Posted on 07/13/2006 3:47:04 PM PDT by Graybeard58
PHOENIX -- Foes of a constitutional initiative to ban same-sex marriage filed suit Wednesday to keep the measure off the November ballot.
Attorney Chuck Blanchard said his client, the Arizona Together Coalition, has no problem with voters deciding whether marriage should be constitutionally defined as being between one man and one woman.
But Blanchard said the proposal, if approved by voters, also would bar courts or lawmakers from recognizing civil unions as an alternative to marriage, and would outlaw the benefits that some cities and at least one county provide to the domestic partners of their employees and, in some cases, their residents.
"The Arizona voters have a variety of opinions on each of these topics," Blanchard said. "We believe they are entitled to vote on each of these three topics separately."
He said that is supported by rules which limit constitutional measures to a single subject -- rules he said are designed to ensure that people who want one of the provisions don't have to also accept another they do not want.
Blanchard said if the lawsuit is successful, proponents could come back and file three separate measures. That, however, could not happen until 2008.
Nathan Sproul, consultant to the Protect Marriage Arizona committee, said the initiative has only one purpose: defining what is marriage in Arizona.
"Part of what a comprehensive definition is what marriage is and what marriage is not," he said. Sproul said the other effects of the initiative would impact "counterfeit marriages."
That, he said, extends not only to civil unions, which some states have recognized as an alternative to same-sex marriages, but also benefits. Tucson, Tempe, Scottsdale, Phoenix and Pima County all provide some benefits to the partners of their workers that are in some cases equivalent to those extended to spouses, ranging range from health insurance to discounts.
And the measure would void a domestic partner registry operated by the city of Tucson which entitles residents to hospital visitation privileges as well as the same discounts for city services as married couples.
Sproul said initiative backers believe all that needs to be banned.
"Marriage is the cornerstone of everything that is good about society," Sproul said. "Therefore, when society gives benefits back, it should give benefits back to what is a real marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman."
No date has been set for a court hearing. But whatever the trial judge decides is certain to be appealed by the loser to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Attorney Lisa Hauser, also representing Arizona Together, acknowledged that similar arguments in other states have failed. Most recently, the Georgia Supreme Court earlier this month ruled that a ballot measure approved by 76 percent of voters in that state did not violate the single-subject rule.
This, she said, is different.
"The Georgia Supreme Court doesn't know Arizona law," she said. Hauser also said that lawsuit was filed after the voters had approved the measure; this one wants to keep it from getting to the ballot in the first place.
The Center for Arizona Policy, which supports the initiative, says 20 states have voter-approved constitutional bans on gay marriage, with 11 of those measures having similar language to what is being proposed here.
Some polling results could back Arizona Together's contention that voters would want separate opportunities to vote on the effects of the initiative.
A 2003 survey done by the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University showed that only 42 percent of those questioned believe gays should be able to marry.
But 53 percent supported allowing civil unions to give gays the same rights and benefits as married couples. And 59 percent said they support allowing same-sex couples to share health coverage from one partner's job.
Sproul dismisses that survey as meaningless. "Ultimately the poll that will be important is the poll on election day," he said.
Gov. Janet Napolitano said Wednesday she believes the initiative "covers multiple subjects" in violation of the rules on constitutional amendments. But the governor refused to comment on the merits of the measure or whether she believes Arizonans should support or oppose it.
Blanchard is a liar. If he did not have a problem, this lawsuit would never have been filed.
And why was it filed, BTW? Because they know the voters will pass it by an overwhelming margin, and that scares them.
Just libs trying to bypass the will of the people again by using the courts. They recently found out that it doesn't always work. New York and Georgia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.