The first day of March saw something that had been expected for quite some time in Arizona politics. Three Catholic bishops endorsed the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative, a measure that would outlaw gay marriage. Bishops Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and Donald Pelotte of Gallup, N.M., endorsed the campaign in a statement.
The Arizona Republic reports that the statement will be "distributed at churches and through Catholic newspapers." They also reported that church members will be allowed to collect signatures on church grounds with the pastor's approval.
As a Catholic, it comes as no surprise that the three bishops felt compelled to endorse this Arizona amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But the three bishops' is not the most high-profile endorsement for the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative to date. Arizona's most popular politician, Sen. John McCain, has been on board since as early as August 2005.
When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court decided to allow gay marriages to commence, many on the conservative side of the aisle found themselves supporting a United States constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
As a states' rights Conservative like my political idol, Barry Goldwater, I believe states should make their own decisions on this issue and the federal government would be better off not getting involved.
Several states did just that and passed gay marriage bans in 2004. Even in Oregon, which is definitely not Conservative territory, the initiative banning gay marriage passed by a wide margin. I bring up Oregon because Liberals would have you believe that radical Conservatives were the driving force that passed these initiatives. In fact, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry won the majority vote in Oregon.
Arizona's initiative on marriage would not only ban gays from marriage, but also from civil unions and domestic benefits that affect even straight couples in Arizona. This latter part of the initiative seems to be a sticky point with many people.
A quick jaunt to www.aztogether.org shows that the opposition to this change is there.
The site, sponsored by Arizona Together, is also quick to point out the part of the amendment that would ban non-married straight couples from receiving domestic benefits.
Still, it is very likely that the backers of the Protect Arizona Marriage initiative will be able to collect the 183,000-plus signatures that they need to put the issue on the ballot for the 2006 elections.
Upon its placement on the ballot, they will be on a mission to ensure that Arizona doesn't become the first state in the country to vote a ban on gay marriage down.
I am hesitant to support a federal amendment against gay marriage to the Constitution because of states' rights issues. However, I can find very little reason not to support the Protect Arizona Marriage initiative.
T.J. Shope is a political science junior. Reach him at Thomas.Shope@asu.edu.
