

Republican lawmakers on Monday proposed asking voters in November to amend the Arizona constitution to ban same-sex marriage in the state, which was the first to turn down such a measure.
The proposal was backed by 16 of 30 state senators, and an identical proposal was introduced in the house. Both chambers would have to approve the measure in a vote for it to be included on the ballot.
Under the amendment, ''only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.'' The proposal comes after Arizona voters narrowly rejected a similar measure in November 2006.
The previous measure included the same definition but also contained wording that was interpreted as prohibiting government recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships. Seven other states approved amendments that day.
Opponents of the 2006 measure in Arizona focused much of their campaign on the additional wording's reach. A leading backer of both measures said the new one should be considered a ''consensus measure'' because it is intended solely to bar recognition of same-sex marriage.
''This amendment is about bringing Arizonans together on an issue enjoying widespread agreement -- that marriage is a union of one man and one woman,'' said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, an advocacy group for social conservatives.
Arizona already has a state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That law withstood a 2003 court challenge, but supporters of an amendment said changing the constitution would provide a strong legal shield.
State representative Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who led the opposition campaign to the 2006 measure, said she opposes the new proposal.
''I don't think it's needed. I don't think it's necessary,'' she said. ''We've already had this fight a couple of times.''
The ballot measure proposal comes as a state commission prepares to review rule changes proposed by the administration of Democratic governor Janet Napolitano that would provide health care and other employee benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees and retirees, no matter their gender. (Paul Davenport, AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.