Box Turtle Bulletin

AZ Anti-Marriage Bill Scheduled For Vote Monday

As we reported earlier, the Arizona House of Representatives gave preliminary approval to move a bill onto the House floor that would place an anti-marriage amendment proposal on the ballot for November. Since that vote was taken, Speaker Jim Weiers (R-Phoenix) has placed SCR1042 on the calendar for a third reading on April 28th, 29th, 30th and May 5th. Each day has come and gone without a vote, and SCR1042 was pulled off the calendar for May 6th and 7th. Now we see it back on the calendar for Monday, May 12.

For Arizona residents, it’s still not too late to act. Remember: there are two representatives for each legislative district. Contact both of them and let them know where you stand. If you don’t know who your representatives are, the Equality Arizona web site can find them for you and provide you with their phone numbers and contact information. You can call them directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona.

Controversey Turns Foe Into Ally

For 25 years, Scottsdale, Arizona’s Anderson’s Fifth Estate was an ordinary rock and new wave dance club whose popularity was waning. That popularity took a dive in 2006 when club owner Tom Anderson asked a transgender woman, Michele de LaFreniere, to leave because of complaints from other patrons.

That incident brought on a year of controversy as Scottsdale residents grappled with a reputation for hostility to the LGBT community. Following that incident, another gay couple was assaulted outside a Scottsdale restaurant and Mayor Mary Manross refused to observe GLBT month in June

But now, things couldn’t be more different. Anderson got to personally know a lit of gay and transgender residents during discussions with the LGBT community, and in the process Anderson underwent a huge transformation. Today Anderson’s Fifth Estate is now called Forbidden, and it is one of metro Phoenix’s hottest gay clubs. And Anderson and his wife are now staunch LGBT allies and good friends of Michele de LaFreniere.

Sometimes all it takes is some conversation and getting to know real people.

Michigan Court Rules Against Health Care Benefits

We’ve heard this over and over again: opponents to same-sex marriage don’t want to go after our domestic partnership benefits. We heard it most recently here in Arizona just a few weeks ago when opponents to same-sex marriage accuse LGBT advocates of “dragging in other issues” when they warn about the potential dangers of these anti-marriage amendments.

Michigan now provides a perfect object lesson:

An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.

When anti-marriage activists tell you that their proposals have nothing to do with domestic partnerships, don’t believe it. They said that in Michigan also.

Arizona Anti-Marriage Amendment Still Held In the House

As we reported earlier, the Arizona House of Representatives has not yet formally passed the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment. The measure requires approval from the House and the Senate before it can be sent on to the voters.

At issue is what exactly the proposed amendment would ban. The new proposal reads, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” Opponents say that the word “union” could be applied to more than just marriage, opening up the state to lawsuits over domestic partnerships.

Peter Gentala, general council for the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP, Focus On the Family’s official state policy council for Arizona), said proponents have no plans to target domestic partnerships with this new effort. Lambda Legal warns however that a similar measure in California resulted in years of litigation there, and that CAP used the language of Arizona’s current law to argue against the state expanding benefits to domestic partners in Arizona.

The measure has been placed on the House calender every day since last week’s preliminary approval, and every day the delay has been delayed. This means there is still time to let your representative know what you think about the proposal.

Remember: there are two representatives for each legislative district. If you don’t know who your representatives are, the Equality Arizona web site can find them for you and provide you with their phone numbers and contact information. You can call then directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona.

Arizona House Still Hasn’t Scheduled Anti-Marriage Vote

There’s still time to contact your Arizona state representatives. The Arizona House has still not given its final approval to the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment (SCR 1041).

We reported that the Arizona House of Representatives brought the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment (SCR 1042) to the floor on Wednesday and that the final vote was expected to take place as soon as Thursday. Well, it didn’t happen, and last I heard the vote wasn’t expected to take place today either.

