Poor wording of AZ prop 102 - invalidates hetero marriage?

[johnnypneumatic]

This is a proposition to change the Arizona constitution to block gay marriage, even though the state courts already rejected gay marriage lawsuits...
But if strictly interpreted ... any lawyers have an opinion?

Proposition 102 “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”

That means only a (civil) union can be recognized as a marriage in arizona.
If they wanted marriage to be considered a marriage it should say that "only a marriage of one man and one woman shall be valid..."
Since I don't think arizona has a civil union law, that means no one can be married in AZ.
Arizona can't recognize any marriage as a marriage. And can't recognize any hetero couples already married as married any longer.
It also (with a strict reading, as lawyers tend to be careful about these things and limit the words to what is specifically talked about) seems to apply only to unions of a man and a woman. Perhaps a "union" of a man and a man or a woman and a woman (from another state) could be recognized as a marriage by Arizona, but not specifically covered by this wording?

Am I right? If it passes, someone should slap a restraining order on issueing any future marriage licenses.
:evilgrin:

[JonLP24]

1. You confused me

I'm legally married in Arizona. I voted no on 102, can you explain it to me like I'm 10 years old what you're saying? :D

[JonLP24]

3. Nevermind I fully understand

It just took some re-reading. Thanks for pointing that out. I quickly voted no and at anythought of making gay marriage illegal but it's unfortanate that even if it fails LGBT still won't be able to get married :(

[Ms. Toad]

2. Nice try, but no.

Just because a word (union) is used as part of a phrase meaning a separate and distinct relationship from marriage in other states (civil union) does not deprive it of its ordinary meaning in Arizona.

You could just have chosen that word play with (holy) union - and argued that Prop 102 means only a (holy) union (i.e. a religious marriage) can be recognized as a marriage in Arizona.

[johnnypneumatic]

4. hmm, well that could open a whole can of worms

I doubt "union" is legally defined in AZ, but "marriage" certainly is.
A union is not the same as a marriage.
There'd have to be a court case to define it legally. They'd have to define a union as a marriage, and that union specifically could be a holy union or a secular union, but not a civil union, a political union, or a trade union.


(by the way, if there are any doubts, this was meant as a humorous post)

[Ms. Toad]

5. I figured that (intended as humor) n/t