Proposition 107: Protect Marriage Arizona Act

Proposition 107, the "Protect Marriage Arizona Act," is billed by supporters as an act designed to protect the institution of marriage in Arizona. The supporters' website says:

This proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution preserves “marriage” as only consisting of the union of one man and one woman, and prohibits creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that of marriage.

Arizona statutes already prohibit gay marriage, several times over. ARS 25-101 (C) says "Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." ARS 25-112 says that marriages in other states are valid in Arizona, except for those that violate ARS 25-101--so Arizona refuses to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts, for example. ARS 25-125 (A) says "A valid marriage is contracted by a male person and a female person with a proper marriage license who participate in a ceremony conducted by and in the presence of a person who is authorized to solemnize marriages and at which at least two witnesses who are at least eighteen years of age participate."

Now, I think it's absurd to argue that gay marriage harms marriage, but let's leave that claim aside. Look at the latter part of this proposed constitutional amendment--it says that "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." This is a very vague and potentially very broad statement--"similar to" is a comparative, it comes in degrees. But no degree of similarity (even supposing that it came in easily measurable units) is defined here. The advocates of this kind of legislation have already demonstrated elsewhere that they mean to include civil unions and domestic partnerships in this, whether they involve same-sex couples or heterosexual couples. They could also use this wording to fight against benefits for domestic partnerships, custody contracts, wills, guardianship agreements, and so forth, where unmarried couples are involved. And no doubt they will--this amendment is backed by people like nutty theocrat Len Munsil (his organization drafted it), who opposed the 2001 repeal of Arizona's law that prohibited unmarried couples of the opposite sex from living in the same house or apartment, even if only as roommates.

The exact same battle is occurring in Virginia.

McCain endorses religious right theocrat candidate Len Munsil

John McCain continues his pandering to the religious right by endorsing Republican candidate for Governor of Arizona, Len Munsil. Munsil, who attended Arizona State University at the same time I did, was editor of the ASU newspaper, the State Press. Now he runs an extremist religious right policy organization, the Center for Arizona Policy, which opposed the removal of Arizona's laws banning cohabitation and oral sex. (They were removed anyway, by a moderate female Republican Governor, Jane Dee Hull.) Munsil drafted Arizona's law on marriage (which defines marriage to preclude gay marriage) and is behind Proposition 107, the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment, which amends the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the creation of civil unions or the granting of any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to marriage.

I've previously written about Munsil here, where I describe how he refused to print a letter to the editor I wrote criticizing factual errors in an editorial he wrote in the State Press.

You can find out more about Munsil and his supporters and detractors at this Arizona Republic blog entry, "Munsil: I'm a Reagan, Kyl-style Republican." I've left a number of comments there.

March of the Penguins: Argument for Monogamy and Intelligent Design?

Michael Medved recently wrote that the documentary film "March of the Penguins" "passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing." Andrew Coffin writes that the movie makes "a strong case for intelligent design." These claims have been rightly ridiculed all over the blogosphere.

Ed Brayton notes that there are gay penguins, as does the Reason magazine blog.

Pharyngula notes that the penguins stand by while their eggs or children are eaten, that they get new breeding partners each season (so it's serial monogamy without long-term commitment), and their practices could only have been designed by a cruel and heartless designer.

Carl Zimmer points out that if we are going to take lessons in morality from the animal kingdom, there are even more horrific examples available, which is also pointed out in the book and British TV series Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation.

The Panda's Thumb provides a similar list of links to the above, and there are enjoyable and informative comments at each of these sites, such as one commenter on Zimmer's site who pointed to this article about Boston's lesbian swans.

The variation of deviant activity in nature is greater than it is within the human species alone. I look forward to seeing an Intelligent Design theory that attempts to explain it.