Please note: A lot of bloggers and out-of-state web sites are erroneously reporting that the House has approved the measure and it has gone on to the Senate. It hasn’t. The House has only given its preliminary approval to bring the bill to the floor. That means there’s still time for you to act.

Remember: there are two representatives for each legislative district. If you don’t know who your representatives are, the Equality Arizona web site can find them for you and provide you with their phone numbers and contact information. You can call then directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona.

Please let your representatives know how much you appreciate their work in opposing this divisive and anti-family measure. And if they happen to not be working in your favor, please politely inform them of what they are doing to you and your family.

Arizona House Ditched Veterans To Go After Gays

That bill to place an anti-marriage amendment on the ballot in November that the Arizona House gave preliminary approval to yesterday? It started life as bill that would have established a Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial Day. But the House Judiciary Committee placed a “strike all” amendment to the bill which removed the original language in its entirety and replaced it with something completely unrelated: the anti-marriage amendment.

This had two effects. First, it short circuited the debate and review process. And second, because the new verbiage is attached to an unrelated bill that already has been approved by the Senate, then that means that when the bill returns to the Senate they will only have two choices: Approve the House-passed version of the measure or reject it. There will be no opportunity to amend it.

The House is expected to give final approval to the bill later today. The Senate has not yet scheduled debate. Arizona residents are asked to contact your Senator and House Representatives.

Arizonans! Your Voices Are Needed

We rarely ask you to do anything. What we generally do is provide you with information and leave it to you to decide whether you want to act on it or not. Today I’m making an exception with this special request to fellow Arizona residents.

The Arizona House of Representatives brought the proposed anti-marriage constitutionaal amendment (SCR 1042) to the floor this afternoon, bypassing the committe process. The final vote is expceted to take place as soon as tomorrow.

As Equality Arizona notes, “the entire arsenal of the Center for Arizona Policy” has been fully deployed to pressure lawmakers to vote in favor of SCR 1042. The Center for Arizona Policy is an official “family policy council” of Focus On the Family for Arizona.

As we reported yesterday, some of those legislators are set to vote against the expressed wishes of their own constituents. Equality Arizona and Wingspan ask that that Arizona residents contact their House representatives and ask them to stop their divisive measures.

Remember: there are two representatives for each legislative district. If you don’t know who your representatives are, the Equality Arizona web site can find them for you. You can even send a message via Equality Arizona. You can also call your representatives as well. Just look them up at the Equality Arizona web site to find your representatives and their phone numbers.

It really couldn’t be easier, and right now it’s important that your voices are heard. Because apparently 775,468 voices in 2006 wasn’t quite loud enough.

Another Reason To Love Arizona

It’s a proven fact: our skies are just more colorful than yours.

The Politics of Anti-Marriage Amendments

Arizona became the first state in the union to defeat an anti-marriage amendment in 2006. Thats when voters gave the thumbs down to Proposition 107, which sought to enshrine marriage inequality into the state constitution, with 48.2% voting “yes” and 51.8% “no” (PDF: 220KB/18 pages). Now legislators in the Arizona House appear poised to approve a measure to put another anti-marriage amendment on the ballot for 2008. Some of those legislators who are reportedly leaning towards approving the measure represent districts which voted against the 2006 proposal, bucking the wisdom of their own constituents.

Let’s take the 30th legislative district as an example. The 30th spans the eastern part of Pima County (including Tucson’s eastern suburbs) and dips down to cover the northern half of Santa Cruz county and a small bite of Cochise County. This is a lightly suburban and rural district.

The way the Arizona House is set up, there are two representatives for each legislative district. Voters are asked to choose two names from a slate of candidates, and the top two vote winners are elected to seats in that district. For the 30th district, voters in 2006 chose Marian McClure (R, 36%) and Jonathan Paton (R, 34%) over Clarence Boykins (D, 30%). McClure and Paton are two of the legislators who are expected to vote to place the 2008 anti-marriage measure on the ballot.

