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.”
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
Bisbee was the first in Arizona to approve civil unions, with Tucson, Jerome
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!
“We’re a small town, and we’re supposed to be behind the times,” said board
member Dina Dantowiz. “But here we are pushing something forward before
Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe.”
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 he was contacted by residents of
Cottonwood who suggested it should have been referred to voters. He agreed.
“I personally as a state legislator would feel a little uncomfortable putting
forward a bill that changed social norms,” he said. “And I just don’t think
that’s really appropriate at the city level, the county level, the state