Which is it, Len?

Ever since the Center for Arizona Policy unveiled its "Protect Marriage" amendment initiative, president Len Munsil has been very busy assuring everyone that the amendment just "protects marriage" by keeping it between one man and one woman. It will not, he insists, go further and affect benefits for domestic partnerships. Just two weeks ago, Munsil touted a poll that showed people supported a marriage amendment, saying that a previous poll was invalid because it did not use the actual language of the amendment but did say domestic partnership benefits would be affected.

While other polls have emphasized words that are not in the actual amendment – words like “prohibition” and “benefits,” this poll language is closest to the actual language of the amendment.

The implication here is that the actual langauge of the amendment will not "prohibit" anything or affect benefits. Going back even further to July 14, Munsil wrote:

Remember first that the amendment simply reserves the special status of marriage in our laws to people who are actually married. Here are some of the things the PMAA does NOT do: it does not prevent people from agreeing to allow each other hospital visitation, inheritance rights, medical decisionmaking, or other benefits. It does not prevent people from providing for each other in their last will and testament. It does not prevent the government from enforcing domestic violence laws against domestic partners who become violent. It does not prevent private businesses from providing benefits to whoever the business wants to provide with benefits. As the debate continues, remember that much of the rhetoric you will hear from opponents is pure politics, scare tactics and fiction. [all emphasis mine]

Yesterday, however, he wrote about how bad it is that an Alaskan court found that the goverment must provide benefits to domestic partners.

Alaska, like most states, promotes marriage by offering employee benefits to married couples and financially dependent children. Now the Alaska Supreme Court has agreed with legal arguments by the ACLU that the state must provide marriage benefits to same sex domestic partners. This decision is yet another example of why the Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment is needed. The Alaska Constitution clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but that didn’t stop the courts from forcing a marriage counterfeit on the state....

The PMA Amendment protects marriage from being undermined by marriage counterfeits, and protects against judicial activism.

Clearly, Munsil is against benefits for domestic partners. For all his rhetoric about how "the opposition" (aka Arizona Together) is lying about the amendment when we say it will end goverment benefits for domestic partners and their children, the truth is that this is very clearly the goal of the amendment. And the first poll, the one Munsil decries because it asked if people would vote for an amendment that takes away domestic partner benefits, clearly shows that Arizonans do not want to take those benefits away from people.

Which is it, Len? Is the amendment only about "protecting marriage" and not taking benefits away from domestic partners? Or do you specifically want to take domestic partner benefits away? You can't have it both ways.