Related articles:

Plan to ban gay marriage draws criticism Lawmakers must address real issues, not gay marriage Same-sex marriage ban could go to state voters Lawmakers must address real issues, not gay marriage

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Legislature votes to overturn emissions standards Schools can order uniforms for kids, Circuit Court rules Governor drops builders from tax plan Redistricting advocates drop initiative Arizona abortion providers might increase Governor calls for boost of 1 cent in state sales taxState panel OKs new standards for greenhouse-gas emissions Coalition pushing tax for roads Theaters win round on accessLegislator wants eased rules on using teen labor

Trades/Construction
Paragon Electric
Electricians General
Big State
Sell construction tools and supplies nation wide. Driver/Transportation
Pioneer Landscaping
Drivers/End-Dumps Dental
Dr. John Carson, DDS, PC
Dental Asst/Treatment Coordinator Trades/Construction
arizona portland cement
maintenance electrician Education
Indian Oasis Baboquivari Unified School District
Teachers / Principals Restaurants and Clubs
Zinburger
All Positions

PHOENIX — Unable to persuade voters to ban gay marriage, civil unions and domestic-partner benefits in 2006, proponents are reloading and taking aim at a smaller target.

A proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution, filed Monday by Senate President Tim Bee, seeks to ask voters to spell out in the constitution that "only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state." Bee, R-Tucson, managed to get 15 of the 16 other GOP senators to sign on as sponsors.

An identical measure is being pushed in the House by Speaker Jim Weiers of Phoenix, who got all but two of his Republican colleagues to be co-sponsors.

The move comes more than a year after voters rejected a more comprehensive constitutional amendment that not only would have banned same-sex marriage but also would have outlawed civil unions and barred state and local governments from offering benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. That measure picked up 48.2 percent of the votes cast. It was the only gay-marriage ballot measure in the country that failed.

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which helped craft the 2006 measure, acknowledged that the new version is far less sweeping than the initiative. But she said the decision was made to pursue what is politically possible.

"This is about where we agree, about bringing Arizonans together on an agreement on a definition of marriage," Herrod said.

A 1996 Arizona law already bars same-sex marriages. That statute was ruled constitutional in 2003 by the state Court of Appeals, a decision the Arizona Supreme Court left untouched.

But Ron Johnson, who lobbies on behalf of the Arizona Catholic Conference, said the initiative still is necessary.

"At some point, a court (or) the Legislature could overturn our statute," Johnson said. "So we want to let the people decide whether to put this in the constitution."

Narrowing the scope could defuse some of the opposition.

In a 2005 statewide survey, 54 percent of those asked said they would support a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. But when questioned about denying domestic-partner benefits, support dropped to just 33 percent.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who was one of the leaders of the opposition to the 2006 initiative, all but conceded the point during the campaign, saying that if the measure had been limited to just banning same-sex marriage, it likely would have passed.

Foes specifically — and successfully — portrayed the issue not as one dealing with gays but as an attack on heterosexual couples who choose not to marry. In fact, every couple featured in press conferences and commercials consisted of one man and one woman who were living together.

A narrower initiative also might lure fewer donations, thereby killing it. In 2006, supporters spent slightly more than $1 million; foes had $1.8 million.

Sinema would not say Monday whether there would be organized opposition to the measure if it is put on the November ballot. But she called it unnecessary, pointing to both the state law and the appellate court decision upholding the law.

Sinema said that if there is opposition, it would not be the same as in 2006.

"The group that came together in '06 was a group of people who were interested in protecting domestic-partner health benefits and hospital visitation for unmarried couples," she said. "That would not be implicated by this constitutional amendment."

Sinema also questioned why the issue was being raised.

But Herrod said there is no ulterior motive, such as trying to bring "traditional-values" backers to the polls where they also would support like-minded candidates for state and federal office. "I really try to avoid playing those games," she said.

One of the Republicans who refused to sign on was Rep. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale.

"I think we've got a lot of bigger issues to do," she said, pointing to the fact same-sex marriage already is illegal. Reagan called her decision not to be a sponsor "more of a protest thing," though she said she probably would vote for the measure if and when it comes to the House floor.