You might think that those voters in the 30th really like their conservative Republicans, and in Arizona that’s often the case. But things aren’t always so straightforward here in the independent-minded West. A careful analysis of all the individual voting precincts which make up the 30th reveals that Arizona voters are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and don’t need party labels or outside pressure groups to tell them how to vote.

It turns out that those very same voters who sent McClure and Paton to the statehouse also chose Janet Napolitano (D, 62.6%) over Len Munsil (R, 37.4%) for governor, and they preferred Gabrielle Giffords (D, 51.5%) over Randy Graf (R, 48.5%) for the U.S. Congress. Rep. Giffords now represents Rep. Jim Kolbe’s (R) seat. Kolbe, you may remember, retired in 2006 after continuing to represent his district for some ten years after coming out as gay.

And those voters did not like the idea of having inequality written into the state constitution, with 52.5% voting against Prop 107 and only 47.5% voting for it. This means that voters in this suburban and rural district defeated Prop 107 by a wider margin than did voters statewide.

If McClure and Paton had been paying any attention to their own constituents, we wouldn’t be hearing about their intentions to vote next week against their own district’s wishes. But right now, it appears that they intend to ignore the very voters who sent them to the statehouse, and they will instead vote to permanently disenfranchise thousands of Arizona citizens — those same family members, friends and neighbors who the voters of the 30th district stood up for in 2006. Arizona is definitely changing. It’s time for our legislators to start paying attention.

Anti-Marriage Proposition Likely For Arizona

Update: Arizona residents can take action here.

Two weeks ago it looked like efforts by members of the Arizona state legislature to place an anti-marriage amendment proposal on the ballot was effectively killed when Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) managed to add, by a one-vote margin, a provision to grant certain rights to unmarried couples living together. This would force voters to consider guaranteeing rights for gay couples while simultaneously banning same-sex marriage. By tying the two issues together, the proposed amendment became unacceptable to conservative supporters and they voted to kill it.

Last Friday, we learned that the anti-marriage amendment is back on the agenda, and prospects for killing it this time aren’t so good. The proposed amendment was resurrected by the House Judiciary Committee without the pro-gay provisions, and the full House is expected to vote on it next Tuesday. This time, it’s expected that there won’t be enough votes to add Rep. Sinema’s pro-gay provisions. Several legislators who would have voted against the provisions two weeks ago were absent. They plan on being there this time.

If the proposal passes the House, it will go on to the Senate before being placed on the ballot.

Arizona voters defeated a proposed anti-marriage amendment in 2006, making Arizona is the only state to do so. I’ve looked into some of the precinct level results from that election. I’ve found that at least a few of those state representatives who are rumored to support the current attempt to ban same-sex marriage represent legislative districts where voters soundly defeated the 2006 proposal.

The 2006 proposed amendment not only sought to ban same-sex marriage, but all other forms of civil unions, domestic partnerships or any other state and municipal recognition of unmarried relationships. The current proposal calls for a “pure” anti-marriage amendment, without the prohibitions against other forms of legal recognition.

Welcome to Tucson, Jason Cianciotto

From this morning’s Arizona Daily Star:

Jason Cianciotto has been named the new executive director of Tucson’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community center. Cianciotto is a former member of the youth group and a grant writer.

… He most recently served as research director for The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Policy Institute in New York City. He also was the Task Force’s primary spokesman at press conferences.

Tucson is pretty small as cities go. When including the suburbs — and every scorpion and rattlesnak — our population just barely made it to over a million recently. But Tucson’s Wingspan LGBT community center rivals community centers in cities four times its size. (Phoenix still doesn’t have one. Heh, heh!)

Wingspan celebrates its twentieth anniversary this year, but its roots go back to the late 1970’s following the murder of Richard Heakin. The community’s horror over that hate crime transformed Tucson, making it one of the first cities in the country to pass anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Anti-violence programs remain a core part of Wingspan’s work, but it has branched out to include youth groups, community outreach, health and wellness programs, senior programs, and transgender support and advocacy.

