Supporters of gay-marriage ban vie for amendment
 
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
East Valley Tribune
 
Supporters of a ban on gay marriage are counting on a new strategy and more money to persuade voters this year to amend the state constitution.

Two years ago the measure they placed on the ballot sought not only to outlaw same-sex marriage but also to bar any law that recognized civil unions. The proposal also would have banned governments from providing benefits such as health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees.

It was narrowly defeated.

This year the proponents of Proposition 201 decided to narrow their focus, sticking to the issue of who can marry.

"The goal was to make the proposal really clear," said Kelly Molique, a spokeswoman for the pro-201 campaign.

She said that, in turn, led to the other key difference between the 2006 and 2008 races: money.

In 2006, foes outspent proponents. This year backers have built a war chest in excess of $7.6 million, relying heavily on contributions of $10,000 or more from individual families.

The two committees opposing the measure have collected less than 10 percent of that.

And the Center for Arizona Policy, which bills itself as promoting "family values," has its own "get out the vote" effort aimed at getting those in support of the measure to the polls.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said all that spending by proponents can’t help but affect the outcome.

One thing that put foes at a fiscal disadvantage is the ballot fight in California, where a similar constitutional amendment is going to voters.

The big difference is that same-sex marriage is legal there -- or, at least, has been since earlier this year when that state’s Supreme Court overturned the statutory ban.

National gay rights groups have funneled much of their money into the campaign against Proposition 8 in hopes of preserving a right that exists. By contrast, gay marriage is already illegal in Arizona by virtue of state law, a law the state Court of Appeals upheld in a ruling the state Supreme Court declined to review.

That California court decision -- along with a more recent one in Connecticut -- could be a factor in another way in the outcome of the election here.

"It shows Arizonans that statutory law can be changed at any time," Molique said, meaning that a court could choose to interpret the state constitution to conclude that gays do have a right to wed.

Proponents of Proposition 102 have used the news reports of both rulings to hammer away at the ability of judges to overrule state law. That, they argue, is exactly why the definition of marriage, while already in statute, needs to be enshrined in the constitution.

Sinema, however, said she doubted that voters were affected by the California or Connecticut rulings.

The fight also took on religious overtones, with Sinema claiming that the whole effort to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman was really a public relations effort of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

She said officials of the Mormon church, as it is commonly known, have become embarrassed by the publicity surrounding the offshoot Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, which believes in polygamy, and whose leader, Warren Jeffs, faces charges in connection with arranging the marriage of underage girls to older men.

But Rep. Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, a member of the mainstream Mormon church, said that argument holds no water because his religion specifically disavowed polygamy in 1890.

Support for the measure has been broader than the LDS church, including several evangelical groups as well as the Arizona Catholic Conference, which lobbies on behalf of the state’s two Catholic bishops.

One other difference between now and 2006 has also helped supporters of Proposition 102.

Two years ago, they had to gather signatures to put the measure on the ballot, hiring paid circulators. This year supporters cobbled together enough votes at the Legislature to have the proposal referred directly, saving the time and cost of gathering signatures on a petition.
 
EastValleyTribune.com
Originally published November 4, 2008
 
Back