Related articles:

Catholic bishops endorse Ariz. measure to ban same-sex marriage

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Initiative targets photo radar 37,000 Arizonans set record with Nov. job losses Ariz. jobless claims hit record 37K in November Maricopa County supervisor accused of perjury, forgery Brewer is advised to keep some state appointees in place 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

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

PHOENIX — Arizona's two Catholic bishops are urging church members to vote to constitutionally ban gays from marrying in this state.

In a pastoral letter, Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson and Bishop Thomas J. Olmstead of Phoenix said Proposition 102 "is in alignment with our deeply held moral beliefs regarding marriage." And without a constitutional provision, the pair said, the current laws that define marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman could be overturned.

Olmstead was out of the state on personal business. But Kicanas said he sees nothing improper about urging people to put the church's view on marriage into the state constitution.

"The church has always and will continue to address issues especially that are related to moral and ethical principles," he said. "We believe that marriage is a sacred relationship, that it is at the heart and core of society."

Kicanas said it's not just an issue for Catholics, pointing out that the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America also issued a statement that Judaism "affirms marriage only between a man and woman."

"So it's not a denominational question as much as it's a societal question because marriage is at the core and heart of our society," Kicanas said.

The Roman Catholic Church has taken a particularly active role in the issue. The bishops directed Ron Johnson, their lobbyist, to urge legislators to put the measure on the November ballot.

Thursday's pastoral statement reinforces the church's view, with Kicanas saying these kinds of documents "reflect on the church's understanding of a particular issue" for followers.

Pastor David Felten of The Fountains, a United Methodist Church in Fountain Hills, pointed out that the bishops do not represent the position of all religions or all religious leaders.

"People have got this idea that they can speak for God and speak universally for all Christians," said Felten, who opposes the constitutional amendment.

Kicanas, however, said he sees the issue before voters in absolute terms.

"The purpose of this proposition is to assure the fact that in the state of Arizona, the institution of marriage, as from time immemorial, is a relationship between one man and one woman," he said.

When asked how that definition reflected the Old Testament of men with multiple wives, Kicanas said, "The reality is there have always been people who have lived in common-law relationships or perhaps have polygamous relationships.

"But that doesn't necessarily change the understanding of the institution of marriage because there are other possibilities."

The two bishops supported an even broader ban two years ago, a ban that would not only have constitutionally prohibited same-sex marriage, but also barred government recognition of civil unions and prohibited public agencies from providing benefits like health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees. That measure was narrowly defeated.

Kicanas noted that Proposition 102 deals only with marriage.

A 1996 state law already forbids same-sex marriage. That law was upheld by the Arizona Court of Appeals, a decision the state Supreme Court refused to review.

Kicanas pointed out, however, that courts in Massachusetts and California have ruled gays are constitutionally entitled to wed despite state statutes to the contrary.