Related articles:

Both sides in campaign mode over California gay marriage

Other articles by Daniel Scarpinato:

State cuts in budget slap cities, counties Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato: It's gotta hurt: Kolbe no longer helping Bee Bush to visit Tucson for Bee fundraiser in 2 weeks, invite says Move afoot to revive spring training bill Phx. session finale rocky for Sen. Bee Senate puts gay-marriage ban on ballot No Pima County vote on a tax for baseball Contention rules floor on last day of session Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato : Dems keep cameras on Bee, hoping for a gaffe Baseball tax plan adds local diversions to the list

Mechanical
Pioneer Landscaping
Diesel Fleet Mechanic Trades/Construction
Pioneer Landscaping
Yard Person/Loader Operator Trades/Construction
Lectra-Serv, Inc
Electricians & Helpers Trades/Construction
Paragon Electric
Electricians Trades/Construction
Wentz and Patrick Construction
Carpenters & Helpers General
Prestige maintenance USA
Custodian General
ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE
DISPATCHER/SECRETARY

PHOENIX — A California Supreme Court decision Thursday that gay couples have a right to marry has intensified Arizona's debate over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban such unions.

And the group pushing that election-year effort pointed the finger at state Senate President Tim Bee, a Tucson Republican, as the person stalling the issue.

If the state Senate gives the OK, Arizona voters will face a ballot question in November on whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

But Bee, who is in the midst of a bid for Congress in Southern Arizona while finishing his last legislative term, says he will wait until after a 2009 budget is negotiated to tackle the issue. That could be weeks away.

The Republican-backed bill narrowly passed the House on Monday, with the support of two Democrats.

"My focus right now is to get the budget out," Bee told reporters as he left the Senate floor Thursday. "We have approximately five weeks remaining of the fiscal year, and that is my focus, and that's what we need to be doing at this time."

That's not enough, however, for social conservative activists, who believe the actions in California illustrate the threat courts can pose to the definition of marriage.

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which is leading the effort, says Bee — an original sponsor of the measure — needs to corral the votes and bring the bill to the Senate floor.

"We expect Sen. Bee to keep his word and keep his commitment," she said. "The campaign needs to begin."

Arizona's statute is similar to the one struck down in California, although the courts here have upheld Arizona's law thus far.

The U.S. Court of Appeals has found current law barring same-sex marriages constitutional, a decision the Arizona Supreme Court has left undisturbed.

When the original bill to put the gay marriage issue on the ballot was introduced early this session in the Senate, Bee was the sponsor, and 15 other Republicans co-sponsored the attempt. If they all voted for it now, it would have the votes it needs to pass, which is what Herrod is seeking.

But since Bee introduced the referendum early this year, he has been cool in his public support.

In February, he said, "It's one of many bills I've introduced, and certainly isn't the bill that's on my priority list of bills to be running. But it's a bill that was important to the caucus."

Later, in April, the effort initially died in the House. And Bee said he would not bring the bill to the Senate floor. "I don't see any point in it," Bee said at the time, since it didn't appear to have enough votes in the House.

But an identical version was reintroduced in the House, and Monday's vote gave it new life. In addition to waiting until the budget is negotiated, Bee says other decisions go into voting on ballot measures — financial support and the opposition's organization.

"As I've said all session, decisions about ballot measures will be made toward the end of session after the budget's been completed," Bee said.

Bee rejected the notion his bid against Democrat Gabrielle Giffords in the 8th Congressional District — seen as one of the most competitive races in the country because of its large portion of registered independents — was playing a role in the delay.

"My decision about ballot measures will be made as my role as Senate president with the members of this chamber," he said.

Certainly adding fuel to the fire, though, is Thursday's California Supreme Court decision, which effectively says that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The 4-3 ruling overturns two state laws defining marriage between one man and one woman — and could make California and Massachusetts the only states to allow same-sex marriages.

In its ruling, the court said, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

That, Herrod argues, poses a threat to Arizona's current statute banning the practice. Opponents of Herrod's measure have used the existence of the current law to say a constitutional effort is unnecessary.

"That argument is laughable," Herrod said following the California decision. "We are one court decision in Arizona away from having marriage redefined."

However, gay-rights activists continue to argue a constitutional ban is not needed since gay marriage is already illegal in Arizona.

"Arizona courts have already ruled on the Arizona statute," said Sam Holdren, public affairs director for Equality Arizona. "It's certainly historic for people in California, but it doesn't affect us here in Arizona. It doesn't have any legal impact in Arizona."

But it could have a political impact.

A similar, though much broader, measure was rejected by voters in 2006. However, beyond the gay-marriage ban, it prohibited governments from providing benefits to the domestic partners of their employees and outlawed the potential for civil unions.

A poll after the election found that Arizonans rejected the measure not because they wanted gays to wed — but because they didn't like the idea of government intrusion. The poll found that only 8 percent of those who voted against the measure said they support same-sex weddings.