PETITIONS TO PLACE PMAA ON ARIZONA BALLOT SUBMITTED;
LEGAL CHALLENGE FILED
By Mark R. Kerr, Tucson Weekly Observer
http://www.tucsonobserver.com
PHOENIX - Petitions to place the proposed Protect Marriage Arizona amendment (PMAA) to the state constitution on the November general election ballot were filed with the Arizona Secretary of State, Thursday, July 6.
Protect Marriage Arizona, the group that initiated the proposed amendment, an offshoot of the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, said it collected more than the required signatures of 183,917 registered voters needed under state law.
Names on the petitions must be verified by county election officials before the issue is sent to voters for consideration.
This proposed amendment would define marriage as only consisting of the union of one man and one woman but also prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that of marriage.
If approved, PMAA would overrule practices in communities like Scottsdale, Phoenix, Tempe, Tucson and the Pima County government, where public employees are offered some of the same benefits for their domestic partners -- of the same or opposite sex -- that are available to the spouses of married workers, as well as domestic partner registries set up in cities and towns in the state.
In 2003, Tucson was the first municipality in Arizona to offer a domestic partner registry and by June of this year, there were 438 couples on the Tucson Registry. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there were 118,196 households with unmarried partners in Arizona, or 10.7 percent of all couples in the state.
Protect Marriage Arizona have stated the amendment is needed to "protect the sanctity of families."
PMAA, according to Arizona Together, the coalition formed to fight the proposed amendment, "is an anti-domestic partner initiative because it disintegrates domestic partner benefits jeopardizing the lives of children, families and seniors throughout the state. If the amendment passes, Arizonans will lose their health insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, decision-making powers and inheritance rights."
In their press release, Arizona Together added that the PMAA, "will not change state law in regards to same-sex marriage as it is already against Arizona law. Under the guise of `protecting marriage,' PMAA could also impact unmarried women seeking protection from an estranged partner canceling their right to file domestic violence charges or to secure a restraining order."
Under current Arizona law, (A.R.S. 25-101, A.R.S. 25-112), marriage is defined as between one man and one woman and that the state will not recognize a marriage from another state that is not between one man and one woman.
These statutes were drafted by the current Republican Gubernatorial candidate, then President of the Anti-LGBT Center for Arizona Policy, Len Munsil, approved by Arizona's Legislature and signed into law by then Republican Governor, Fife Symington, in 1996.
In 2003, these statutes were challenged in court in the case of Standhardt v. Superior Court, and were upheld by the Arizona State Supreme Court in May, 2004.
Arizona's laws were upheld but other legal questions over PMAA persist.
Lisa Hauser, an attorney who has been retained by foes of the measure, said in an interview with another publication, the proposed amendment violates rules that limit constitutional amendments, as well as initiatives and ballot measures to a single subject. She said that is designed to ensure that voters who want one provision are not forced to accept another that they do not favor.
Nathan Sproul, a consultant to the ballot campaign, said in an interview with another publication that he is not worried. "This initiative was written anticipating that kind of a legal challenge from the opposition," he said.
In 2004, an initiative for the November general election ballot for that year and drafted by Sproul, to repeal Arizona's Clean Elections Law, entitled "No Taxpayer Money for Politicians," was stricken from the ballot for violating the rules limiting proposals to a single-subject.
A legal challenge to the proposed PMAA was filed Wednesday, July 12 in Maricopa County Superior Court (Case# CV2006-010505) by couples seeking continued protection provided by existing domestic partner benefits.
Five couples seeking continued protection provided by existing domestic partner benefits filed the lawsuit against Protect Marriage Arizona - the anti-domestic partnership initiative. Three elderly couples from Tucson and two City of Phoenix employees and their partners are plaintiffs in the suit filed today by Chuck Blanchard of Perkins Coie Brown and Bain P.A. and Lisa T. Hauser of Gammage & Burnham, P.L.L.C. Both Blanchard and Hauser were involved in the 2004 "No Taxpayer Money for Politicians" suit, as counsel for the plaintiff, Arizona Clean Elections and counsel for the defendant, No Taxpayer Money for Politicans (Case #CV2004-012699) respectively.
"If Protect Marriage Arizona passes it will take a lot away from us," said Maxine Piatt, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "For example, last year I was in and out of the hospital at least four times. If it hadn't been for Al, I wouldn't be here. Because of our domestic partnership arrangement, he was able to make decisions for me when I was unable to. Without our domestic partnership agreement he probably couldn't have even gotten in to see me, let alone make medical decisions for me. The thought of that breaks my heart."
"If Protect Marriage Arizona passes it will impact us financially," shared Al Brezney, Maxine Piatt's partner and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We are both on social security which is a very small amount. In our case remaining unmarried, but bound together in a domestic partnership is our only means of financial survival. Together we can make it, but separately we can't."
Brezney and Piatt share similar circumstances with the other two Tucson couples that are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Each couple is currently registered in the Tucson Domestic Partnership Registry, established with the support of the Tucson Area Agency on the Aging. The other Tucson plaintiffs include Kaitlin Meadows and Albert Lannon; and Amalia Antonioli and Frank Montoya.
Although not physically present at the filing because of a previous commitment, Paul Knobbe, a City of Phoenix firefighter and a plaintiff in the suit, stated his concern about losing domestic partner benefits currently provided by the City of Phoenix, "My partner Teri and I have been able to breathe easier because of our domestic partner benefits. I'm able to provide health care insurance for our family. If that goes away it will be a financial blow to our family."
Paul Knobbe and his partner Teresa Hewitt are joined by Glenn Cromer, also a City of Phoenix firefighter and his partner Rebecca Miller as plaintiffs in the suit. Like Knobbe and Hewitt, Cromer and Miller currently share domestic partner benefits provided by the City of Phoenix.
At the center of the lawsuit is that the Protect Marriage Amendment initiative violates the Separate Amendment Rule by seeking to incorporate in one ballot measure at least three separate issues. "Presently, the Protect Marriage Amendment initiative language bundles three issues into one, including jeopardizing any unmarried households across Arizona," commented Chuck Blanchard, co-counsel for the lawsuit. "This simply is unacceptable; as a voter I'm offended. Issues of this magnitude should not be shoved into one box. It doesn't make for good public policy."
"This initiative seeks to make several drastic public policy changes in one swift move," stated Lisa Hause,. co-counsel for the lawsuit. "Voters have the right to assess one issue at a time and may support one issue without supporting the other. This ballot bundles three very different issues into one, including the dismantling of employer benefits for both straight and same-sex domestic partners which is of great concern to my clients."
Nathan Sproul, consultant and spokesperson for the Protect Marriage Arizona committee, said in an interview with another publication that the initiative has only one purpose: defining what is marriage in Arizona.
"Part of what a comprehensive definition is what marriage is and what marriage is not," he said. Sproul said the other effects of the initiative would impact "counterfeit marriages."
That, he said, extends not only to civil unions, which some states have recognized as an alternative to same-sex marriages, but also benefits.
"Marriage is the cornerstone of everything that is good about society," Sproul said. "Therefore, when society gives benefits back, it should give benefits back to what is a real marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman."
A decision on the suit isn't expected for weeks. In the meantime, Arizona Together, also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, will stay the course and continue raising funds to defeat Protect Marriage Arizona at the polls in November.
To help Arizona Together both on the ballot and legal front, go online to http://www.aztogether.org, call (800) 607-9324, or send checks, made payable to Arizona Together, 319 E. McDowell Road, Suite 100, Phoenix, Az 85004.