
The Arizona supreme court on Thursday ruled that an anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the state constitution can appear on the November 7 ballot, while a recently released poll of Arizona voters indicates the harsh measure will fail.
The justices, upholding a lower court decision, spurned Arizona Together's arguments that the marriage measure violates the state's single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.
Arizona Together and five straight couples, most of them elderly, had sued to keep the measure off the ballot. A key talking point of the gay-friendly group is that the amendment aims to forbid any domestic partnership or granting of marriage-like rights. Several localities, including Phoenix, Tucson, Tempe, and Pima County, grant domestic-partner benefits; some offer domestic partnerships popular among older people seeking to keep health benefits that would be jeopardized by remarriage.
Meanwhile, a poll of Arizona registered voters released Tuesday by KAET/Channel 8 in Tempe indicated that the ban would fail. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they opposed the constitutional marriage ban, while 38% supported it.
The poll of 846 registered voters was conducted by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Arizonans consistently oppose antigay measures that would deprive people of benefits, according to the journalism school's polling on the issue. In January 2005, 54% of registered voters said they would support an amendment to the Arizona constitution specifying that marriage would be allowed only between one man and one woman. But only 33% would support a same-sex marriage ban if it also prohibited domestic partners from receiving public-health or retirement benefits, KAET's Web site shows.
The measure has been endorsed by all three of the state's Catholic bishops as well as U.S. senator John McCain of Arizona, who defended his stance in August 2005 by saying that the measure "would allow the people of Arizona to decide on the definition of marriage." (The Advocate)
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.