Delay on sending gay marriage ban to Senate vote

A new California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriages in that state is adding fuel to the push here for a constitutional ban. But the one man who can put that issue up for a final vote to send it to the ballot in November has so far not done that — and is refusing to commit to doing so.

Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, is the prime sponsor of one version of a measure to constitutionally define marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman. And a bill with identical language was approved earlier this week by the House.

But Bee has so far failed to put the measure on the Senate calendar for its action — the only thing standing in the way of sending the issue to voters.

Nor is he guaranteeing that he ever will bring the measure to the Senate.

“Decisions about ballot measures will be made toward the end of (the legislative) session, after the budget’s complete,” he said.

Bee said Republican legislative leaders have to review all of the active proposals to put issues before voters.

“We decide which measures will have the support to get through, which items will have the financial support, what the opposition’s going to look like,” he said.

But Bee said the decision has nothing to do with his bid to unseat incumbent Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

That congressional district, which stretches from Marana and the east side of Tucson through eastern Santa Cruz County and all of Cochise County, may be more tolerant of gay rights than some other parts of the state: It was represented for more than 20 years by Rep. Jim Kolbe, who is gay.

The issue took on added importance this week when California’s high court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that same-sex couples are entitled under that state’s constitution to the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to wed.

“The California decision shows exactly why a constitutional amendment is needed to protect and secure a definition of marriage in Arizona,” said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which has as its mission “strengthening the family and restoring traditional moral principles to the public policy and cultural arenas.”

“Let’s let the people of Arizona decide the public policy of Arizona, not the judges, not the politicians,” she said.

Herrod acknowledged that the Arizona Court of Appeals, faced with an identical legal challenge, ruled there is no constitutional right of gays to wed in this state. That decision was upheld, without comment, by the Arizona Supreme Court.

But she pointed out there are new justices on this state’s high court. And she said just one judge can make a difference, citing the California decision.

Herrod said Bee, along with House Speaker Jim Weiers, “both committed to support the marriage amendment and refer it to the ballot in February, before it was introduced.” Weiers has fulfilled his part of the deal, getting the measure out of his chamber on a 33-25 margin.

“I expect President Tim Bee to keep his word,” she said.

She also dismissed Bee’s contention that he and other GOP leaders need to weigh the importance of putting this issue before voters against all of the other legislative measures that also would go on the ballot. Herrod said nothing should have a higher priority.

“This is an issue that unites Arizonans,” she said, saying polling data shows nearly two-thirds of voters would support a ban on same-sex marriages. “The majority of Arizonans agree on the definition of marriage as being a union of one man and one woman and we expect the Senate to put it on the ballot.”

Herrod said the votes are there — and Bee knows that. “He’s had a list of supporters since February,” she said.

Bee’s original ban on same-sex weddings cleared the Senate Committee on Public Safety and Human Services on Feb. 21. But it never got a hearing in the Senate Rules Committee, a necessary step to bringing it the floor.

“Bee hasn’t told me to put it on the Rules agenda,” said Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R-Chandler, chairman of that panel.

Tibshraeny said Bee may have been waiting for Weiers’ version of the measure to clear the House.

But when that proposal was effectively killed more than a month ago in a procedural maneuver, Bee said he saw no reason to pursue his own identical measure.

Now that the House has resurrected and approved the issue, the proposal, now grafted onto SCR1042, needs only a Senate roll-call vote to put it on the ballot, as proposed constitutional amendments do not require gubernatorial approval.