United Families Arizona: ASU Poll on Marriage Flawed, Misleading

NEWS & ANALYSIS

United Families Arizona: ASU's Marriage Poll Flawed, Misleading

By Dennis Durband, Editor
September 30, 2005

Arizona State University's (ASU) recent poll on the Protect Marriage Arizona initiative (PMA) is flawed and misleading, according to United Families Arizona, a member of the Protect Marriage Arizona coalition.

ASU's poll purported to show erosion of support in Arizona for the PMA amendment to the state constitution. This amendment would limit marriage in the state to only the union of a man and a woman and would prohibit the courts or the legislature from creating any legal status for unmarried domestic partners that would be similar to marriage.

United Families Arizona said the ASU poll used an inaccurate question which misrepresents the proposed amendment. The marriage coalition needs to collect 184,000 signatures to qualify the proposed state constitutional amendment for the November 2006 election ballot.

The poll question erroneously tells respondents that the amendment "would deny any type of legal status, including benefits, to unmarried domestic partners of state and local government employees."

UFA president Carol Soelberg said, "This statement is false because benefits are related to employment, and granting health benefits does not create a legal status similar to marriage. This amendment will not limit the ability of any private or governmental organizations to offer health benefits to the 'domestic partners' of employees. Providing these benefits does not create a legal status similar to marriage."

The actual poll question states:

A group called Protect Marriage Arizona is collecting signatures for an initiative that would ban same-sex marriages in Arizona. The initiative also would deny any type of legal status, including benefits, to unmarried domestic partners of state and local government employees. Would you probably vote for or against this initiative?

The poll drew 390 responses, with 33 percent indicating they would vote for such an amendment, 60 percent would not and 7 percent were undecided -- with a margin of error of + or - 5 percent. Typically, the ASU polls, conducted by KAET-TV and the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, lean to the left. Governor Janet Napolitano, who won election by one percent in 2002, received a very high favorable rating in the same ASU poll.

Carol Soelberg, president of United Families Arizona, said, "This question is factually and fundamentally wrong, according to legal experts we have consulted. The PMA would not deny any benefits to unmarried 'domestic partners' of state or local government employee now or in the future. Clearly, if the question asked in a poll is so erroneous and misleading, then the results of how respondents answered it are worthless."

United Families Arizona asked Bill Duncan, one of the nation's leading experts on marriage law and state and federal constitutional amendments, to comment on this poll question. Director of the Marriage Law Foundation, an internationally-acclaimed public interest legal foundation specializing in marriage law issues, Duncan said the ASU poll mischaracterizes the proposed amendment. He cited a Sept. 26th Michigan court decision on a similar marriage initiative declaring that it does not cut off the benefits of public employees because employment health care benefits are related to employment and not to marital status.

Soelberg said, "ASU's poll question completely misrepresents the facts of the PMA on the issue of providing benefits to 'domestic partners' of state or local government employees. As a result, the responses to this question are misleading and worthless."

Duncan Quote

Here is Duncan's complete statement on the ASU poll:

The recent poll conducted by Arizona State University regarding the Protect Marriage Arizona amendment grossly mischaracterized the amendment in the key question by saying that it "would deny any type of legal status, including benefits, to unmarried domestic partners of State and local government employees." This is a distortion for a number
of reasons.

First, the Protect Marriage Arizona campaign has clearly stated that the amendment "does not take away the existing benefits of state employees or retirees."

Second, the amendment's language states: "no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage." A Michigan court decision handed down September 26th on this same question held that a similar marriage amendment in that state's constitution does not cut off the benefits of public employees because employment health care benefits are related to employment and not a legal status similar to marriage.

The Arizona marriage amendment is simple-it protects the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prevents courts and politicians from making an end-run around this policy by creating a status like Vermont's "civil unions" (that is, marriage in everything but name). Employee benefit policies do not create a legal status similar to marriage, so they are not affected.