Sen. Paula Aboud, a District 28 Tucson Democrat, waits for the Senate to go into session. She says a proposal to limit marriage to one man and one woman is “petty.”

As a state lawmaker, Paula Aboud receives excellent medical coverage.
Unlike most lawmakers, however, Aboud cannot extend this benefit to her partner of more than eight years, a same-sex partnership that she said has lasted as long as many marriages.
“How would you feel if you couldn’t get married, you couldn’t file joint tax returns, (your spouse) couldn’t make medical decisions about you if you were dying in the hospital, (your spouse) couldn’t inherit your property, all those things≠” Aboud said. “It would be maddening.”
Aboud said that makes her feel like a “second-class citizen” in the state.
Extending benefits to domestic partners at the state level is one of the struggles the gays and lesbians face in Arizona.
Now another, perhaps more familiar battle looms.
Two measures, one in the House and another in the Senate, would ask voters in November to amend the state Constitution to say that “only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”
Both measures already have been approved in committees. Both have enough support in the Legislature to make it to the ballot. Both were introduced by the leaders of each chamber, and were co-signed by 15 state senators and 31 state representatives, all but one of them Republicans.
The one-man, one-woman marriage measure follows a more comprehensive proposition rejected by voters in 2006.
For critics such as Aboud, a Tucson Democrat, the proposal to define marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman is divisive and petty, an undertaking that distracts the Legislature from more pressing issues.
But supporters say it is a valid response to an onslaught of challenges to the institution of marriage across the nation. The proposal, they said, fortifies a traditional value, a kind of a preemptive strike.
A state statute already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. But a constitutional amendment would prevent the courts and the Legislature from approving same-sex marriage.
California’s highest court has heard arguments on the constitutionality of a voter-approved law banning same sex marriage. The state allowed same-sex marriages in 2005 after approval by the Legislature, but state courts later ruled that the marriages were unconstitutional.
Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages. Several other states are considering similar proposals.
“It’s a real threat,” said Ron Johnson of the Arizona Catholic Conference. “We want to make sure it doesn’t happen here.”
Sam Holdren, a spokesman for Equality Arizona, a group that advocates for the rights of gays and lesbians, said there’s no need for a constitutional change when state law already forbids same-sex marriages.
“That’s something that has been upheld by the courts in Arizona and so it is something that nobody is really advocating to change at this point,” he said.
Article 25-101 of the Arizona Revised Statutes states: “Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.”
But Johnson said a state statute can be easily overturned by either the Legislature or a court decision.
“A constitutional amendment provides much more protection,” Johnson said.
If the amendment passes, Arizona would join 27 other states with constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, according to the Center for Arizona Policy.
Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage. Massachusetts began to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004.
But same-sex marriage is gaining traction internationally. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa and some provinces in Canada allow same-sex marriages.
In Arizona, there were more than 118,000 unmarriedcouple households, according to 2000 census data. Of the number, more than 12,000 were same-sex households.
Both sides have polls that they say bolster their arguments.
A poll cited by the Center for Arizona Policy, one the groups pushing for the marriage amendment, showed 65 percent of 501 registered Arizona voters were definitely for or probably for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Thirty-one percent were definitely against it or probably against it.
Meanwhile, Equality Arizona said its own poll showed 52 percent of likely Arizona voters felt the amendment was not needed; only 33 percent said it was. In the Equality poll, which included 601 responses, 87 percent said they were aware that Arizona law already prohibits same-sex marriage.
Supporters of the amendment argue that traditional marriage is healthy for society. 
In a position paper on the related issue of extending benefits to domestic partners, the Arizona Center for Policy said traditional marriage “tends to maximize prosperity, achievement, and personal responsibility in society and minimize negative behaviors and outcomes.”
“Studies consistently prove that marriage improves the circumstances of men, women, and especially the children of married couples. The same cannot be said of cohabitation,” the position paper said.
Johnson of the Catholic Conference said marriage is the foundation of the family, and the family is the basic unit of society.
“Marriage is therefore a personal relationship with public significance,” he said.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexuality is viewed as “intrinsically disordered.
“They (homosexual acts) are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved,” the Catechism states.
The Catholic Church teaches compassion and non-discrimination against homosexuals. The church says men and women who have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” must be accepted with “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
It advises a course of action for gays: chastity.
Gay rights activists view gay marriage as a civil-rights issue. They argue that domestic partners cannot make medical decisions in case of an emergency, they do not automatically inherit assets from partners, and they can be compelled to testify against a partner during a trial.
For Equality Arizona, the bigger issue is parity of rights.
The group has argued that extending domestic-partnership benefits would strengthen families by allowing members to provide health insurance to partners and children. Studies also have shown that when an employer offers domestic partner benefits, there is higher productivity and lower turnover rates, said Holdren, the Equality Arizona spokesman.
Late last year, the director of the Arizona Department of Administration filed a proposal to extend health-care and other benefits to domestic partners of state employees. Several cities and districts in Arizona offer domestic partner benefits to employees.
Aboud said she is not particularly interested in being married. But the principle, she said, is one of civil rights.
She calls it a “mistake” to run the proposal.
“I think it makes us look petty, and not serious about the real issues,” she said.
Aboud said the proposal to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman is “about an elec
tion.” It is trying to “pigeon-hole” legislators, particularly moderate Republicans, forcing them to take a position they may not necessarily believe in, she said.
In an interview in which she twice used the word “insulting,” Aboud argued that the proposal seeks to achieve what is already in statute. It is a source of dissension and a waste of resources, she said.
But Aboud’s greatest fear is that the proposal would bring out the extremists in society.
“It becomes frightening for our community,” she said, adding that in Oregon, homosexuals have been killed over gay-rights issues.
“So this isn’t just a political issue,” she said. “This is an abomination to the citizens of this community because these legislators are here to do the work of the people. But to promote a piece of legislation that brings potential harm and violence upon another group of people is wrong.”
Backers of the proposals say there is no evidence to support Aboud’s contention that violence would erupt.
“I did not see any of that in any of other previous efforts that we have dealt with legislatively on this,” Johnson said.
The issue should be left up to Arizona voters, supporters say.
“The 2008 marriage referendum is not about disagreement. It is not about division. It is bringing Arizonans together on an issue where a majority of Arizonans agree,” said Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy.
It’s different from the 2006 Proposition 107, because it leaves out the issue of benefits to domestic partners.
“Marriage is under attack in a lot of different jurisdictions and different courts, and we feel that we need to pass a referendum to put this in our Constitution so we are not vulnerable to future attacks,” Johnson said.
Senate President Tim Bee, sponsor of the proposal in the Senate, told the Arizona Capitol Times that he sponsored the bill because it was important to the caucus.
“As I said earlier, it was a bill that was brought to leadership on behalf of the caucus members and as something to talk about this year, whether or not it would be something we consider putting on the ballot,” Bee said.
Still, all ballot measures, including the marriage amendment, will be reviewed by leadership before they move forward, and the review usually takes place near the end of session, after the budget is passed, Bee said.