Talk:2008 Arizona Proposition 102

Comment
Thanks everyone for your help in editing this topic. Because this is a contentious issue I hope we can achieve the ever-important Neutral Point of View. NPOV tutorial is a good place to start. Quoting from the article: "Wikipedia isn't a battleground, there are other places on the Internet to debate a given subject," like blogs, for example.

My view is that we'll do best if we try to keep the article simple, neutral, and accurate.

As the major proponents/opponents publish their major arguments during the campaign I'd like to see some links to those. We should mention the major arguments; however, our article doesn't need to be the place for detailed, in-depth discussion of the issue. (That's what blogs are for). I'd also like to link the official ballot info when it becomes available from the Secretary of State.

Gmoneyfinancial (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
What percentage of the vote is required for this to take effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.244.48 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple majority, according to this. --EqualRights (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed POV
Under the heading "Analysis", the article used to say this: By placing a definition of marriage in the Constitution of Arizona, however, the definition of marriage could not be changed by either the state legislature or the state judiciary. In my attempt to neutralize the POV, I rewrote it to say this: However, because the proposition was an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona, the law now cannot be changed by the state legislature, and the possibility that the state judiciary might find a state constitutional guarantee of same-sex couples' right to marry is eliminated. I think this is better, but it's a bit of a mouthful. It probably still needs improvement, which is why I'm posting this here.

The problem was that it implies the judicial branch of Arizona can change law. This is an inaccurate statement, unless Arizona's judiciary is unique and I don't know about it. The judiciary only has the authority to interpret law. Specifically, in regards to constitutional law, it has the authority to determine whether a statute contradicts the constitution — and to strike down the statute when it does, since constitutional law trumps statutory law. Nothing changes except the presumption that the statute is constitutional.

There is similar language under "Supporters and opponents". But I hesitate to alter it because of the qualifier, "Supporters said". The supporters were false in implying the judiciary can change law, but I think we have to let readers conclude that for themselves. — Athelwulf [T]/[C] 09:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 (2000) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Apparently uncontroversial and noting also the recent consensus at Talk:Arizona_Proposition_200_(2004) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Arizona Proposition 102 → Arizona Proposition 102 (2008) – The de facto naming convention for Arizona ballot issues is parenthetical disambiguation by year, because this state re-uses proposition numbers. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * per closed requested move at Talk:Arizona Proposition 200 (2004), where consensus was for keeping the years on Arizona ballot measure titles. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * to disambiguate from Arizona Standing in Civil Actions, Proposition 102 (2006) – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Arizona Proposition 102 (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518205750/http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/CommitteeSearchResults.aspx to http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/CommitteeSearchResults.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921045131/http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/121807 to http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/121807
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101120208/http://www.azsos.gov/results/2008/general/BM102.htm to http://www.azsos.gov/results/2008/general/BM102.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arizona Proposition 102 (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219172036/http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/General/Canvass2008GE.pdf to http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/General/Canvass2008GE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)