I got a lot of things going on, none of it is important but still needs to be done. Got the furnace fixed though we don’t need it much any more. I had them look at the AC and it needed some repairs too. We haven’t did any routine maintenance since we moved here so I’m not complaining.
If he is capable of “illumination,” he will at that moment taste the delight of recognizing that his own incommunicable experience of the ground of his being, his own total acceptence of his own nothingness, far from constituting a problem, is in fact the source and center of inexpressible joy; in Christian terms, one can hardly help feeling that the illumination of the genuine experience seems to open out into an unconscious demand for grace—a demand that is perhaps answered without being understood. Is it perhaps already grace?
Larry J. Buzeyn February 16, 2008
City Of Phoenix
P.O. Box 4500
Phoenix, AZ 85030-4500
RE: Barking Dog Information
Dear City Prosecutor,
I received your letter dated February 14, 2008. I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention. This is the very first time I knew there was a problem. This dog that is being referred to has lived at this address for four years.
I have reviewed the information you have sent. I personally don’t think the situation needed to be addressed in this manner but since it has, appropriate steps will be taken.
I have met with the neighbor as instructed in the information you provided. I felt he should have approached me first.
I would like to share some history about the neighbor that filed this complaint. I have known him since two days after I moved to this address. I know he has filed eight to ten complaints on other people that live on this block for different reasons. After five years I thought I may be the only person that can get along with this man. I always stood up for him when I listened to the stories other neighbors shared with me. I was shocked to receive a letter from you stating now he has even turned on me. I have to accept that I live next to a retired senior that spends some of his day looking to cause trouble for his neighbors. How I wish there was a law to ban busy-bodies. If there is a law please let me know.
I understand there are no criminal charges at this time. I am more than willing to meet with a detective from the Phoenix Police Department and introduce him to the dog that after four years is now a concern. There is a six foot block fence between me and my neighbor, for some reason I think my neighbor has gotten scared though I did ask him to come and meet the dog. The dog has been to obedient school and is well behaved. He does bark when someone is in the alley late at night. I don’t think that is a bad thing.
I appreciate you contacting me and I hope this problem will be resolved soon.
Larry J. Buzeyn
On the Prop. 107 paper. It was my final project for the class. I have to work on my APA formatting and citations. I am taking another class now that is similar to this class but involves more research. So I have taken two English classes and have this one to go, then I am done, Thank God. My topic for my final project in this class is a paper on “Music That Has Been Banned Since 911.”
In November of 2006 Arizona voters rejected a gay marriage ban by a narrow margin. The
argument was made that a gay marriage ban would hurt straight couples too. Proposition 107,
also known as the Protect Marriage Amendment reads:
To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union of one man and of one woman
shall be valid or recognized as marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal
status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political
subdivisions that is similar to marriage. (Belge, 2006)
Current Arizona law does not allow gay marriage and does not honor same sex marriage from
any other state or country. “In November, Arizona became the first and only state in the nation to
turn down a measure defining marriage.” (Scarpinato, 2007) The margin the proposition was
defeated by left some wondering if attitudes were changing towards gay marriage. “Arizona
refused to outlaw gay marriage by a vote of 51 to 49 percent.” (S.D. reject anti-abortion
proposal; Arizona says no to ban on same-sex marriage, 2006) Proposition 107 failed in Arizona
because opponents used an argument different from similar propositions that were successful in
other states. What made Arizona different from other states by defeating a gay marriage ban?
