Mon, Oct 13, 2008
. Welders, Fabricators for structural steel Office and Clerical Dr. Wayne Goodner, DDS Front Office PT Sales and Marketing Everready Glass Glass Sales Driver/Transportation DRIVERS Health Care Neurological Associates of Tucson Operations Manager Technical INSTALLER Sales and Marketing sales News ElsewhereProp. 107 opponents avoid the gay issue'Protect Marriage' foes aim at losses to straight couples
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.01.2006
Open the Web site for Arizona Together — the group opposing a ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage with a state constitutional amendment — and you'll have a hard time finding the word "gay."
What you will find are pictures of a paramedic, a fireman and a gray-haired man with a mustache who looks like he could be your dad.
The two-paragraph blurb on the home page, www.noprop107.com/home.cfm, talks about children, families, seniors and "unmarried couples," but there's never any mention of same-sex couples until you sift through the additional pages of the site. Even when they are mentioned, it's to point out that the initiative isn't about same-sex couples.
The approach goes further than just the group's Web site. Since launching its campaign to defeat Proposition 107, the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative, Arizona Together has mounted a careful strategy that focuses almost exclusively on the effect it says the initiative would have on straight couples who choose not to legally marry.
That included a failed court challenge to the measure. All the plaintiffs were straight.
"If this was about same-sex marriage, I would not be on this campaign. I would pass and go home," said Kyrsten Sinema, chair of Arizona Together and a Phoenix legislator.
Meanwhile, proponents of the initiative say it's about protecting marriage, which they say is under attack by activist judges. The group's Web site is decorated with pictures of multi-ethnic couples.
"The issue isn't whether same-sex marriage threatens marriage," says Cathi Herrod, spokeswoman for Protect Marriage Arizona. "It goes to whether marriage between one man and one woman continues to have a special status in our society."
Specifically, if passed, the initiative would define marriage in the state constitution as between a man and woman and rule out the opportunity to create civil unions. It would also require government agencies, like the city of Tucson and Pima County, to end programs that offer benefits to domestic partners.
If the initiative fails, there would be no change in current law, which already bars same-sex marriage.
Though Arizona Together says the law would mostly affect straight people in the short term, it would also rule out the opportunity to create any kind of alternative to marriage for gays — like civil unions. In contrast, straight couples would still have the opportunity to marry should they need access to health care or benefits.
Protect Marriage Arizona is part of a national movement, and perhaps the biggest and ugliest battle in the United States' so-called culture war.
A majority of Americans oppose using the word "marriage" to define same-sex relationships, but polls show the public also is open to granting those couples the benefits marriage offers.
Arizona Together's strategy downplaying gay couples reflects that political reality, says Kent Burbank, executive director of Wingspan, a local community center for gays and lesbians.
"I think the strategy they are using is clear," says Burbank. "I don't think they are necessarily hiding the fact this is attacking the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered) community.
"Make no mistake, this would be very detrimental for the GLBT community. I don't back away from that, but in addition the ramifications go way beyond our community."
It's also a passionate issue for individuals on the other side, who feel marriage is threatened both by the possibility of same-sex couples marrying, and also by increasing moves to let unmarried couples reap benefits traditionally reserved for married couples.
Even though opponents of the proposition say gay marriage already has been ruled illegal in Arizona, a constitutional amendment is an important and symbolic step for conservative activists.
Still, neither side can provide any quantitative numbers to back up its claims. Protect Marriage Arizona says only 500 straight unmarried couples statewide would be affected. Arizona Together says those figures are too low and suspects more straight couples than gay couples would be affected, based on census data.
They also say conservative groups would use the change in law to sue government agencies to prevent them from contracting with firms that offer domestic-partner benefits, and that hospital visitation rights and domestic-violence protections for unmarried couples also would be in jeopardy.
Al Breznay and partner Maxine Piatt are one straight couple who say they would be hurt if the law changed. The two have been together for eight years and were involved in Arizona Together's lawsuit trying to stop the measure from making the ballot.
Breznay says that by participating in the city of Tucson's domestic-partnership registry, he and Piatt are guaranteed hospital visits even though they are not legally married.
"I have my own ideas about gays, and that's my business," he said. "We're not same-sex, we're separate-sex."
With both in their late 70s, hospital trips aren't unusual, he said. But marrying would mean paying more in taxes as they both struggle to live on Social Security, he said.
The push in Arizona to define marriage reflects a national move. President Bush has unsuccessfully called on Congress to amend the Constitution. So far, 20 states have gone about amending their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman, according to the Heritage Foundation.
It's widely believed by those on both sides in Arizona that if the measures fail at the polls, it will hold national significance.
Herrod, the spokeswoman for Protect Marriage Arizona, says her concern is protecting the confines of marriage, and not allowing alternative forms to erode its importance. She says the opposition is trying to make the proposal more complicated then it is, mainly because she believes they are outside the mainstream.
"There is an overwhelming amount of social-science data to make the case for marriage being one man and one woman," she said. "Marriage is good for everyone. It builds up communities."
Herrod takes exception with suggestions that the initiative is discriminatory.
"I don't take it as denying rights," she said. "Right now, anyone in our state has an opportunity to marry."
Cliff Martin, a 35-year-old physician who opposes the proposition, is concerned about straight couples like Al Breznay and Maxine Piatt, particularly because of his medical experience, he says.
He's also concerned about how he and his partner will be affected. He disagrees with Herrod that unions between same-sex couples don't benefit society.
"I think that anything that promotes stability between partners is in the best interest of society," he said. "My partner and I have gone to great lengths to set up power of attorney. I don't know if this law will invalidate that."
But Robert Reilly, also a local physician, said he is concerned about protecting traditional marriage.
"The fact that this has to be defined indicates how, namely, judges have tried to change the definition for society," he said. "It is not a trivial thing to change what has been the same for centuries."
A 75-year-old urologist, Reilly has been married for 42 years, and said he's more worried about what granting rights to unmarried couples could mean in the long term.
"To say these people are married weakens the whole institution," he said.
On StarNet: Follow the coverage at azstarnet.com/politics
● Contact reporter Daniel Scarpinato at 807-7789 or dscarpinato@azstarnet.com.
|
|
65 Comments on this story