Related articles:

State secretary goes to court over same-sex ballot initiative Voters to be told gay vows already banned

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Renewed interest in 'lieutenant governor' title Havasupai get go-ahead to sue universities State tax revenues far below projections Arizona, local housing numbers get darker McCain plans to run for 5th Senate term Ample perils lurk in toys geared to tots State treasurer against levies on local funds US Airways allowed to lay off pilots from old America WestState treasurer agrees with budget challenge by Ariz. cities Governor: Return Guard troops to border

Construction
Komatsu Equipment Co
Mechanic Education
Assessment Technology, Inc
Social Studies Content Writer Health Care
Rio Salado College
PA's/Online Instructors General
CORT
WAREHOUSE/DRIVER General
CORT
Warehouse Supervisor

PHOENIX — Secretary of State Jan Brewer has gone to court to avoid having to tell Arizona voters that state law already bars same-sex marriage.

In a lawsuit filed Friday, Brewer said the only thing she needs to explain on the ballot is approval of Proposition 102 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman

She wants to limit the legally required explanation of the effect of voting "no" on the measure would "have the effect of retaining the current laws regarding marriage."

And she wants Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Aceto to block efforts by Attorney General Terry Goddard to expand the explanation to say existing laws already include "a statutory ban on same-sex marriage."

Brewer said she believes the measure is clearer without the language Goddard wants. She also said one reason she wants the shorter version is she heard from the group pushing Proposition 102 that it believes mentioning the existing law would confuse voters and cause many to vote against the measure.

Goddard, however, said voters are entitled to know what laws already are on the books.

He contends that adopting the limited description Brewer wants actually could cause more confusion, that some people might conclude that if they vote against Proposition 102 they would be allowing gays to marry.

Goddard also pointed out that the language he wants is exactly the same as was used two years ago, when a similar measure was on the ballot. Goddard said neither side filed legal protests to that wording.

This time, however, Peter Gentala, attorney for Arizonans for Marriage, is objecting.

In a letter to Brewer, Gentala said a poll conducted after voters defeated the 2006 proposal shows some people who voted against it — voters who were exposed to the language about existing state law — said they thought they were voting for the constitutional ban.

Gentala also said telling people same-sex marriages already are against the law "includes an argument against the proposition." He cited comments by Gov. Janet Napolitano, who, in announcing her opposition to Proposition 102, said it is unnecessary because "we already have a statute that defines marriage."

Gentala, staff attorney for the Center for Arizona Policy, which worked to convince legislators to put the issue on this year's ballot, refused to comment on his letter to Brewer.

The fight comes as proponents, stung by the defeat two years ago, seek to get it approved this time. One thing they did is narrow the scope.

The 2006 measure would have not only constitutionally banned gay marriage but also barred state and local governments from recognizing civil unions or providing benefits such as health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees. It lost by 54,000 votes out of nearly 1.5 million ballots cast.

This proposal, rewritten by the Center for Arizona Policy, deals only with marriage.

Proponents of Proposition 102 agree the Legislature made same-sex marriage illegal in 1996, a law that was upheld by the state Court of Appeals, a decision the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review.

But backers point out that California also had a law banning gay marriage until that state's Supreme Court ruled in May that gays are constitutionally entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to wed.

Brewer said mentioning existing Arizona law "confuses people."

"The bottom line is, we're dealing with the constitution, and they want to kind of muddy it up with the statutes," she said. "And I don't agree with that."

The California decision was based on a conclusion that constitutional rights trump state statutes.