A proposed initiative would ban same-sex marriages in Arizona.
The Protect Marriage Arizona coalition has put forward a measure that would constitutionally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The amendment also would abolish the domestic partnership as a legal status.
Peter Gentala, legal counsel at the Center for Arizona Policy, one of the amendment's supporters, said the coalition is currently collecting signatures. The organization must submit 183,917 valid signatures by July 2006 in order to get the initiative on the November ballot.
This move follows the passage of similar amendments in 11 states during the 2004 presidential election.
Marriage already is defined as a heterosexual union in Arizona through the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Gentala said he feels this amendment is necessary to keep marriage from being reinterpreted through court rulings, which was the case with a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2004. Voters can "proactively" change their constitution and, therefore, protect the definition of marriage so it couldn't be judicially altered, he said.
But Amy Kobeta, the director of public affairs at the Arizona Human Rights Fund, said the amendment was "unnecessary" and "unfair" because current Arizona law already prohibited recognition of same-sex marriages. She said she believes this initiative would alter the constitution to limit the rights of individuals who had done nothing to deserve such discrimination.
The Arizona Human Rights Fund is part of the Arizona Together coalition leading the campaign against the amendment.
"It's a sacred document," Kobeta said. "To be playing political football with it is just a shame."
Gentala said traditional marriage should be upheld because it keeps couples in committed relationships and provides a secure environment under which children can be raised. Kids raised in same-sex households would "operate under a significant disadvantage," lacking a distinct mother or father.
"The state should never set out to promote a family situation where children are raised without a mother or a father," Gentala said.
But Kobeta disagreed, saying that children growing up in gay and lesbian households could still have loving parents, regardless of their genders. Studies have shown that children raised in same-sex families have become just as "well-adjusted," as any other children in adulthood, she said.
She added that she believes there is no "logical reason" why marriage should be limited only to heterosexual couples.
"Marriage is a wonderful thing." Kobeta said. "Why wouldn't we want to expand it to include more people?"
Kobeta also said the amendment would affect straight couples as well, by denying vital state-funded medical insurance to about 500 families in the cities of Tempe, Scottsdale, Phoenix and Tucson.
"There's no record of how many kids would be impacted by losing those health care benefits," Kobeta added.
But Gentala said this amendment would only prevent government agencies from offering domestic partnership health benefits. Individuals could still name their partners as beneficiaries in their wills, for example, or give them the right to make medical decisions in the event of an emergency.
The few employees who stand to lose medical coverage could still receive it through partners working at private businesses, he said.
"A private company can offer any type of benefit package and this amendment won't do anything about that," Gentala said.
Kobeta said that if the proposed amendment passed, businesses could be discouraged from coming to Arizona because they couldn't offer the best possible benefits packages for their workers. Potential employees could also be dissuaded from working at firms that couldn't offer desired medical coverage, she said, doing a great "disservice" to Arizona and its economy.
Valerie Hernandez, human resources manager for the city of Tempe, said that she could not comment on the proposed constitutional amendment, saying that could be interpreted as the city taking a position on the issue.
Hernandez did note Tempe has offered health insurance to all eligible employees and their partners since 2000. While Arizona law does not require municipal governments to do this, she said, the city does not make distinctions between different groups of people based on their legal status when providing medical coverage.
Gentala said he was optimistic about the amendment's support, noting that in other states, similar measures have passed with an average 70 percent of the votes.
"It's ... probably been the most successful political movement in recent times," he said.
Reach the reporter at grayson.steinberg@asu.edu.
