FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — The City of Cottonwood has joined a handful of Arizona communities in approving civil unions.
The City Council voted 6-1 Tuesday in favor of an ordinance that would allow couples to enter into a legal, domestic partnership without regard to gender. Vice Mayor Karen Pfeifer cast the dissenting vote.
Cottonwood already prohibited discrimination among city employees based on sexual orientation. But the benefits afforded to city employees in domestic partnerships didn’t extend to all residents.
“It’s something communities are looking at to treat their citizens equally, and leadership (is) standing up and saying equality is important in our communities,” Cottonwood Mayor Diane Joens said Wednesday. “I think it’s as simple as that.”
Never Miss a Beat
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
The ordinance that goes into effect in 30 days closely models one approved by Sedona. The provisions include a registration process, and couples can file a list of documents such as custody agreements and powers of attorney with the city if they wish. Those in civil unions with a city employee also would be on par with spouses when it comes to accessing employment benefits, such as health insurance.
Bisbee was the first in Arizona to approve civil unions, with Tucson, Jerome, Sedona and Clarkdale following.
Some residents of the Verde Valley cited religious beliefs in opposing Cottonwood’s ordinance, and business owners and a church pastor questioned whether they would be subject to a lawsuit for denying services to same-sex couples in a civil union. The city responded by saying that nothing in the ordinance would make a lawsuit more likely.
Members of the gay community focused on civil and human rights in their effort to get the ordinance approved. Shortly after the vote, the Sedona/Verde Valley Pride group posted this on its Facebook page: “BAM! And just like that! EQUALITY WINS.”
Article continues below
Republican state Rep. Bob Thorpe, of Flagstaff, questioned whether the ordinance was needed as a problem-solving mechanism and whether the city government should even consider it. He said the question should have been referred to voters.
“It is not the right of an elected city, county or state official to take it upon themselves to create new social institutions, or to redefine long established social institutions,” Thorpe wrote in a letter that was read at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
