The Morning Blend
Welcome
Complete Media Kit
PHOENIX — A new California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriages in that state is adding fuel to the push here for a constitutional ban.
But the one man who can put that issue up for a final vote to send it to the ballot in November has so far not done that — and is refusing to commit to do so.
Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, acknowledged Thursday he is the prime sponsor of one version of a measure to constitutionally define marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman. And a bill with identical language was approved earlier this week by the House.
But Bee has so far failed to put the measure on the Senate calendar for its action — the only thing standing in the way of sending the issue to voters. Nor is he guaranteeing that he ever will bring the measure to the Senate.
|
|
“Decisions about ballot measures will be made toward the end of (legislative) session, after the budget’s complete,” he said. Bee said Republican legislative leaders have to review all of the active proposals to put issues before voters.
“We decide which measures will have the support to get through, which items will have the financial support, what the opposition’s going to look like,” he said.
But Bee said the decision is not affected by his congressional bid to unseat incumbent Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
That congressional district, which stretches from Marana and the east side of Tucson through eastern Santa Cruz County and all of Cochise County, may be more tolerant of gay rights than some other parts of the state: It was represented for more than 20 years by Rep. Jim Kolbe who is gay.
The issue took on added importance Thursday when California’s high court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled gays are constitutionally entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to wed.
“Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person does not depend on 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,” California Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples,” George said.
“The California decision shows exactly why a constitutional amendment is needed to protect and secure a definition of marriage in Arizona,” said Cathi Herrod. She is the president of the Center for Arizona Policy which has as its mission “strengthening the family and restoring traditional moral principles to the public policy and cultural arenas.”
“Let’s let the people of Arizona decide the public policy of Arizona, not the judges, not the politicians,” Herrod said.
Herrod acknowledged the Arizona Court of Appeals, faced with an identical legal challenge, ruled there is no constitutional right of gays to wed in this state. That decision was upheld, without comment, by the Arizona Supreme Court.
But she pointed out there are new justices on this state’s high court. And she said just one judge can make a difference, citing that 4-3 ruling in California.
Herrod said Bee and House Speaker Jim Weiers “both committed to support the marriage amendment and refer it to the ballot in February, before it was introduced.” Weiers has fulfilled his part of the deal, getting the measure out of his chamber on a 33-25 margin.
“I expect President Tim Bee to keep his word,” she said. “This is an issue that unites Arizonans. The majority of Arizonans agree on the definition of marriage as being a union of one man and one woman, and we expect the Senate to put it on the ballot.”
Herrod said the votes are there.
SVH EDITOR wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:38 AM: