Related articles:

Marriage rush is on as Calif. nears vote to ban same-sex nuptials $6.9M raised by backers of gay marriage measure

Other articles by Daniel Scarpinato:

Dems' dreams go down in flames Giffords, Grijalva seek $5B for new entry ports Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato : Obama's inaugural to include AZ flavor Grijalva, Giffords frequently part ways Lawmakers to hand out gold: Obama- event tickets City's vote on gay marriage Giffords' clear win raises question: What's it mean? Political Notebook by Daniel Scarpinato : Napolitano is mum on attorney general talk Governor won't talk about the Cabinet Observers don't see McCain riding into sunset

Finance and Accounting
Sierra Southwest Cooperative Services
Accounts Payable/Payroll Manager Dental
CANYON DENTAL CARE
HYGEINE & DENTAL ASSIATANT Health Care
CATALINA POINTE ARTHRITIS RHEUMATOLOGY
LPN/MA Trades/Construction
Mechanical Systems, Inc.
Plumbing Suprintendent Education
Rio Salado College
Online Instructors Retail
TOTAL WINE & MORE
WINE TEAM MEMBERS, CASHIER & STOCK MEMEBERS Services
Post Office

If the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in Arizona as being between one man and one woman passes in November, nothing changes.

If it fails, nothing changes. Same-sex couples still won't be able to get married in Arizona either way.

Even so, Proposition 102 has become one of the most hotly debated — and for one side, expensive — issues on this year's ballot. And it's been that way since before the measure even made it to the ballot, back when the Legislature deliberated sending it there.

In July, on the floor of the state Senate, one openly gay legislator argued that she and her partner deserved the same rights as everyone else and questioned the religious beliefs of a colleague. A backer of the measure contended gays getting married might threaten the entire institution of marriage — and even procreation.

Since then, both sides have turned down the rhetoric and sought to move the discussion as far away from same-sex couples and gay rights as possible, finding it to be dicey political territory.

But financial reports and the forces behind the two camps show the campaign is a more personal and emotional battle than either side is willing to let on.

This year's proposition would add language to the state constitution that is nearly identical to what is already in state law.

In effect, it would prevent courts and lawmakers from ever allowing same-sex couples to marry without going back to voters to re-amend the constitution.

But when Arizona shot down a broader ban in 2006 that targeted domestic-partnership benefits, as well as barring same-sex marriage, both sides made statements they are now contradicting.

Opponents said if the vote were just on defining marriage and didn't address benefits, they'd opt out of the fight.

And proponents said they wouldn't support what they've now put on the ballot since it doesn't ban the creation of civil union and domestic partnership benefits.

Now, though, both parties are back in the fight.

Proponents say they aren't against gay marriage — they're for traditional marriage.

Opponents submit they're not fighting to give same-sex couple marriage equality, they just don't think a marriage definition has a place in the state constitution.

But for both sides, supporters are often at odds with the "official" message.

While state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who is running the campaign against 102, stresses it's not a fight for equal rights, some other opponents have framed it that way — even if they are not actively trying to change state marriage law.

At a news conference last month, a group of Tucson religious leaders spoke out against the amendment, and in large part, the discussion centered on how it, in their view, unfairly targeted one group.

Rabbi Helen Cohn spoke of Jewish Scriptures, saying, "It teaches us to be just and fair to everyone, regardless of social standing, race or any other characteristics. . . . It teaches us not to deny certain groups the rights that other groups enjoy."

During the legislative fight over the measure, a Phoenix gay-rights group called Arizona Equality was the only apparent organization lobbying against it — and its approach sometimes clashed with Sinema's.

And one of the largest single contributors to the anti-102 campaign is the Human Right Campaign, a gay-rights group that has pushed for marriage equality in other states, including California.

Likewise, even as the pro-campaign says their efforts have nothing to with same-sex marriage, they have linked much of their argument for the measure — particularly in fundraising pleas — to the threat imposed by a California Supreme Court ruling essentially legalizing gay marriage there.

And the only "threat" the courts have posed to marriage in recent years has been by allowing gays the right to wed.

Also, the measure has been heavily backed — both in its early stages in the Legislature and now — by religious organizations that have a moral opposition to homosexuality.

One political expert, Fred Solop, a political scientist and pollster at Northern Arizona University, says "the issue of gays is very much a part of this."

Solop says polling showed the 2006 measure failed in large part because of a focus on senior "partner" benefits that opponents said would have been threatened by passage.

From the perspective of those opposed to the measure, he said, "If the issue is framed strictly on whether gays should be able to marry, the state will say gays should not be able to marry."

As for the proponents, Solop said they don't want to complicate their argument to voters by making their campaign about the threat of gay marriage.

"The organizers are trying to stay on message," Solop said. "People will be more favorable if it stays in the positive. Otherwise, you're asking people to vote 'yes' if they're against gay marriage. That's a very confusing message to send to the public."

Still, the organized campaign against adding a constitutional definition of marriage, a group calling itself Arizona Together, has strongly stated it's not pushing for gay marriage.

"Why would it be about whether gays should marry if it's not on the table at all?" says Sinema, an openly bisexual Democratic legislator from Phoenix. "I just don't think we should be throwing everything in the constitution."

And Sinema said no matter the outcome of the election, "nothing is going to change for same-sex couples."

For comparison, Sinema, who has tried to frame the pro-campaign as a largely Mormon-backed attempt to alter the constitution, said, "There are also people on the pro side who believe in polygamy in heaven, but that's not on the table either."

Jason Cianciotto, executive director of Wingspan, Tucson's gay and lesbian community center, took a different approach, admitting the fight is, at least in part, about the gay community.

"Who is it that they're trying to protect marriage from?" he asked. "The only thing their amendment does is prevent same-sex marriage."

But Cianciotto also said he doesn't think "their fear is really genuine." Instead, he thinks the amendment is a fundraising and organizing tool for the conservative Phoenix lobbying group that wrote it, the Center for Arizona Policy.

"It's about raising an incredible sum of money," he said.

Austin R. Nimocks, a spokesman for the Yes on Marriage campaign, didn't specifically respond to whether the amendment was a fundraising tool. He said the real reason the amendment is being pushed is because "the definition of marriage does not exist in the Arizona Constitution beyond judicial and legislative hands."

Asked why he didn't believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, Nimocks said the amendment "has nothing to do with same sex-marriage."

"If the opponents believe it has something to do with same-sex marriage, then their argument falls apart," he said.

So far, that strategy has worked.

The Yes on Marriage campaign — which owes much of its success to energy and support among the religious community — has collected more than $6 million and is ahead in polling.

But Nimocks said the question for Arizonans this November is simple.

"I don't know anything about strategy," he said. "All I know is fact. You're either for having that definition, or you're not."