The defeat of Proposition 107 was brought about mainly from senior citizens turning out in
high numbers to vote against it. “Many elderly single persons in Arizona have paired off and as it
were; shacked up; but to avoid losing Medicare and Social Security benefits they have been
avoiding marriage.” (Gay & Lesbian Review,2007) What was determined early on are the
words that did not resonate with voters. Words like discrimination, fairness, and equality did not
work. State Representative Krysten Sinema, a leading voice in the opposition to Proposition 107
We know why it failed; we did a post-election poll and asked why they voted no. They voted
no because they believed that the initiative would remove the right for unmarried couples in
the state to enjoy domestic partner health benefits from their employers, and in Tucson, lose
the domestic partner registry which allows couples to have visitation rights in the hospital like
married couples. We did use a straight senior couple in our advertising and told their story
about how they would lose access to hospital visitation if the initiative passed. The story
proved to be influential in the minds of voters.(personal communication, Sinema, 2007)
Proposition 107 could have had consequences for domestic violence laws, tuition benefits for
students with partners, and children losing health benefits because their mother and father were
The major proponents of Proposition 107 were Protect Marriage Arizona, Focus on the
Family, The Center for Arizona Policy, and the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale Arizona
based conservative Christian legal group. Arizona’s Roman Catholic Church stood strong in
favor of Prop.107 as well as presidential candidate Arizona Senator John McCain. “After filing
307,576 signatures – 200,000 of which were gathered by volunteers, the Protect Marriage
Amendment was placed on the ballot.” (The Center For Arizona Policy, 2007) Their message
consistently said this proposal was needed to prevent the attack on marriage. “There is a trend
toward counterfeit marriages. These counterfeits are domestic partnerships and civil unions that
are demanding the same recognition bestowed upon married couples.” (The Center for Arizona
Policy, 2007) The proponents perceived that the homosexual agenda was making a mockery out
of marriage. Marriage is the fundamental unit of any society. “A strong society cannot be
maintained if its family unit is weak.” (Azmarriageamendment.com, 2006) The
advertising campaign of the proponents consisted of sharing facts that countered what they said
were myths put out by their opposition. Those in favor of this proposition suggested domestic
partner benefits should be different then married couples. The opponents argued different was
not equal, it was discrimination.
The proponents spent considerable time on the sexual relationships of unmarried couples.
“They did not oppose granting benefits to unmarried people, as long as they are granted in a
manner that does not endorse sexual conduct outside of marriage.” (Alliance Defense Fund,
2005) Recognizing same-sex relationships have always been a political hot button for the
government. As long as those in favor of Proposition 107 could keep the focus on the moral
issue of homosexual behavior they could generate support. They wanted to promote a message
that those against Prop. 107 would say anything to promote the homosexual agenda.
The major opponents of Proposition 107 were Arizona Together Coalition, Arizona
Human Rights Fund and Foundation, and the Human Rights Campaign. They held to their
point that Prop.107 would affect heterosexuals. Rarely was anything mentioned about gay
couples. The opponents were often accused of not being straightforward in their advertising
campaign. There were never gay couples in the commercials put out by Arizona Together
Coalition. 79 year-old Al Breznay and partner Maxine Piatt, 75, were happy to be in the
commercials. They felt it was important to defeat Prop.107. Marty Rouse, national field director
of the Human rights Campaign, said, “It was not deception but necessity that led the campaign to
focus more on straight couples.”(Crawford, 2006) Some said the measure lost because of the
opposition of popular Republican Representative Jim Kolbe. Mr. Kolbe was the gay Arizona
congressman retiring soon whose opinion was always sought. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) movement strategies had to be sufficiently prophetic, visionary, creative,
and practical to counter the right’s powerful and effective use of “wedge” politics – the strategic
marketing of fear and resentment that pits one group against another.” (Beyondmarriage.org,
2006) The amendment would have passed easily if the focus was on gay marriage. The
opponents of Proposition 107 were constant and controlled in their message.
Throughout the nation different strategies have been used. There were different messages
targeting different groups. Conservative Christians were against Liberal Christians and
Progressives were against left leaning Libertarians. The opposition to a similar amendment in
South Carolina argued from a civil rights perspective. Tennessee opponents said their
amendment was redundant and not needed. The opponents of a similar measure in Idaho spent
most of their time trying to educate the voter. Arizona was different, the passage of Prop. 107
would have banned all civil unions and domestic partnerships. Proposition 107 weighed heavy
on the minds of seniors that wanted to be able to make medical decisions for their partners. The
proponents of Proposition 107 wanted this argument to be about gay marriage. Since the 1960’s
they have believed that marriage has been under attack. They feel strongly that to redefine
marriage will weaken the nuclear family. The opposition to Proposition 107 held steadfast that
this was not about gay marriage. The proposition was about benefits for government employees.
