Arizona judge rejects challenge to antigay amendment proposal

A judge on Thursday rejected a legal challenge to an initiative that would ban same-sex marriage and ruled that the proposed state constitutional measure can go on Arizona's November 7 general election ballot. Judge Douglas Rayes of Maricopa County superior court rejected opponents' argument that the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative, which would appear on the ballot as Proposition 107, violated a constitutional requirement that each constitutional amendment be a separate ballot measure.

The opposition Arizona Together campaign said it will appeal Rayes's ruling to the Arizona supreme court. The measure would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prohibit state and local governments from providing marriage-like legal status to other relationships.

Supporters acknowledged that a second provision would eliminate domestic-partner benefits provided by some Arizona local governments, and opponents of that provision say it should be a separate constitutional amendment because some voters would favor one part of the amendment but not the other.

However, Rayes said the measure satisfies the single-amendment requirement. Both provisions "have but one purpose, the protection of marriage by preventing redefinition and extension of official status to marriage substitutes," he wrote.

Glen Lavy, an attorney for initiative supporters, pledged to oppose the opponents' planned appeal and called their challenge "just another desperate attempt to evade the democratic process by those who advocate redefining marriage."

State representative Kirsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who heads the Arizona Together campaign, said Rayes's ultimate conclusion was wrong but that it was significant that he noted supporters' acknowledged the ban on partner benefits. The initiative "is not about protection against same-sex marriage. It is about banning domestic-partner benefits," Sinema said. (AP)

Reader Comments

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.

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.

Error:Server capacity reached.

Error:Server capacity reached.