Posted on 02/12/2008 4:46:32 PM PST by SandRat
PHOENIX — Unable to convince voters to ban anything that looks like gay marriage, proponents are now lowering their sights.
A proposed constitutional amendment filed Monday by Senate President Tim Bee seeks to ask voters to spell out in the state constitution that “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state.” Bee managed to get 15 of the 16 other Republican senators to sign on as sponsors.
An identical measure is being pushed in the House by Speaker Jim Weiers who got all but two of his Republican colleagues to be cosponsors.
The move comes more than a year after voters rejected a more comprehensive constitutional amendment which would not only have banned same-sex marriage but also would have outlawed civil unions and barred state and local government from offering benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.
That measure picked up just 48.2 percent of the votes cast. It also was the only gay marriage ballot measure in the country that failed.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which helped craft the 2006 measure, acknowledged the new version is far less sweeping than the initiative.
But she said the decision was made to pursue what is politically possible.
“This is about where we agree, about bringing Arizonans together on an agreement on a definition of marriage,” Herrod said.
A 1996 Arizona law already bars same-sex marriages. That statute was ruled constitutional in 2003 by the state Court of Appeals, a decision the Arizona Supreme Court left untouched.
But Ron Johnson, who lobbies on behalf of the Arizona Catholic Conference, said the initiative is still necessary.
“At some point a court, the Legislature could overturn our statute,” he said. “So we want to let the people decide whether to put this in the constitution.”
Narrowing the scope could defuse some of the opposition.
In a 2005 statewide survey, 54 percent of those asked said they would support a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. But when questioned about denying domestic partner benefits, support dropped to just 33 percent.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, one of the leaders of the opposition to the 2006 initiative, all but conceded the point during the campaign, saying if the measure had been limited to just banning same-sex marriage it likely would pass.
And foes specifically and successfully portrayed the issue as dealing not with gays but as an attack on “straight” couples who choose not to marry. In fact, all the couples featured in press conference and commercials consisted of one man and one woman who were living together.
A narrower initiative also might produce fewer donations to kill it: In 2006 supporters spent slightly more than $1 million; foes had $1.8 million.
Sinema would not say Monday whether there will be organized opposition to the measure if it is put on the November ballot. But she called it unnecessary, pointing out both the state law and the appellate court decision upholding its validity.
Sinema said if there is opposition, it would not be the same as in 2006.
“The group that came together in ’06 was a group of people who were interested in protecting domestic partner health benefits and hospital visitation for unmarried couples,” she said. “That would not be implicated by this constitutional amendment.”
Sinema also questioned why the decision to put this kind of measure on the ballot.
But Herrod said there is no ulterior motive, like trying to bring “traditional values” voters to the polls where they also would support likeminded candidates for state and federal office. “I really try to avoid playing those games,” she said.
One of the Republicans who refused to sign on was Rep. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale.
“I think we’ve got a lot of bigger issues to do,” she said, pointing to the fact that same-sex marriage already is illegal. Reagan called her decision not to sign as a sponsor “more of a protest thing,” though she said she probably will vote for the measure when if and when it comes to the House floor.
To hell with “equality” to hell with “rights” and now, to hell with “fags”.
I say this is a good measure, and we shouldn’t let them “get married” and destroy traditional marriage: WAY TO GO POLS IN AZ (However politically motivated)...
Well, don't hold back - let it out.
Seriously, what you've said is on the tip of every same person's mind - except for the stifling PC in our culture, this would be common conversation.
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.