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Jason a few times. I’m sure he’ll do a wonderful job with Wingspan.

Arizona Anti-Marriage Amendment Not Dead Yet

We reported last week that efforts by members of the Arizona state legislature to place an anti-marriage amendment proposal on the ballot was dealt a blow when Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) lined up enough votes to tack on a provision to grant certain rights to unmarried couples living together. By tying the two issues together, the proposed amendment became unacceptable to conservative supporters and they voted to kill it altogether.

This morning, the Arizona Daily Star reports that the House Judiciary Committee voted 6-4 to move SCR 1042 to the full House for a second run at trying to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. If it passes the House this time, it will still require Senate approval to be placed on the ballot for November.

Arizona voters defeated a proposed anti-marriage amendment in 2006. So far, Arizona is the only state to do so.

Arizona Anti-Marriage Amendment May Be Dead

UPDATED – See Below

In 2006 Arizona became the first state to vote down an anti-gay marriage amendent to their constitution. That amendment is believed to have been defeated because it extended beyond marriage to ban any form of civil union or domestic partnership, something that hurts many senior citizens.

So this year anti-gay activists were ready to push through the legislature an amendment that would ban only the use of the word “marriage”. This was fully expected to pass and be placed on the ballot in November.

However, an unusual tactic may have been employed to get the bill in the House pulled by its own promoters.

From the East Valley Tribune:

House Speaker Jim Weiers is likely to kill his own measure after Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, lined up enough votes to tack on a provision to grant certain rights to unmarried couples living together. That move effectively tied the two issues together — meaning voters who want to make same-sex weddings unconstitutional would be voting for some constitutional rights for gay couples.

From AZCentral

A change to the referendum in the state House of Representatives today would give new legal rights to domestic partners for hospital visitation and medical decision-making, funeral arrangements and inheritance. Because of the change, the measure will not go forward to a final vote, a spokesman for House Speaker Jim Weiers said.

Rep. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, a supporter of the gay marriage ban, said putting the two issues together on the ballot is unacceptable.

Anti-gays often claim that they are not opposed to heath decisions or insurance but simply want to “protect marriage”. Sinema called their bluff and won this round, though only barely.

Sinema’s change passed 28 to 27, with five members absent and not voting. An attempt to strip the amendment off the measure failed on the same lines and the amended version was given preliminary approval, despite opposition from original supporters.

Four Republicans – Reps. Michele Reagan of Scottsdale and Pete Hershberger, Marian McClure and Jennifer Burns of Tucson – joined Democrats in supporting Sinema’s change.

This battle is not over but this vote may indicate that a marriage ban vote in Arizona in November may not be a forgone conclusion. Considering that “absent and not voting” is very very rarely accidental, this coalition may hold together to add the same provision to the Senate bill when it reaches the house.

UPDATE

The Arizona Star is reporting that the Senate version is also dead.

There is another version of the bill awaiting Senate action, this one still in its original form solely to constitutionally define marriage in Arizona as between one man and one woman. But Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, the sponsor of that measure, said Thursday night that he will not bring that bill to the floor.

“I don’t see any point in it,” Bee said. Even if he corrals the 16 votes necessary in his own chamber, he said, the proposal still has to go to the House, where it lacks the necessary support.

The House vote and Bee’s decision constitute a major defeat for foes of gay marriage.

Happy day for gay Arizonans.

The optimist in me can’t help wondering if the vote indicates that there is adequate support in the Legislature to try for a Domestic Partnership law in Arizona.

Arizona House Passes Bigot Protection Act

It infuriates anti-gays that students are not allowed to wear slogans to class that attack their classmates.

Anti-gays are not always staggeringly stupid. For example, they are capable of understanding that “Proud to Be Irish” is not really comparable to “The Irish are Scum”. They can get that a T-Shirt bearing a Star of David and the phrase “Shalom” is not offensive to anyone while “Jews are Jesus-Killers” really has no place in public schools.

