Anti-Gay Politics, Arizona Style

Jim Burroway

July 1st, 2008

The Tucson Observer has published a first person account of the final hours of the Arizona Senate’s passage of the anti-marriage amendment. In this Legislative Update by Representative Steve Farley (D-Tucson) you really get a sense of the boorish, contemptible behavior of a Republican majority with no regard for their own rules. And you also get a sense of how spineless Senate President Timothy Bee was throughout all of this.

After the budget was finished Thursday night, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Mesa) made an attempt to adjourn sine die and end the session right away. Unfortunately, he got the wording wrong, so Majority Leader Tom Boone (R-Peoria)–who had other plans in mind for a number of unfinished bills–made a substitute motion to recess which canceled out Biggs’ motion when the vast majority of the body, unsure what to do, stood in support of Boone.

That paved the way for us to come back the next day for a horrible day of legislating where a whole lot of bad things happened, none worse than the resurrection of the anti-marriage amendment.

You may recall that we have spent much of the session fighting Republican efforts to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to outlaw Gay marriage, which is already illegal. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) carried out an ingenious strategy to derail the House version of the bill several months ago.

As a referendum, it is not subject to veto by the Governor — it goes directly to the voters if approved by both houses of the Legislature. Right-wingers in the House have been conspiring with the Center for Arizona Policy ever since to find a way to bring another version to the floor.

On May 12, that new version, SCR1042, passed out of the House by one vote when Rep. Marian McClure (R-Green Valley) changed her vote to Yes, under pressure from her partners running for the Corporation Commission–Bob Robson (R-Chandler) and Bob Stump (R-Peoria). They all have been led to believe that the anti-marriage amendment will bring more hard-right voters to the polls in November, and they will benefit from it. It would appear it doesn’t matter to them how many LGBT people get hurt on their way to higher office.

Despite withering pressure from the hard right lobbyists, the bill never made it to the floor. Senate President Tim Bee (R-Tucson) apparently came to understand that a yes vote on the amendment would compromise the image of moderation and bipartisanship he has built up over the years, so he refused to bring it forth while at the same time saying to members of his own caucus that he would bring it forth in time.

His caucus members brought it forth for him on Wednesday when they voted to force it to the floor, but it did not receive the votes to carry at that time because the 16th vote was in a cabin in northern Arizona — Senator Karen Johnson (R-Mesa). She is not running for re-election, and had declared early in the session that her last day would be June 21. She left and planned not to return.

What she didn’t plan on was members of her church–including her bishop for Arizona–surrounding her cabin at all hours of the day and night praying for her that she be moved into returning to Phoenix to vote for the amendment.

The pressure worked, and she arrived at the Capitol on Friday, when the bill would be brought back up for reconsideration. Senator Tom O’Halleran (R-Sedona) was rumored to be gone as well, but he stayed to vote Yes. Sixteen votes in favor, including Tim Bee, were present, but we found out that two of them, Senator Pam Gorman (R-Anthem) and Karen Johnson, had plane flights out of town that evening and would be gone by 7pm.

So we forces of reason had our mission — drag things out until those two were gone, then adjourn sine die. For reasons way too complicated to explain in this already voluminous missive, we had to filibuster in the House and in the Senate, without making it appear we were actually filibustering. Rep. Sinema served as field general, and she picked four of us to do the talking, based on the fact that we always did a lot of talking and we didn’t want others to catch on to what we were doing.

The four were Reps. Prezelski (D-South Tucson), Ableser (D-Tempe), Ulmer (D-Yuma), and me. We asked a whole lot of questions in caucus (at one point we stretched out discussion of two of the bills to 40 minutes), in Committee of the Whole, and in explaining our votes in third read and final passage. We were so convincing that certain other members of our own caucus who were not in on the plan began to openly mock us for talking too long and told us to sit down and shut up. In the end we were able to extend debate past 7pm.

Our colleagues in the Senate were doing the same thing on the floor, but things were not going so well. Republicans began suspending Senate rules left and right to deprive the Democrats of talking time, and in one case suspended an entire calendar of bills that had already been passed, a move that had the effect of killing them. People called each other names and nearly got into shoving matches. Senators cried, while other senators openly laughed at those who cried.

