Gay Marriage is a HOT topic in red Arizona these days. A week doesn't go by without there being an article or two in the local rag discussing this topic. Oddly enough, many of those articles come out in favor of dismissing the Arizona Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage that the Protect Marriage Arizona people have been trying to get on the 2006 ballet. Today was no exception. There were three articles in the Arizona Republic today, One by Lynn Stanley, chairwoman of the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition, one by Steve May, co-chairman of the Arizona Human Rights Fund, and one by Matthew Whitaker, assistant professor of history at Arizona State University. Stanley and May take opposing positions concerning the State Constitutional Amendment on Marriage and Whitaker states his point of view comparing the black civil rights movement of the 60s with the present gay civil rights movement. What I have to say here will cover mainly Lynn Stanley's article.
Under the headline, "Traditional Definition of Marriage Worth Saving," Ms Stanley states:
In an increasingly divisive political climate, one issue unites us across religions, ethnicities and political parties: the importance of marriage.
I concur with her first paragraph, even gays and lesbians consider the institution of marriage to be highly important, which is why they feel they should be allowed to partake in it. A couple's marriage being recognized by the state brings with it security to their children, many legal rights to the couple and the comfort of knowing that you are an important and accepted part of your community.
The fact that 18 states have amended their constitution to exclude gay couples from marrying has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, anymore than the fact that 34 states do not have discrimination embedded into their constitution. Even as late as 1965, 75% of southern Americans and 42% of northern Americans were against interracial marriage. (Sound familiar?)Did that make it right? Is it right today? How similar is this to the opposition to same-sex marriage?
Stanley almost immediately brings up protection against "activist judges." We've heard this tired argument over and over again from the right. They screamed and hollered about activist judges all during the Terri Schiavo fiasco too, yet most of the judges that ruled on that case were appointed by a Republican President. We all know that the right's definition of an "activist judge" is one that rules against what the right wing believes. They still don't understand that if they wouldn't pass laws that discriminate against other Americans, the courts wouldn't find their laws unconstitutional. Her mention of the Nebraska court ruling is a perfect example of what I'm saying. Her point that voters should decide these issues and not judges is pitifully silly. Where would American Citizens be today if that were true?? Every major civil rights ruling in the last century came out of the courts, not the legislature.
Have you noticed that every right wing whacko against same-sex marriage uses Scandinavia as an example of what happens when gays are allowed to marry? They don't mention that the rate of unmarried couples giving birth in those countries was high before gay marriages were allowed there. They just claim the fact that the amount of children born out of wedlock there is high now. Why don't they use Massachusetts or Vermont as their example? Simple, nothing of the sort has happened here in America. If they were correct in their statement, one would think that those two states would surely prove their point, but they don't.
After the normal diatribe concerning gays raising children, Stanley states:
If we validate and promote same-sex marriage - and consequently, same-sex parenting - we send a message that we care less about the children than we do about the desires of same-sex couples.
Bull! Defeating this amendment would neither validate nor promote same-sex marriage. Gay marriage will still be unlawful in Arizona and not even the most liberal Arizona voter could ever foresee our state openly promoting it, even if same-sex marriage was made legal nationally. Don't you remember what it took to get Arizona to recognize Martin Luther King Day? Or mayhaps you didn't notice that Senator John Kyl from Arizona refused to co-sponsor the Senate apology to black Americans for not passing anti-lynch laws when it first came up, doing so only after national criticism fell on the heads of the handful of senators who would not co-sponsor the bill. This state isn't red - it's crimson.
If the definition of Marriage was all this amendment was about, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But it goes much further than that, Ms Stanley's fine words to the contrary. Here is what Steve May had to say about these people and their amendment in his article:
The current proposal from the center asks voters to do what they failed to get passed in the Legislature in 1999: Ban domestic partnerships for both straight and gay people and prevent local governments from offering health insurance to domestic partners of their employees.At that time, Karen Johnson, then a state representative and a bill sponsor, testified in committee that "gays are at the lower end of the behavioral spectrum." Her colleague Barbara Blewster wrote in support of the measure that "homosexuality leads to bestiality, animal sacrifice and cannibalism."I met with Johnson privately and asked her why she wanted to take away health insurance from citizens who earn it and need it. She told me she wanted to stop them from having oral sex and thought this would help. This was too much even in the twilight zone that is the Arizona Legislature, and the bill died.
The center-supported initiative would remove all possibility of extending such limited rights to people who have chosen to live together: senior citizens who don't remarry due to loss of benefits, people of different faiths whose religion prohibits interfaith marriage, people who have been divorced and aren't ready to marry again, and gays and lesbians who aren't allowed to marry the person they love and so on.
The point is this whole amendment thing is more smoke and mirrors from the Center for Arizona Policy. The same people that pushed passage of the Mormon mimicking "covenant marriage" bill. The idea of that was married couples would sign a statement stating they would not get divorced except under the most dire of circumstance. If marriage was truly important to the right wing, people would have stumbled over themselves to sign up. Of course, this hasn't happened. Only a very small percentage chose to give away their no-fault rights.
I would suggest that if you're an Arizona citizen and are asked to sign the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment petition, be nice and inform the petitioner that you're an American and believe in equal rights for all Americans.