But for some reason, they just can’t understand the difference between a T-Shirt with a supportive gay theme and one that condemns and attacks gays. For some reason they confuse pro-Christianity with anti-gay and think that it is appropriate to wear T-Shirts with the language “Homosexuality Is Shameful, Romans 1:27” and “Be Ashamed” and “Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned.”

Well now the legislature in Arizona has lept to their defense.

The House approved legislation Monday designed to ensure students expressing their religious beliefs are treated the same as those taking more secular positions.

Now those unfamiliar with the efforts of anti-gays to instill formal homophobia into the classroom may not recognize the reasons for this effort. They may think this is about the Bible Club or about anti-religious bigotry.

If I were ignorant, they might have my sympathies. As someone who was once mocked by a fifth grade teacher in front of class for closing my eyes and saying a silent prayer over my lunch, I know that schools can sometimes be tough on religious kids. And if you doubt that, try being the only boy in gym class in knee-length shorts.

But that’s not what this is about. And in case we have any uncertainty, the bill’s author, Rep. Doug Clark, R-Anthem, clarified.

Similarly, Clark said if students are allowed to wear T-shirts about their sexual orientation, then other students should be permitted to have their own shirts which express a religious viewpoint about such activities.

Yup. This bill is designed specifically to promote “a religious viewpoint” about “such activities”. I wasn’t the only one to notice this.

Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, said he fears the bill would give license to some students to bully or harass others, such as those who might wear T-shirts demeaning homosexual students, which he described as “harassing.”

Clark said schools would remain free to enact and enforce anti-discrimination policies.

“Most in the religious community are going to be level-headed and not be abusive of the rights that are established in the Constitution,” Clark said.

Well now, Rep. Clark, that just isn’t true. If there were no efforts to harass gay students, you wouldn’t need a bill that allows just such action. But somehow I think you already know that.

However, Rep. Clark – and those who are proclaiming a mighty victory in God’s name – let me give you a little warning. You’ve done this before and it didn’t quite work out the way you planned.

Remember?

You passed a federal law, the Equal Access Act, that was intended to protect students who wanted to have Bible Study on campus. And now that is the law that protects Gay-Straight Alliances. To your surprise, shock, and dismay, you found that teen-agers didn’t much want to spend lunch time discussing the lamentations of Jeremiah but that gay kids did want to get together and work towards defending themselves from abuse.

In your rush to impose your faith on others, you forget that those who disagree with you will also get the same right to impose their faith right back.

So rush out and print your anti-gay T-Shirts just in time for the Day of Silence. You can use “Jesus Can Make You Happy, Not Gay” or even “God Condemns Homosexuality” if you like, knowing that their “religious” message is protected.

But if you stop and think you’ll realize that at this moment there’s some enterprising kid trying to decide whether “I Reject Your Fascist Religion” or “Real Christians Don’t Hate” will sell more T-Shirts before class. For every kid that is so devout that he wants to wear a message of hostility and condemnation of gays, there are many more who will mock you and your faith. When you open up the schools to “religious viewpoints” about “activities”, you aren’t going to like the results.

I figure gay boys could just wear the religious T-Shirt above and watch you and the other anti-gays work yourselves into a tizzy.

What A Difference A Year Makes

Tom Anderson’s Fifth Estate club in Scottsdale, Arizona, made news earlier this year for banning a transgender woman from his night club. The woman, Michele DeLaFreniere, filed a discrimination complaint with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. That dispute simmered for about a year until last November, when Anderson agreed to lift the ban if DeLaFreniere would drop her complaint.

Now Anderson has closed the Fifth Estate, and tonight that location will see the premiere of the Forbidden Night Club, Scottsdale’s newest gay bar:

Owner Tom Anderson said he made the transition in an effort to “change Scottsdale.” The city saw a number of high-profile anti-gay and hate crimes this year, said Sam Holdren of Equality Arizona.