Category Archives: Marriage
By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
“Today, U.S. District Judge John Sedwick ruled narrowly that Arizona must recognize the marriage of two men who were legally married in another state. This decision was driven by politics, not constitutional law.
While the ruling is narrow, Judge Sedwick also stated in his order that Arizona probably would be required to permit same sex marriages despite the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman found in Arizona’s constitutional marriage amendment approved by the people in 2008 and found in Arizona law since statehood.
Arizona has become the latest victim of a politically driven judiciary.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the right of every state to define marriage, yet Judge Sedwick has joined the judicial stampede of other lower federal judges who have tried to override or ignore marriage laws based on no precedent other than their own political bias.
We all know this issue will ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. That Court has scheduled a September 29 conference to determine whether and which state marriage amendment cases to accept for review. A ruling likely will be issued by next summer.
Political and cultural winds may shift, but the foundational value and purpose of marriage between one man and one woman remains.
Regardless of how the courts rule, two truths will endure:
- No court will ever be the final arbiter of the definition of marriage. All those who say supporters of one man, one woman marriage are on the wrong side of history have a very short and narrow view of history. Just as the Roe v. Wade decision began the public policy debate about legalized abortion, so too the public policy debate about marriage has only just begun.
- The bonds between a child and their father and mother are irreplaceable. While many children tragically are not able to experience the joy and benefits of having a loving mom and dad, public policy should provide every opportunity to give children a mom and a dad, yet today’s decision is the first step that will block more children from that opportunity.
Center for Arizona Policy’s commitment to advocating for marriage and family is stronger than ever. No matter what a court may say, we will continue to work towards making Arizona the best state to raise a family.”
Doug Ducey has won the Arizona Republican primary race for governor. RINO Scott Smith is in second, with Christine Jones third, Ken Bennett fourth, Andy Thomas fifth and former congressman Frank Riggs sixth.
Mark Brnovich is ending scandal-ridden RINO Tom Horne’s reign as Arizona attorney general.
Diane Douglas ousted incumbent John Huppenthal for Superintendent for Public Instruction. Douglas ran on her opposition to Common Core education, which Huppenthal supported.
RINO Michele Reagan is winning the nomination for secretary of state. She will most likely lose in November to Democrat Terry Goddard.
Jeff DeWitt is heading for victory in the three-man primary race for state treasurer, with RINO Hugh Hallmann in second and former AZ GOP chairman Randy Pullen running third.
Wendy Rogers is leading Andrew Walter by about 5,000 votes in the GOP Congressional District 9 race.
Gary Kiehe is surprisingly leading in the GOP Congressional District 1 in a close race with Adam Kwasman and Andy Tobin.
Several incumbent congressmen ran unopposed.
In the Republican race for Arizona Corporation Commissioner, Tom Forese and Doug Little have secured nominations for November’s general election.
In a huge disappointment, Arizona-bashing Bob Worsley has defeated challenger Dr. Ralph Heap in the State Senate race for District 25.
Additionally, John Giles won handily over conservative Danny Ray in the election for mayor in Mesa. Giles was backed by all the current councilmen — all of whom, incidentally, were identified as “friends” and “champions” of Big Government by Americans for Tax Prosperity.
During the summer campaign, The Arizona Conservative questioned the loyalty of many Republican candidates to GOP principles. Several of those candidates won or did well tonight, raising additional questions about Republican voters, as well. Do personalities and advertising tactics weigh more heavily with Republican voters, or do they observe GOP principle as their criteria for voting decisions? The answer is in, and the GOP platform was a big loser in here in Arizona this summer. And as we said previously, it hasn’t been tried and found wanting. For many of the candidates — particularly Smith, Hallmann, Reagan, Worsley, Horne, and others — it has not been tried. Obviously, conservatives have much to do to educate Republicans in this state, which appears to be drifting away from the conservative principles that made America great.
From a report by the American Post-Gazette …
Courts in Arizona are constitutionally barred from recognizing the same-sex marriages from other states. This past week, a panel of liberal judges from the Arizona Court of Appeals ignored the constitutional prohibition and, using a transparent trick, recognized a same-sex marriage from Hawaii.
A same sex couple filed for divorce in the Maricopa County Superior Court. The Maricopa County trial judge, faithfully following Arizona law, refused to accept jurisdiction of the case because the parties were two females.
The women had been married in Hawaii with a wink and a nod. Hawaii allowed the marriage because one of the women “identified” as male. Hawaii essentially pretended that the “husband” was really a man, rather than a woman.
The liberal panel of Arizona Court of Appeals was all too happy go along with the ruse – to pretend that the “husband” was really a man, even though the “husband” had borne three children after the sham wedding. The Court of Appeals decided that Arizona should accept jurisdiction over the sham marriage. The Court couldn’t escape using nonsensical language in its opinion. Referring to the “husband” the Court said “he had retained the ability to bear children, and in fact gave birth to three children following his marriage to Nancy.”
Why was it so easy for the Court of Appeals to run roughshod over the Arizona Constitution? Because Tom Horne, running for re-election as attorney general, refused to defend Arizona’s traditional marriage policy. In fact Tom Horne was asked to file a brief with the trial court to defend traditional marriage. But he refused to do so.
The Arizona Conservative has endorsed Horne’s primary opponent Mark Brnovich for AG.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.
Imagine having five parents! Here’s what it means: it means going back and forth between all those households on a regular basis, never having a single place to call home during your most tender and vulnerable years. It means having divided Christmases, other holidays, and birthdays–you spend one with one parent, and another with the other parent, never spending a single holiday or birthday with both parents. Imagine having each of your parents completely ignore the other half of you, the other half of your family, as if it did not even exist. Meanwhile, imagine each parent pouring their energy into their new families and creating a unified home for their new children. These experiences give you the definite impression of being something leftover, something not quite part of them. You live like that on a daily basis for 18+ years.
I don’t have to imagine, because I had five parents. I had five parents because my mom and dad divorced when I was about three; my mom remarried once and my dad remarried twice. So I had a mom and two step-moms, and a dad and one step-dad. In this day and age children can already have five parents. That’s how badly marriage has deteriorated already. The main difference between what Gessen advocates and my experience is that my step parents were not legal parents; she advocates for all of the adults in her situation to be legal parents.
Having more than two legal parents will be a nightmare for a child. Of course, I am making the reasonable assumption that the legal parents will not be living under the same roof, because there is no longer any societal accountability for adults to create a unified home for children. Thus, adding additional legal parents will create more disruption for children’s daily lives, more chaos, more confusion, less unity. And why are we doing this? So that adults can have the sexual partners they want.
Masha Gessen had a mom and a dad, so it appears that she benefitted from the socially conservative family structure--it appears she was not raised under the family structure she advocates. That sounds about right. I’ve talked to many people who think deconstructing the family in favor of adult sexual choice is a good thing… and these very same people lived under the socially conservative family structure with their one mom who spent her life with their one dad, and they all lived together in their unified home. Since I lived under the family structure they advocate, I will sometimes ask them: would you trade childhoods with me? They either say no or they don’t reply.
If what I had is so great, then why don’t they want it as children? Here’s my conclusion: they want it as adults but not as children. They want the benefits of the socially conservative family structure when they are children. But as adults, they want sexual freedom, or at least they want to appear “open minded” and “tolerant” about others sexual choices, even at the expense of children, even though they themselves would never want to live under what they advocate. It’s a bizarre sort of a “win-win” for them, I guess.
It’s very painful for me to have conversations with these people. They don’t understand what they advocate, and they don’t seem to want to understand.