Senate rejects measure to ban same-sex marriage

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Commented Stories Today
Most E-mailed Stories Today
June 25, 2008, 5:34 p.m.
The Associated Press

PHOENIX — Gay marriage opponents lost a key battle Thursday when the Arizona Senate rejected a proposed ballot measure to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

With the measure failing by two votes, the lawmaker who proposed putting the proposal on the November ballot for voters to decide said he will try Friday to resurrect it.

Citing a California court ruling that overturned the state's bans on same-sex marriage, Republican Sen. Ron Gould of Lake Havasu City, author of the proposal, said he was concerned that gay couples from Arizona will get married in the neighboring state and then might challenge an Arizona law that prohibits same-sex marriages.

"Our state Supreme Court may find the same fictitious meaning inside of our constitution if we don't change it," Gould said.

Democratic Sen. Ken Cheuvront of Phoenix, who is openly gay and voted against the measure, said the Legislature should focus on more pressing priorities, such as producing a state budget, and that the measure has shown the gay and lesbian community who their friends and foes are. "It tells us what you think of us," Cheuvront said.

The state already has a law that was enacted in 1996 and upheld in 2003 by a state appellate court that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

In 2006, Arizona voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage and stopped government from recognizing civil unions of same-sax couples.

The latest proposal, a trimmed-down version of the one rejected by voters in 2006, would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Republican Sen. Sylvia Allen of Snowflake, who voted for the proposed ballot measure, said the proposal would further protect the sanctity of families by helping to prevent judges from overturning the prohibition.

"This is an important issue, and it will have a far-reaching effect to our society as a whole, and therefore we do need to use our constitution to protect it," Sylvia Allen said.

Republican Sen. Carolyn Allen of Scottsdale, who voted for the 1996 law but opposed the latest measure, said she respects people's opinion on the subject but questioned the need for voters to decide the issue. "I don't need to change the constitution," Carolyn Allen said.

Gould said he plans to force a reconsideration vote on Friday, when Republican Sen. Karen Johnson of Mesa, who has voted for the measure before, will be back from vacation.

The measure, which had cleared the state House last month, would bypass Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano and go straight to the ballot if it's approved on a reconsideration vote.

Read All Comments » 20 TOTAL COMMENTS
Jun 27, 2008 @ 4:08pm
One of the main arguments used to support slavery was that the bible had stories of blacks being slaves and therefore it was ok. Using the bible as a source is going to fault you in the end. So your "You are trying to gain a priveledge based on action and choice, not the color of your skin." argument is flawed. Just like having darker skin does not mean you are less of a person, being gay also doesn't. Humans are Humans, and therefore they should all get the same rights.

Source: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3403
Jun 26, 2008 @ 1:07pm
Hey, look at that! Based on #15, ONLY lesbians (sapphites) should be allowed marriage since we have the lowest instance of sexually transmitted diseases. No increased health care costs here!!
Jun 26, 2008 @ 11:52am
Anyone who declares the "VAST MAJORITY" of people don't agree with gay marriage makes the statement based on the conclusion that ONLY THEY are correct.

Interesting ... looks like the Arizona Senate, which represents ALL the people of this state, disagrees. So much for your _vast majority_.
Post a Comment »