Decorum broke down almost completely as the torchbearers for the “moral majority” followed a scorched-earth policy in their single-minded quest to take away rights from LGBT people. After 7pm, it became clear that Gorman and Johnson had no intention to leave to make their planes, and by 7:20, the filibuster could hold out no longer.

The vote was called for through a series of rule suspensions, and voting finally proceeded. Senator Carolyn Allen (R-Scottsdale) left in disgust before the vote. Senator Paula Aboud (D-Tucson), the only open lesbian in the Senate, talked about the power of the love between her and her partner, and asked the other senators, “Why are you afraid of our love? Are you afraid of me? Do I scare you?” Every Republican (besides Carolyn Allen) voted yes, then turned their backs and left the floor in the middle of Aboud’s speech.

After all had voted except President Bee, the tally stood at 15 in favor. Weighing in last, Bee explained his vote. He hammered the Center for Arizona Policy and its tactics, calling the issue divisive and saying that the lobbyists in favor of the amendment had “confronted members in hostile ways and coerced them.”

Many of us watching held our breath, wondering if Bee would step up courageously to do the right thing–not the easy thing. Would he vote No, and show that he puts policy above politics? Would he reject the Republican strategists who were convinced the anti-marriage amendment would help spur conservative voters to vote for him in his congressional race against Gabrielle Giffords?

His voice moved swiftly lower–almost to a whisper–as he concluded, “But my constituents want to vote on this, so I will vote Aye.”

With that, Tim Bee cast the deciding 16th vote, and in effect personally placed the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot once again, ensuring that the divisiveness will continue into the electorate at large.

This concluded the session like a punch to the gut. Exhausted and dispirited, we adjourned sine die shortly thereafter without doing much else. Bills that were in process died, including a vital bill to enact new tax credits for attracting huge solar energy plants to Arizona–plants and factories we are currently losing to California and Oregon in increasing numbers. But apparently, outlawing Gay marriage again was much more important than rebuilding our economy through renewable energy.

Tim BeeAfter lambasting CAP’s political tactics, Bee turned around and blamed his constituents for his cowardly vote. His constituents don’t deserve being scapegoated like this. They already voted on this in 2006 and gave a resounding “no” — 47.5% to 52.5%. That was wider than the statewide margin of 48.2% to 51.8%. And the Congressional district that he wants to represent come November also said “no” by a wider margin still: 45.4% to 54.6%. What part of “no” does Bee not understand?


July 1st, 2008

““Why are you afraid of our love? Are you afraid of me? Do I scare you?” Every Republican (besides Carolyn Allen) voted yes, then turned their backs and left the floor in the middle of Aboud’s speech.”
That was one of the saddests part of this whole ordeal. From a reader point of view.

Timothy Kincaid

July 1st, 2008

The truly disgusting thing is that clearly some Republican legislators knew that this vote was not in the best interest of the state. Changing votes, blaming constituents, those are actions of principle and honor. That is despicable behavior and, even if they are “validated” at the polls they will have to live the rest of their lives knowing that they selfishly chose to harm their constituents.

They took political action that will result in pain for others. And guilt, remorse, and regret will be their reward.

El Rose

July 2nd, 2008

I commend the Arizona legislature. They acted correctly.

Marriage belongs to the union of man and woman. Stop screaming for inclusion into an institution and sacrament that requires consumation. Let’s be frank.


July 2nd, 2008

“They all have been led to believe that the anti-marriage amendment will bring more hard-right voters to the polls in November, and they will benefit from it. It would appear it doesn’t matter to them how many LGBT people get hurt on their way to higher office.”

This is the sort of thing that George Washington (the only independent president in U.S. history) was warning us about when he criticized the idea of political parties. He worried that they would become more concerned with serving themselves than with serving the country. He was right.

I read once that people who rely on the emotional side of their brains are more likely to become politicians than people who use the logical side. The childish behavior these people displayed appears to prove that.

Ben in Oakland

July 2nd, 2008

El rose– I won’t get into your basic bigotry, but I will make some comments.

1) The arizona lehgislature did not act correctly. their constitutents had already rejected the measure. This was strictly for political gain.

2) Marriage is not a sacrament, except inside of churches, and even then, given the divorce rate, it’s only a sacrament for a little while.

