Advanced Search

Ariz. Leaders Mull Gay 'Marriage' Ban Anew

By
Paul Davenport
Associated Press Writer
Tue, Feb. 12 2008 01:56 PM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

PHOENIX (AP) — 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 Rep. 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 Gov. 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.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
SheQuon
  • Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:27 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
test
wilderness
  • Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:54 pm
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them...(Genesis 1:27, 28).
SheQuon
  • Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:36 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
"...but I would feel that society has compromised the meaning of marriage. " That ship already sailed when we started allowing quickie marriages in Las Vegas, and even quickier divorces. The fact that gay people even want marriage considering what heterosexuals have done to it is a miracle in itself.

"The government should not be used to make the majority except the opinion of the minority." And yet, that's exactly what happened when interracial marriage was legalized in 1967. Of course, racist people still get to voice their objections even today.
jstantall
  • Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:36 pm
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
For all who live in Arizona we need to get behind this and see to it that this bill gets passed. If you don't live here,but know someone who does, make sure they know about this. The government should not be used to make the majority except the opinion of the minority. But there are others who think other wise and need to be stopped.. Nor should government be used to give special rights to a select group of people, all people should be treated equal under the law. The gay agenda is misusing and twisting our laws to their advantage and our detriment, this needs to end.
Chris333
  • Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:36 am
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
xiz,

You bring up a good point. If you go onto campuses today, many young people are saying, "what is the value of marriage?" They think that it is valueless and they decide that sometimes it is just easier to be in a "sexual relationship" with whoever they want. I have argued that homosexuality does not specifically disrupt marriages, rather it attacks the very core of marriage. I won't decide someday that I will divorce my wife because homosexuality is made legal, but I would feel that society has compromised the meaning of marriage.
xizwyck
  • Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:43 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Rand503,

It's called an analogy.

Marriage is devalued for everyone and didn't I address a specific? To recap: homosexual marriage IS NOT ordained by God. If you want something more personal, here you go. My sister has decided to never marry, because it doesn't mean anything to her, it holds no value.... why? Because marriage is treated so flippantly, including homosexuals who want a same sex union.
Prophet
  • Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:48 pm
  • : 1
  • : 1
  • Flag
Amen, Q.

God's grace (which the 'homosexual christians" have ran through the mud) is sufficient for those who's desire it is to change. It's not sufficient for those who want to remain in sin, and have no desire to change. So they can yak about God's love and acceptance all day long. God's love is enduring. So much so, that Jesus is tarrying...hoping for people like the homosexuals to give their lives to Him.
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Second Peter 3:9
Quecat
  • Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:54 pm
  • : 1
  • : 1
  • Flag
The militant homosexual movement accuses the church of hatred and slings wild hyperbole to bolster their arguments that fly in the face of both scripture and reality.
There is no hatred, only Christians whose hearts ache to see those that would be their brothers and sisters in Christ, repent of their sin and be welcomed in fellowship.
I can think of no other sin where the sinner has the nerve to walk into a church and in pride and boasting, outright deny scripture, deny that his sin is a sin, and demand that those of the fellowship compromise their view of scripture to accomodate him, else be labelled a hater, bigot, etc.,etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The way is narrow, Christ's claims are exclusive and God is the intolerant one- intolerant of sin.
Repent.

Maranatha!
Quecat
  • Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:44 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Chicago24,

"Nor
Malakos = of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man, OR of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness OR of a male prostitute
Nor
Arsenokoites = one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual."

...shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Blacksho89
  • Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:40 pm
  • : 2
  • : 1
  • Flag
I will never accept a homosexual relationship as a "marriage". Call it what you will. I can call myself a Chrysler; it doesn't make it true. No matter how loud you whine, I will not accept your relationship. My kids will not be allowed to play at your house. I will not refer to you as husband and husband.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here