Protect Marriage Arizona Launches 2006 Initiative

NEWS & ANALYSIS

Protect Marriage Arizona Launches Ballot Initiative for 2006 Election

By Dennis Durband, Editor
May 17, 2005

It may only be a matter of time before judge-shopping homosexual activists find an activist Arizona court all too willing to gift wrap same-sex marriage for them. It’s happened elsewhere – Massachusetts, Washington, eight Canadian provinces and other foreign nations.

The Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition isn’t willing to sit back and wait for the shoe to fall. Today, the coalition announced in Tucson, Flagstaff and Phoenix the launch of a 2006 ballot initiative to insulate the institution of marriage from would-be judicial activists who might be sympathetic to the homosexual activist agenda. A coalition of the Center for Arizona Policy, United Families International, the Arizona Catholic Conference and the National Association of Marriage Enhancement introduced the following proposed amendment:

"To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to marriage."

Protect Marriage Arizona must collect more than 188,000 valid signatures in order to qualify for the 2006 general election ballot. The group’s theme is “let the people decide.”

Lynn Stanley is serving as chairman of Protect Marriage Arizona. She opened the Phoenix press conference, attended by heavy media coverage, some 200 marriage supporters and a few homosexual activist protestors.

“Arizona citizens should be allowed to vote on marriage,” Stanley said. “There are numerous studies that prove marriage between a man and a woman is best for children. If we allow the courts to deviate, it guarantees that some children will be deprived of a mother and a father. This coalition is an effort of regular citizens who believe marriage is one man and one woman.”

Ron Johnson, executive director of the Arizona Catholic Conference and representing all three of the state’s Catholic bishops, said, “marriage is important because it is the foundation of the family.” Johnson insists marriage is not a political issue.

A lone voice of protest yelled out that “faith is not a family value.” That was typical of the left's intellect this morning.

Carol Soelberg, president of United Families Arizona, a chapter of Mesa-based United Families International, went next.

“As a wife, as a mother of 13 children and a grandmother of 27, I advocate for policy that recognizes the family as the fundamental unit of society,” Soelberg said. “We believe a constitutional amendment is the only hope for stopping activist judges from forcing same-sex marriage on the people.”

A single voice of protest yelled the unintelligent insult, “go back to the Taliban.” Yet, Len Munsil, president and CEO of the Center for Arizona Policy, read the text of the initiative and promised a higher level of debate.

“We are here to endorse Protect Marriage Arizona,” Munsil said. “We’re excited about the grassroots support underway. It is designed to protect the legal status of marriage.”

The protestors tried to shout down amendment speakers, but Munsil said, “We intend to conduct this debate with civility” – attracting a huge ovation from supporters.

Based in Arizona, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement works to strengthen marriages.

Association president Leo Gozdich said: “This is a time in our history when we need not to weaken marriage, but to strengthen it. There is a need for children to be raised by a mother and a father. Activist judges seem to have forgotten why marriage is important; let the people decide. This is the most democratic of processes. Those opposed simply oppose the democratic process.”

A large collection of supporters standing behind the podium yelled in unison. “Let the people decide!”

Gozdich continued on: “We are beginning the petition drive today. Let every Arizona citizen voice their opinion on this issue.”

A protest sign asked for a definition of “man” and “woman.” Bill Clinton would have been proud of his legacy.

As the short press conference came to a close, question and answer time began. Three liberal attack dogs -- Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services; Paul Davenport, Associated Press; and Richard Ruelas of the Arizona Republic -- had lined up near the podium and began the attack on coalition members with unconcealed contempt. Their sudden and aggressive body movements did not belie their distaste for the initiative. State Rep. Doug Quelland, a conservative stalwart, said he sees this all the time. Munsil and Gozdich led the defense.

One of the liberal reporters asked if there has been any judicial activism on marriage in Arizona.

“You never know where activist judges are going to strike,” Munsil shot back deftly. “We had one in Nebraska last week.” Though Nebraskans passed a marriage amendment, 70-30 percent in 2000, federal judicial activist David Battaillon nullified those results single handedly last week. An appeal is forthcoming and his activism may not stand. Louisiana's successful 2004 marriage amendment was also overturned and then quickly righted on appeal.

Reason and common sense often fall short with the cookie cutter, agenda-driven mainstream media. The nature of the reporters’ questions indicated they were more intent on what the initiative is not designed to do than on what it is designed to do.

The media typically employ liberal carrot and stick scare tactics against elected officials. Le Templar, in a Tuesday morning story in the East Valley Tribune, referred to the initiative as “a politically risky ballot initiative that goes far beyond declaring a legal union is only between one man and one woman.” Marriage initiatives passed in 13 states last year and in Kansas this year, and no state has defeated a marriage initiative. Some of those states are far more liberal than Arizona.

The truth cannot be denied that defense of marriage is a political winner for elected officials and candidates. That track record is evident around the United States.

Godzich explained that the coalition is attempting to preserve the social benefits of marriage. The social failures caused by same-sex marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands will be lost on Arizona’s press, which will understand the issue only as far as homosexual activists direct. Besides, this is the kind of stuff liberal reporters live for – vilifying those evil, right-wing extremists over a key social issue.

Coalition members wrapped up the Q&A, and media reps corralled the principals for one-on-ones. Lurking in the shade of a nearby tree was former army officer/former legislator Steve May, a homosexual activist vowing to see the defeat of Protect Marriage Arizona. Radio stations interviewed him as bisexual State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema stood by smiling.

Homosexual Activists Hold Court

May, co-chairman of the radical homosexual activist organization, the Arizona Human Rights Fund, told KTAR Radio, “I believe Arizona voters are open-minded and will defeat it. If they learn the truth, they will vote no.”

One doesn’t have to wonder what “truth” May will convey to his followers. But one can recall open-minded voters firing an out-of-the-mainstream May from the legislature in a 2002 primary election.

“It’s about what is right for Arizona,” May said. “The issue is they are attacking marriage. Our mission today is to talk to our brothers and sisters in the heterosexual community. This is an assault on homosexuals; there is no ban on marriage.”

Most homosexuals do not want marriage rights. Many divorces have occurred in Massachusetts in the 12 months since Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, an avowed homosexual activist fundraiser sitting upon the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, strong-armed same-sex marriage on that commonwealth.

Homosexuals Seek Marriage Licenses

While the liberal media insist there is no activism threatening marriage in Arizona, tomorrow a liberal group of clergy will for the second year in a row ask the Maricopa County Registrar to record the civil marriages of homosexual couples. They plan to refuse to leave the office until getting their way. This same bullying tactic did not work last year when they were turned down in asking for non-legal services. Their consolation will be the presence of a sympathetic liberal media to chronicle their "adversity." Today’s attack dogs will lose their fangs, lose their snarl and fawn upon the liberal activists with a litter of bleeding heart sympathy stories.

The homosexual activists plan to rally at 1 p.m. at Patriots Park in downtown Phoenix, along with their pastors, who have betrayed their faith as well as their flocks.

It doesn’t take a psychic to know that Wednesday morning’s blistering newspaper attacks on the initiative will be followed by Thursday morning puff pieces on the poor misfortunate people denied marriage licenses in Maricopa County.

Franks Expects Amendment to Pass

Finally, conservative Congressman Trent Franks said today, “Judges may try to distort the original meaning of marriage but the people understand.” Franks said he expects the amendment to pass.