Related articles:

Prop. 107 NOCampaign against gay-marriage ban aimed at straight couples

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps

PHOENIX — A key architect of a proposed gay-marriage ban said Wednesday she would not change a word of the measure even though she acknowledges that verbiage likely caused its defeat.

In finally conceding defeat, Cathi Herrod said Proposition 107 would have been approved easily had it simply amended the state constitution to ban same-sex weddings. That contention is backed by several polls done before the election.

But the initiative also barred legislators or judges from recognizing civil unions as an alternative to marriage. And it would have overruled any policies by local government that said unmarried employees with domestic partners are automatically entitled to the same insurance and other benefits as married workers.

It was that last provision that foes seized upon to marshal opposition to Proposition 107, even to the point of using only unmarried heterosexual couples in all their commercials.

"Our goal was to protect and preserve the institution of marriage, not merely the name of marriage," Herrod said. She said a simple ban on same-sex marriage would have done very little.

State law already bans these weddings in Arizona and prohibits the state from recognizing such marriages performed legally in other states. That ban has been upheld by Arizona courts.

But what has yet to be tested is whether judges could rule that same-sex couples are entitled to the same benefits as those who are legally entitled to wed, even if it is not called "marriage."

And several communities, including Tucson and Pima County, already offer domestic-partner benefits to their workers.

Herrod said Proposition 107 would not necessarily have taken away domestic-partner benefits: Communities could still let unmarried employees get insurance for a partner — but only if such benefits were offered to all workers, not just those in domestic-partner arrangements. That would have allowed an employee to name a relative, a friend or anyone.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, a leader of the anti-107 effort, said such a system was impractical.

Herrod said the initiative might have passed if supporters had more money toward the end of their campaign to counter a TV campaign by opponents.

As of late Thursday, Proposition 107 was failing by more than 50,000 votes out of more than 1.4 million ballots cast. Herrod acknowledged that not enough uncounted ballots remain to reverse that.

Herrod said no decision has been made whether to try again in two years.

She said, though, that ballot measures in 17 of the 27 states that have approved gay-marriage bans have similar or identical language that was rejected in Arizona.

Herrod said foes here were "very disciplined in their message."