"Mein secret ist 'out'!!!!!" - The Baroness Napolitaxo
Posted on 01/06/2005 8:53:28 PM PST by SandRat
PHOENIX - Arizona voters will be asked to ban gay marriage, bar courts and lawmakers from approving civil unions and preclude cities and counties from providing benefits to the domestic partners of their workers.
The decision was made Wednesday in a meeting with lawmakers to have the Legislature put a constitutional amendment on the 2006 ballot that is as expansive as possible, said Cathi Herrod, lobbyist for the Center for Arizona Policy.
She said that means not only defining marriage as between one man and one woman but ensuring that government does not grant "substitutes" to marriage.
If approved by voters, the measure would annul the practices of several localities, including Tucson, Tempe and Pima County, which extend the same benefits given to spouses of workers to their partners. And it also would nullify the domestic-partner registry run by the city of Tucson.
The proposal appears to have sufficient legislative support to send it to the ballot, according to a Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip Jay Tibshraeny.
It would not affect practices of private companies.
The meeting Wednesday was with lawmakers who will sponsor the measure in the Legislature and shepherd it to the ballot. The legislative session begins Monday.
Herrod, whose group promotes itself as "restoring traditional moral principles," said the proposal would cement an exact definition of marriage into the state constitution. "Government, whether it is state or local, may not confer a legal status that basically is marriage on any other union," she said.
The decision to seek a broad constitutional amendment raises the ante - and the political risk - for foes of gay marriage.
On one hand, the amendment would bar Arizona courts from declaring it unconstitutional to deny benefits to the partner of one government worker that are given the spouse of another.
And it also would foreclose judges - or even lawmakers themselves - from permitting civil unions.
That essentially is what happened in Vermont. That state's Supreme Court said that while the state is not required to let gays marry, lawmakers must offer something that provides similar rights.
But the expanded language in the Arizona measure also increases the risk it might fail when it reaches the ballot.
A statewide survey in 2004 found Arizonans oppose gay marriage by a ratio of close to 3-2. But that same poll showed 57 percent of those asked support civil unions.
Herrod noted, though, that 11 states adopted constitutional amendments in November, eight with similar provisions. She said Arizona's measure is being modeled on the Ohio amendment, which says state and local governments "shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Tibshraeny, a supporter of a gay-marriage ban, said the decision does not reduce the chances the Legislature will put the measure before voters. But he said, "It makes the process more cumbersome to pass if you're going to go on the ballot."
That's also the belief of Steve May, co-chairman of the Arizona Human Rights Fund, a gay- and lesbian-rights group.
"A majority of Arizonans support a ban on gay marriage and would vote for it at the polls," May said. But he doubts Arizonans want to take health insurance from domestic partners.
Kent Burbank, executive director of Wingspan, which fought for domestic-partner benefits in Pima County and Tucson, called the move "repugnant."
"It clearly shows the intent of this is to be mean-spirited," he said.
May said the decision to seek a broad constitutional amendment actually could give ammunition for his organization to challenge the measure, on the grounds that it violates a legal requirement in Arizona that constitutional measures deal with only one subject. May said an argument could be made that this deals with both marriage and domestic partnership.
Wednesday's decision on the scope of the amendment follows a suggestion by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano. She said if there is going to be a referendum, it should occur at a special election this year rather than at the regular election in 2006.
She said that would get the issue off the table and let lawmakers and the public concentrate on other issues.
The governor denied her idea is political and that she is afraid of having that hot-button issue on the 2006 ballot because that is the year she has to run for re-election. Napolitano said she already is on record as opposed to letting gays wed and doubts that those who turn out to vote for the constitutional amendment would vote against her.
But Jim Haynes, president of the Behavior Research Center, said Napolitano is kidding herself if she believes she can get the support of gay-marriage foes. He said those who come to the polls largely to vote against same-sex marriages are likely to be those who would vote for a Republican like J.D. Hayworth or Rick Romley, potential general-election foes for Napolitano.
We know why she'll lose BIG TIME!
wahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, poor thing, NOT!
She said that means not only defining marriage as between one man and one woman but ensuring that government does not grant "substitutes" to marriage.
We made the mistake in California of restring the marriage amendment to marriage only and not to civil unions as well. Now we have a "Marriage in all but name" bill passed in our legislature. Good luck Arizona.
I don't know what they call a "domestic partner", but if it applies to situations where people are living together just to share expenses, this is going to backfire on them. There are plenty of older women in that situation and if they get affected by this the lie-berals will make hay out of it (not to mention the fact that it will just be another case of oppressive government - not that anyone cares about *that* any more, but...)
A great developement! Hopefully more and more states will get these amendments. We will NOT accept further degredation of this 2000 year old institution upon which western society is built, as appeasement to 2% of the population.
A great developement! Hopefully more and more states will get these amendments. We will NOT accept further degredation of this 2000 year old institution upon which western society is built, as appeasement to 2% of the population.
those who come to the polls largely to vote against same-sex marriages are likely to be those who would vote for a Republican like J.D. Hayworth or Rick Romley, potential general-election foes for Napolitano.
GO J.D.!!!!
Funny, I always thought it was Jihadi Janet? But that works.
I agree. The gays have clearly overplayed their hand by trying to force it down our throats.
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.