Arizona Proposition 107, Definition of Marriage Amendment (2006)

Arizona Proposition 107
Election date November 7, 2006
Topic Family-related policy
Status Defeated
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Arizona Proposition 107 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Arizona on November 7, 2006. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported requiring a legally recognized union of marriage to be between one man and one woman.

A "no" vote opposed requiring a legally recognized union of marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Election results

Arizona Proposition 107
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		721,489	48.20%
No		775,498	51.80%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What was this amendment designed to do?

This amendment was designed to define marriage as a union between only one man and one woman, and that only this union would be identified in the state, and that the state will not recognize any other union as marriage.

Aftermath

U.S. Supreme Court

See also: Obergefell v. Hodges

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. The ruling overturned bans on same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito each authored a dissent.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 107 was as follows:

“

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; BY ADDING ARTICLE XXX; RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

REQUIRES THAT ONLY A UNION BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE BY THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND PROHIBITS THE CREATION OR RECOGNITION OF LEGAL STATUS SIMILAR TO MARRIAGE FOR UNMARRIED PERSONS BY THE STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

Protect Marriage Arizona was leading the campaign in support of the amendment.

Supporters

Organizations

• Alliance Defense Fund
• Center for Arizona Policy
• United Families International

Arguments

• Larry Hall, chair of Protect Marriage Arizona: "A state constitutional amendment provides the strongest possible legal protection for marriage against redefinition by activist state court judges. We also hope to show our national leaders that states want the opportunity to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting marriage. Marriage between a man and woman is the basic building block of society. As the Supreme Court put it, in a case upholding laws that prevented marriage from being redefined to include polygamy, “marriage is the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.” Arizona promotes and benefits marriage because marriage between a man and a woman benefits Arizona. Children do best when they have the security of living with a married mother and father. With all the challenges to marriage in society today, the last thing Arizona needs is to redefine marriage in a way that guarantees some children will never have either a mom or a dad. Unfortunately, today’s courts seem bent on destroying that foundation. It’s time for the people to respond by voting ‘yes’ on the Protect Marriage Amendment."
• Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy: "As most Arizonans intuitively know, marriage between a man and a woman is good for our state. It is one of the foundations of our society; it builds and strengthens communities. Marriage provides for the next generation by giving the best home environment to our children. Marriage encourages ideals such as commitment, fidelity and trust, and it holds families together."

Opposition

Arizona Together was leading the campaign opposing the amendment.

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Janet Napolitano (D)
• State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (Independent)

Political Parties

• Green Party of Arizona

Organizations

• American Civil Liberties Union
• Arizona Advocacy Network
• Arizona Human Rights Fund
• Arizona NOW
• Human Rights Campaign
• League of Women Voters of Arizona

Arguments

• Dr. Bonnie Saunders, President of League of Women Voters of Arizona: "The consequences of the passage of this amendment would be dire. It would take away the rights of senior citizens who do not marry for fear of losing their pensions and Social Security benefits. Domestic violence laws would not apply to unmarried victims. Unmarried student partners would lose tuition benefits. Children of unmarried couples would be at risk of losing their access to health insurance. The perception of an environment of intolerance for diversity would contribute to the loss of Arizona’s college graduates to other states and would put the state at a disadvantage in attracting top talent and new businesses. The amendment would ban domestic partner benefits, mainly medical insurance, for all state, county, and city employees, including colleges, universities, and school districts. These current benefits would be taken away from employees of Pima County and the cities of Tucson, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe. No state, county, or city entity would be able to reinstate them or pass laws that would establish these benefits in the future."
• Al Breznay, volunteer with the Arizona Together campaign: "If it passes, Proposition 107 will amend the Arizona Constitution to take away health care benefits for seniors, families of police, teachers, firefighters, and other public employees. Proposition 107 is unnecessary, and redundant because same-sex marriage is already illegal in Arizona. Yet, if successful, Proposition 107 will demolish a critical safety net for families united through domestic partnerships."

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Arizona

In Arizona, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 15 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election.

Protect Marriage Arizona, the campaign supporting the initiative, submitted more than 300,000 signatures to the secretary of state in support of the amendment.

See also

2006 Measures

• 2006 Measures
• Family-related policy on the ballot
• 2006 legislative sessions

Arizona

• Arizona ballot measures
• Arizona ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Arizona Voter Guide (2006)