Serena Freewomyn

Right Wingers Push for AZ Marriage Amendment

Filed By Serena Freewomyn | April 15, 2008 9:00 AM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Arizona, gay marriage, Kyrsten Sinema, marriage equality, same-sex marriage

Members of the Arizona legislature are making another concerted effort to place a measure on the November ballot that would amend the state's constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. As proof positive that this is really just about how much the right wingers hate the gays (and only the gays), State Representative Cathi Herrod introduced a "strike everything" measure to a completely unrelated bill. Equality Arizona reports that:

Despite the fact that Arizona voters already rejected the idea in 2006 when they voted down Proposition 107, and despite the fact that the House of Representatives has already defeated this measure this session, Arizona legislators may still have to deal with the proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage.

SCR 1042, a bill that would have established a Vietnam Veterans' Memorial Day, was amended in the House Judiciary Committee to strike everything and replace it with the marriage amendment language.

A savvy move by State Representative (and all-around rock star) Kyrsten Sinema made Herrod and her crew reveal their true colors. Sinema amended the original version to include a prohibition of protections for domestic partners, straight and gay alike. The bill is now in a holding pattern because that would discriminate against the straights who just want to shack up. More on Sinema's strategery after the jump!

According to the Arizona Daily Star:

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, tacked on an amendment to guarantee certain rights to unmarried couples living together, whether gay or straight, like inheritance and hospital visitation. That made the now-amended measure unacceptable to those who simply want to ban same-sex weddings, and the bill was shelved. . .

But Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which opposes gay marriage, said she believes that was because it also would have barred the Legislature and courts from permitting civil unions and prohibited government agencies from extending health care and other benefits to the domestic partners of public employees.
This measure deals only with gay marriage.

Way to show your true colors, ya'll. At least the rumors and innuendo about you just hating the gays have been proven as fact. Unmarried straight couples = OK, even though the Bible supposedly says no.

I'll be keeping you in the loop. But for now, why don't you hop on over to Equality Arizona's website and send a letter to your state representative. it will take all of 5 seconds of your day.


Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Good strategy. When they start to take away the rights of the majority, suddenly everything becomes a little murky, eh?

To the extent they can, the right will want to make the 2008 election another referendum on social issues for the same reasons they did in 2000 and 2004 --- to get the conservative voters to the polls. They will have a more difficult time working this strategy this year, because the economy is in the toilet, the Iraq war drags on, mortgage crisis, unemployment, all bread-and-butter issues that are more pressing to the average American family (if there still is such a thing) than the usual litany of conservative social peeves. (Joe Klein of NYT said something very similar while being interviewed by Charlie Rose yesterday.) Hopefully we can keep the state ballots free of this and similar issues, which will be just another little something to help avoid another 4 years of GOP bumblings in the White House.

And thank God we don't have to worry about that right here in Indiana, since it looks like we dodged that bullet one more time by the hairs on our chinney-chin-chins.

Oops! ... Joe Klein is a columnist for Time magazine, not the New York Times ... although he has written for NYT also in the past. --- AJL

When they revamped Georgia's marriage laws they declared common law marraige illeagal along with same sex marraige so yes "Shacking up " will get you into trouble if any one ever presses the issue.But that law a kid with a skate board could punch holes in it if any one ever tried hard enough to.I voted no on it beccuse I think if 2 folks want to marry go for it and the law as i said a kid on a skate board could punch holes in it.

Kyrsten Sinema | April 15, 2008 2:25 PM

Actually, my amendment did not prohibit the provision of benefits to unmarried couples, as the post above states.

It CREATED four legal protections for unmarried families who live together - hospital visitation rights, medical decision making rights, burial rights and inheritance rights.

The amendment passed because some legislators believe that unmarried families deserve these basic legal protections, as do I.

The bill was killed because House leadership doesn't believe that unmarried families, straight or gay, deserve these legal protections.

What's funny is that this whole thing is an insult to vietnam vets in the state where America's possible first vietnam vet president is from.

I wonder if McCain will be asked about this...

Alex, funny you should mention it. McCain does support the current measure. I had a story on Google News yesterday that I can't find today.

Speak, McCain!

For the love of ghod, take a position on this, McCain!

Ethan Pleshe | April 16, 2008 3:15 AM

Argh! I am so sick of the Right Wingers! I am very happy however that we have people who are willing to go head-to-head with them.