Former U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe said a same-sex marriage-quashing voter referendum isn’t likely to advance this year. In 2006, Arizona became the only state to successfully kill a similar amendment. (Photo by Hussein Malla/AP)
Experts say N.C., Indiana results spell end of Clinton campaign
Va. woman, husband fought to overturn ban on interracial unions
Constitutional ban, high court ruling both in the works
Says call to withhold money no longer ‘relevant’
advertisement
advertisement
|
CHRIS JOHNSON
Friday, March 21, 2008
Some political insiders in Arizona are doubtful that an effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage via voter referendum there will succeed this session.
Former U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), who is gay, is predicting the effort will expire in the legislature — success there is necessary to get it on the November ballot — before it has a chance to reach voters.
“I’m quite confident this will never be on the ballot,” he said.
Kolbe, who served as a House member from 1985 to 2007, came out as gay in 1996 after being pressured by gay advocacy groups following his vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.
When asked why he thinks the amendment won’t make it to Arizona voters, Kolbe would only respond, “I have every reason to think that the amendment will never see the light of day in the legislature.”
Kolbe said he is “definitely opposed” to the measure.
The current effort to push through a marriage amendment marks the second time that Arizona has considered a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The first one went to Arizona voters in 2006 and was narrowly defeated in referendum with 51 percent of the vote.
A Feb. 26 poll by the Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication found that 49 percent of Arizona residents would vote in favor of an amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman if it didn’t affect domestic partner benefits for straights or gays. Residents who said they’d vote against it accounted for 40 percent while 11 percent said they were undecided.
Kolbe said he and other activists “worked vigorously to defeat” the 2006 amendment. He added that the language in the 2006 amendment was “more onerous” than the language in the current initiative sitting before the legislature.
Opponents of the 2006 amendment argued that language in the measure would interfere with rights bestowed in civil unions and rights enjoyed by unmarried straight couples.
But the language in the 2008 amendment states simply “only a union of one man and one woman must be valid or recognized as a marriage in Arizona.”
Sam Holdren, executive director of Equality Arizona, a statewide gay advocacy group, said it was “hard to speculate” on the amendment’s chances of reaching voters in the fall, adding that he is getting mixed signals on the measure’s chances in the legislature.
Holdren said his organization is working with legislators to keep the amendment from coming to a vote. Legislators are primarily concerned with a state budget crisis so the legislative session may end before the legislature can act on the initiative, Holdren said. He expects the amendment to be one of the last items the legislature considers.
In the House, the amendment has met committee approval and is awaiting a floor vote. In the Senate, the amendment still awaits consideration in the Rules Committee.
“The chances are if it gets to the floor, it’ll pass both houses with a majority and we’ll be fighting it actually on the ballot, but we’re doing whatever we can to keep it from getting there,” he said.
Holdren said it’s possible the amendment could fail because Arizona residents “don’t like being lectured about what’s right and wrong” and “most people feel like we’ve already had this vote.”
“Even though it’s not as expansive and far reaching as the [2006] one, people feel like we’ve already voted on this,” he said.
The Center of Arizona Policy, a conservative advocacy group, is a major proponent of this year’s amendment and was also a strong supporter of the 2006 amendment.
A recent “action alert” on the organization’s web site says Arizona residents must contact their legislators and urge them support the amendment “before another attack on marriage begins in Arizona.”
“Until marriage is defined in our state Constitution as the union of one man and one woman, a state court or even the state Legislature could act to redefine marriage,” the action alert said. “Opponents of marriage know this — that’s why they want to stop you from voting.”
“Their whole purpose is … to take away rights from people, whether it’s about choice issues or LGBT issues,” he said. “Their whole purpose is to force their personal values on the rest of the people of Arizona.”
Courts and legislatures in other states are also considering measures related to same-sex marriage.
- On Wednesday, a state Senate committee approved an amendment that would ban both gay marriages and civil unions within the state. The Pennsylvania Constitution requires that an amendment receive approval from the legislature for two consecutive sessions before it reaches state voters. The earliest time the amendment could come before referendum is 2009.
- Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in February said he would sign a bill allowing same-sex marriage in the state, but not until after the presidential election. Corzine made the announcement after a New Jersey commission released a report that raised concerns about whether civil unions in the state were sufficient for gay couples.
- Proponents of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage have gathered enough petition signatures to allow the amendment to come before Florida voters this fall. The ban needs approval from 60 percent of voters to pass. Florida Red and Blue has formed to fight the initiative.
- The high court is slated to make a decision no later than June 2 on a same-sex marriage case. If successful, the decision would allow gay couples to marry.
- The New York Assembly passed a same-sex marriage rights bill last year, but the bill is now stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate because leaders have bottled it up in committee.
- The state Supreme Court is expected to determine the fate of a successful marriage ruling that was appealed in September. A judge there ruled the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act violated the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of six gay couples.
- Efforts to win marriage rights or civil union rights for same-sex couples this year in the Maryland General Assembly have floundered. There has also been no movement on a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Lawmakers have not advanced the proposals and are set to adjourn in about two weeks.
|
