In 2006, John McCain's state made history by being the first to turn away a marriage amendment at the polls.
The far right retooled the amendment to focus on restricting marriage to one man and one woman, leaving out language that could outlaw any legal recognition of unmarried couples and sent it back through the legislature. Just this week, the fundnuts were dealt a blow when, during the waning days of the legislative session, the state senate in a 14-11 vote rejected the ballot initiative.
But it still wasn't over. As the clock ran down,
the measure was brought up again in the late hours Friday night -- and the
GOP scraped up enough bigots to do the deed.
Look at how much trouble the legislature went through to put the civil rights of a minority back before mob rule. From the Arizona Republic:
In the final hours of one of the longest state legislative sessions on record, state Senators approved a measure sending a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the fall ballot.
The long-anticipated vote on the measure followed hours of angry, raucous debate, in which the legislative rule book was used as a weapon to both stall the vote and cut short debate. Senators on both sides of the aisle and the issue lamented a melt-down in the higher chamber, as most of the day's work was scrapped so that the marriage amendment could be voted on while key senators were present.
...In the end, the marriage amendment was one of the few measures to survive Friday with the Legislature playing the role of executioner after a marathon 166-day session.
John McCain supported the 2006 amendment:
"I believe that the institution of marriage should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman, said Sen. McCain. The Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment would allow the people of Arizona to decide on the definition of marriage in our state. I wholeheartedly support the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment and I hope that the voters in Arizona choose to support it as well."
He even recorded an endorsement. The primary reason for the defeat of the initiative in 2006 was that it was so comprehensive that it would have endangered unmarried heterosexual couples as well, including the many seniors who live in the state who cohabitate for a host of reasons.
The state government later approved domestic partnerships for state employees, with support from Gov. Janet Napolitano.
It wasn't enough for the fringe right.
Reaction from Equality Arizona's Barbara McCullough Jones:
Tonight's debate was intense for everyone on the Senate floor and those of us watching in the gallery. But what happened to our openly-gay Senators by their colleagues was absolutely disgusting. Senate extremists strategically broke the rules of the Senate, which govern the processes for discussion and voting on bills. During a filibuster-like discussion on another bill during Committee of the Whole, Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor (R-22) and Majority Whip John Huppenthal (R-20), among others, devised a scheme with committee chairman Jack Harper (R-4) to outright violate the rules of the Senate and the rights of Senators Aboud and Cheuvront.
In the middle of their discussion, Senator Harper turned off the microphones of Senators Paula Aboud (D-28) and Ken Cheuvront (D-15) and called on the Majority Leader to make a motion. Then, when Senators Aboud and Cheuvront loudly called for a Point of Order several times, even walking to the front desk where Senator Harper sat, he deliberately ignored their calls. To add insult to injury, these people attempted to justify their actions, even after the Senate President and other Senators admonished them for deliberately breaking the rules. Tonight's actions of these and other Senators have forever tainted that body, and it's important that we all let the people of Arizona know how these individuals acted so unethically.
...In the end, it was Senators Aboud and Cheuvront who gave the most impassioned remarks ever heard on the floor of the Arizona Senate.
Senator Aboud spoke eloquently about the irrational fear Senators were expressing by their yes vote, asking, "Do I scare you?" She talked about family values that matter, like love, caring for elder parents and hospital visitation rights, and reminded her colleagues that these are all rights currently denied to people who cannot marry.
After listening to Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-5) describe what she considered her moral superiority to protect families citing civilization from the 18th century and how same-sex marriage will signal the end of civilization as we know if today, Sen. Cheuvront hit the majority hard when he defined the many ways in which the integrity of the Senate was lost today.
You can see her full remarks at my pad.
The question now is, will all those single seniors (and their allies), who voted against the 2006 amendment because of its broad scope, will show everyone that they weren't just voting their own interest last time around.
And will there be statements by McCain or Obama? I don't think they will have the leisure of ignoring this (or in McCain's case, attempt to gain some cred with the fundnuts who loathe him). As far as Obama goes:
* does he simply support the matter of states to determine marriage law, taking a strict constitutional position and nothing more;
* does he recognize this is currently a states rights matter but condemn the guiding principle behind the measure -- discrimination against a minority by placing a vote before the majority;
* does he cite that this is a matter that will ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court and condemn the re-filing of the Federal Marriage Amendment on Friday by the likes of co-sponsors Larry Craig and David Vitter?
The fact is that this matter is on the table (also with similar measures on the ballot in CA and FL in Nov.) and it needs to be defused lest it be framed (again) by the right wing to distract voters from the litany of horrors perpetrated on this country by the Bush Administration.
More comprehensive coverage is over at Pam's House Blend.