There are churches, and a great many more ministers of many denominations, who consider gay marriage a sacrament as well. their beliefs are unimportant, or just wrong? Where is THEIR freedom of religion in this?

Or, since their religious beliefs are clearly in error (when compared to yours), their freedom of religion doesn’t count?

3) Marriage is a civil contract regulated by the state. That is what the AZ legislature is addressing, not sacramental marriage in a church. All citizens should have access to that contract– that is equality before the law.

4) Who is it that is really trying to change the definiton of marriage– those who want marriage open to all citizens who can legally consent to the contraact, and fulfill its rights and benefits and obligations, or those who are trying to redefine it into a strictly religious institution, which it is not and has not been for at least a few hundred years?

5) and ifnally, and most important– this really isn’t aobut marriage at all, is it, at least for the anti-marriage crowd. It is REALLY about how much the very existence of gay people bothers some straight people, as well as some gay-people-who-wanna-be-striahgt-but-they’re-not…

…and how all even pretense to religious or poilitical or constitutional principles really takes second place to that basic prejudice.


July 23rd, 2008

There are a few things that can be done! Take a look at Senator Harper’s view from Arizona Legislative District 4 and have all of your Republican and Independent friends vote for John Zerby for State Senate!

—–Original Message—–
From: Jack Harper []

Subject: Militant Liberals will stop at nothing to defeat Senator Harper in the Republican Primary.


I have heard it several times so far, “I thought your opponent in the debate was a Democrat. He’s a Republican?”

That’s right! If you watched the C.C.E.C. debate between myself and challenger, John Zerby, you would question his registration as well. No one could believe the liberal positions that Zerby was taking. It all comes down to the liberal special-interest groups that Zerby has pledge allegiance to. In the audience was a member of a militant gay and lesbian organization that apparently had coached Zerby on his talking points to oppose the Marriage Amendment. Also in the audience were several union members that supported Zerby’s call for higher taxes and socialized medicine.

As you may have heard, the head of a gay-rights group in Arizona has vowed to defeat the legislators that referred the Marriage Amendment to the ballot. In what appears to a choreographed smear by the Democratic Party, Senator Cheuvront, the only openly homosexual Senator has lodged a partisan complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against me. My opponent and the militant liberal groups that support him will undoubtedly jump on the issue. I am confident that the complaint will be dismissed, as the Republican Caucus Attorney has stated that Cheuvront and Aboud (The only openly lesbian Senator) did not have the right to hold the floor without making new points. They only repeated themselves several time to kill the opportunity to refer the Marriage Amendment to the ballot. This is “dilatory” by Senate Rules, and is not allowed.

Because of the Democratic Party meddling in my Republican Primary election, yet again, the Republican Committee for Legislative District Four endorsed my candidacy at the LD-4 meeting tonight, July 21st. For this reason, and that Zerby has never attended a Republican event and refuses to still, the district committee decided to endorse rather than stay neutral.

The culture war did not end when the Marriage Amendment was referred to the ballot. Are you ready to get involved and make a difference? It is within 45 days of the primary election, and state law prevents HOA’s from banning political yard signs. Can I put one in your yard? Just email back and see how your time sacrifice can push this campaign to victory!

State Senator Jack Harper

Harper under attack in today’s paper:
Ariz. Dems file ethics complaint over GOP tactic
by Amanda J. Crawford – Jul. 21, 2008 07:32 PM
The Arizona Republic
An end-of-session maneuver that cut short a Democratic filibuster and paved the way for lawmakers to refer the same-sex marriage ban to the fall ballot is now the subject of a rare formal ethics complaint…

State Senator
Jack Harper

Embarrassed citizen

August 4th, 2008

This is embarrassing and laughable. I agree that this piece of legislation is pointless and is also political. That doesn’t allow you to attack with such obvious bitterness and ‘cry baby’ screams. I am on your side but totally appalled by your approach and lack of leadership. Stop whining and make your voice heard without attacking someone else and their beliefs. You should be ashamed of yourself and resign to do us who support your views a better qualified representative.

El Rose

August 7th, 2008

Let the people vote. Simple as that.

Priya Lynn

August 7th, 2008

El Rose, just as blacks rights weren’t put up for a vote neither should gay people’s rights be.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.