. Children need firm moral boundaries around sexuality. As a child, I could not comprehend the emphasis on being gender-neutral, unisex dressing, and pansexual practices. Group sex, bathhouse sex, cruising, and other expressions of diverse sexuality broke down the barriers between private and public sex.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, has stated, “Undermining the traditional definition of marriage is an assault on the beliefs of virtually all cultural and religious communities who have come to this country,” according to Lifesite News.
Freedom of speech and democracy are eroded by hate crime and same-sex marriage legislation, and by judicial activism. Human Rights Tribunals in Canada police speech, and penalize upstanding citizens for their expressed opposition to homosexuality. It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the person tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. On the other hand, the person making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint. All television, radio and print media are monitored. May what is happening in Canada serve as a warning to Massachusetts. Where can the children find safety if legislation is in place legitimizing homosexual marriage?
Attorney General Tom Horne has issued a letter to the Bisbee City Council stating that a proposed Civil Union Ordinance, if passed, would be unconstitutional and require the attorney general’s office to initiate an action in the courts to enjoin, or stop it.All three members of the legislature representing Bisbee have expressed deep concerns about the constitutionality of the ordinance. In a statement today, Attorney General Tom Horne said: “I have today sent a letter to the Bisbee City Attorney and City Council members stating that they have no authority to pass the ordinance that they will be considering tonight. This is in response to a complaint received from all three state legislators representing Bisbee: Senator Gail Griffin, Representative David Gowan and Representative David Stevens.
The ordinance seeks to change seven separate State statutes within the boundaries of the city, dealing with issues such as community property, inheritance of property, and appointment of personal representatives. The only proper way to change a statute is through the Arizona Legislature, not through actions of the City Council attempting to change a State statute within its boundaries. I emphasize that I am not expressing any opinion on the policy of the ordinance. My job is to enforce the laws that exist and I am obligated to respond to complaints from state legislators. If the ordinance is passed, the Office will initiate a special action in the Courts to enjoin it.”
Civil unions are a radical, left-wing attempt to promote counterfeit “marriage.” They actually promote cohabitation — subjecting women and children to drastically heightened risks of violence.