Current benefits would have been lost by employees of Pima County, and in the cities of
Phoenix, Tucson, Scottsdale, and Tempe.
The future may be changing for the recognition of domestic partners. That Proposition
107 failed in a conservative state like Arizona surprised many. The margin of defeat was
about 50,000 votes of 1.4 million cast. Cathi Herrod, the spokesperson from Protect
Marriage Arizona Coalition said, “The struggle to protect marriage between one man and one
woman is far from over…It’s a token win for the opposition.” (The Center For Arizona
Policy, 2006) Rick Ufford-Chase, the highest elected official of the Presbyterian Church
(USA) from June 2004 to June of 2006 said, “What we must not tolerate are laws motivated
by hate or discrimination, or that single out an entire class of people to be treated differently
than the rest of us.” (U-C: What I See, 2006)
Arizona is known for being one of the retirement capitals of the nation. Many seniors
come to Arizona to retire. Many have lost their life partner and have joined into a domestic
partnership with someone new. On that November Tuesday seven other states voted in
constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. “Findings have shown a slight increase
in those who favor some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples.” (America’s Changing
Attitudes toward Homosexuality, Civil Unions, and Same-Gender Marriage: 1977-2004, 2007)
Those that opposed Proposition 107 tapped into that segment of society that could have been
affected. Their argument had enough believers that the ill conceived Proposition 107 was not just
a gay issue but touched society as a whole to bring about its defeat.
Avery, A., Chase, J., Johansson, L., Litvak, S., Montero, D., & Wydra, M. (2007, January). America’s Changing Attitudes toward Homosexuality, Civil Unions, and Same-Gender Marriage: 1977-2004. Social Work, 52(1), 71-79. Retrieved January 23,2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Azmarriageamendment.com. (2006, September 10) Retrieved January 10, 2008, from AZMARRIAGEAMENDMENT.COM Web site: http://www.azmarriageamendment.blogspot.com
Belge, K (2006, November 08). Gay marriage arizona – the fight for gay marriage in arizona. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from About.Com Web site: http://about,com
Civil unions and gay marriage. (January,2007) Retrieved January 10, 2008, from The Center For Arizona Policy Web site: http://www.azpolicy.org
Crawford, A (2006, November 2006). Consistent message doomed prop. 107. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from azcentral.com Web site: http://www.azcentral.com
Herrod, C (2006, November 15). Statement regarding proposition 107. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from Famil facts Arizona Web site: http://azpolicy.org
“How to get seniors on our side.” The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 14.7 (January-February, 2007): 12(1) General File Gale. University of Phoenix – main account. Retrieved January 10, 2008. (Document ID: A157255666
Marriage protection amendment. January, 2007) Retrieved January 10, 2008, from The Center For Arizona Policy Web site: http://azpolicy.org
Scarpinato, D Arizona daily Star (2007, March 3). Gay-marriage opponent advises allies to be realistic: [Final Edition]. Arizona daily Star, p. B1 Retrieved January 19, 2008 from Business Dateline database. (Document ID: 1241374961).
S.D. voters reject anti-abortion proposal; Arizona says no to ban on same-sex marriage. (2006, December). Contemporary sexuality, Retrieved January 23, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Stovall, C (2006). The truth about pending marriage amendments. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from Alliance Defense Fund Web site: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org
Ufford-Chase, R (2006, November 04). An op-ed prop 107 in arizona. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from U-C: What I See Web site: http://www.what-i-see.blogspot.com
In the Samyuktagama Sutra scriptures vol. 33 it is told of four kinds of horses. The excellant ones, the good ones, poor ones, and bad ones. I want to be the excellant horse but I am surely the bad horse. The story made me feel better because the Buddha will through his mercy will appreciate the bad horse. Through my imperfections, I may find the basis for a firm way-seeking mind. The point of the story through continuous practice under agreeable and disagreeable situations you will realize the marrow of Zen and aquire its true strength.