Yesterday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill that out state representative Kyrsten Sinema called “mean-spirited,” defining domestic partners as unable to collect benefits as state employees.  The bill changed the state’s definition of the term “dependent” to mean “a spouse under the laws of this state.”

In a short interview with GayPolitics, Rep. Sinema had strong words about the discriminatory bill, stating that “In 2006, Arizonans sent a clear message when they voted to protect domestic partnerships and partner benefits.”  Sinema continued, “Some Arizona leaders have acted in contrary to the will of the people, approving a bill that really negatively affects us all.”

Back in 2006, Arizona became the first state to defeat an anti-marriage amendment, largely because the far-reaching language of the amendment stripped domestic partner benefits beyond LGBT couples.

Now, this regressive legislation has caught more than LGBT couples in its fire.  The bill, much like Arkansas’s adoption ban which barred “unmarried couples,” catches heterosexual couples in its broad net, as well.  Children of heterosexual state employees registered as domestic partners will no longer be able to collect benefits either, stripping a large number of college-aged young Arizonans of health care benefits.

Sinema went on to explain that while the bill was passed ostensibly to cut costs, the new wave of uninsured Arizonans will actually end up costing the state more.

“We warned then and it has proven true today that this kind of discriminatory law would present dangerous, far-reaching consequences for all Arizonans,” she said.

Arizona state representative and Victory Fund endorsee Kyrsten Sinema wrote an article for the Arizona Daily Star questioning John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee.

In a response to an item written by Arizona Rep. Jonathan Paton claiming that Palin cures the Republican Party from the plagues of scandal, spending and war, Sinema notes that while it’s hard to pin any responsibility on Palin for the war, she definitely has her share of excessive spending and scandal.

Now, spending Palin’s got plenty of – she raised taxes to pay for a sports venue in Alaska, and has done more than her fair share of lobbying for Washington pork. She’s also got that little flip flop issue on the Bridge to Nowhere – she supported it, then bashed it. Which one is her real opinion?

And scandal – well, it looks like she’s got plenty of that as well. The investigation into her adminstration’s actions regarding the ex-brother-in-law will be interesting. And her participation in the Alaska Independence Party’s activities (whose platform includes secession from the US) is raising eyebrows around the country right now.

Sarah Palin appears to be a decent person. But we don’t know much about her, of course, since she came to the VP nomination out of nowhere. My largest concern about her nomination is really less about her and more about McCain. Did he make this choice in one afternoon? Or two? Did he draw her name out of a hat after scuttling Lieberman as too liberal?

It’s a risky choice. She’s got plenty of liabilities to offset her evangelical credentials (which is presumably why he picked her). I wonder what will happen next – will things quiet down, or will Palin as the VP become a bigger and bigger story?

Arizona State Representative and Victory endorsee Kyrsten Sinema participated in a call-in event conducted by the Human Rights Campaign to report on John McCain’s record on LGBT issues.

Sinema, who is openly bisexual, asserted that while McCain has a reputation as a “maverick” who won’t conform to his party’s standards, his record indicates that he has grown more conservative over the past few years and has had a poor voting record on gay bills.

“Sen. McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have rewritten discrimination into our Constitution, but his position on equality for same-sex couples is no different than that of President Bush and the conservative right,” Sinema said. “The same year Sen. McCain voted against the FMA, he worked to oppose equal rights in his home state of Arizona by appearing in a television advertisement in support of a constitutional amendment that not only would have banned same-sex marriage, but also would have taken away existing benefits and legal protections for unmarried families.”

HRC’s report, available at www.hrc.org/mccain, indicates that he cast a deciding vote against the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, voted against the inclusion of sexual orientation into federal hate crimes legislation three times and is a proponent of the discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Sinema also discussed McCain’s active role in supporting an Arizona state ballot initiative to put a constitutional ban on marriage equality, even appearing in a television ad in support of the ill-fated Proposition 107.

Even after openly bisexual Arizona legislator Kyrsten Sinema helped successfully orchestrate a move to sideline a ballot question writing anti-gay discrimination into the state’s constitution, the issue of banning gay marriage has once again presented itself to the state legislature.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, opponents of a new proposed ban on marriage equality claim that unmarried straight couples may feel the impact of the marriage ban as well. This same argument successfully helped defeat Arizona’s marriage ban question in 2006.

Some onlookers claim that the new ban language could endanger domestic partnership and civil union benefits given by some municipalities. A state statute already bans gay people from marrying.

The Daily Star reports:

But Equality Arizona, an organization that lobbies for gay and lesbian rights, is arguing that the amendment — sponsored by state Sen. Tim Bee, R-Tucson — might go even farther than current law.

Since the proposal states, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state,” the groups will argue “union” could be applied to more than just marriage.

“Essentially, this amendment could take away rights from unmarried couples, gay or straight,” said Sam Holdren, public-affairs director for Equality Arizona.

“We don’t know how a court in Arizona will ultimately decide.”

Others — including those on both sides of the argument — say Equality Arizona’s argument is unsound.

Among them is state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, an openly bisexual Phoenix Democrat who led the 2006 campaign against Proposition 107.

“As an attorney myself, I can tell you that their statement and their argument is inaccurate,” said Sinema.

The successful effort Sinema led in 2006 almost totally ignored the effect that measure would have on gay couples, instead focusing on straight couples.

Peter Gentala, general council for the Center for Arizona Policy, which is pushing the measure, said proponents have no plans to target domestic partnerships with this new effort.

“Whether it’s from Equality Arizona, or whatever the eventual opposition to the new marriage amendment will be, there’s definitely going to be attempts to confuse the issues,” Gentala said.

“Opponents of this really don’t want the voters to consider the definition of marriage in a straight up or down situation — they prefer to drag in other issues,” he said.

Days after devising a legislative maneuver that effectively killed Arizona’s proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is making headlines again by spearheading a petition drive to forbid employers from discriminating against the LGBT community.

According to the East Valley Tribune, Sinema’s initiative would add gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation to the state’s existing discrimination law. She would need to collect more than 150,000 signatures by July to place the issue on the ballot.

While Sinema said she’ll drop the petition drive if the supporters of the constitutional ban on marriage equality abandon their efforts, such a course of events is unlikely.

The paper reports:

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, also said she intends to push ahead with trying to get lawmakers to put the marriage amendment on the ballot.

“No deal,” she said.

“The people of Arizona need to decide the definition of marriage and put it in our state constitution,” Herrod said. “We don’t compromise on an issue like marriage between one man and one woman.”

Sinema said that’s fine with her. She said the law needs to be changed anyway.

“Right now, not all workers are protected under Arizona law,” she said.