Arizona LGBT Laws

On 22 May 2018, the Court of Appeals rejected claims by Renee Loncar, who worked for the state, that she should be entitled to death benefits following the death of her live-in partner Christopher Kutcher, ruling that heterosexual couples who have always had the right to marry in Arizona are not entitled to the same benefits that the state provided to gay couples who were not at the time entitled to wed [C1.2], [R1.1].

On 11 March 2019, the state Senate voted 19-10 in favour of Senate Bill 1346 and Governor Doug Ducey signed it minutes later. The Bill repeals a controversial 28-year-old law prohibiting HIV and AIDS instruction that ”promotes a homosexual lifestyle” [R1.2].

On 10 April 2019, the House voted 55-5 in favor of a bill repealing a controversial 28-year-old law prohibiting HIV and AIDS instruction that ”promotes a homosexual lifestyle”. The Bill needs Senate approval before going to Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk [R1.1].

On 01 January 2011, State health coverage was cut for heterosexuals, but not gays. The new federal health-care law and a court ruling [R4.1] forced the State to continue covering adult children and gay partners of state employees, leaving unmarried opposite-sex partners the only class impacted by the cuts. [R1.4].

See also 4: Courts & Tribunals below at R4.4, R4.5, C4.6.

Previously:

In June 2010, the University of Arizona announced plans to overlook a bill signed by Gov. Jan Brewer, which revoked domestic-partnership benefits for state employees [R1.3].

In September 2009, Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill into law that would rescind health benefits to domestic partners of approximately 800 state employees, redefining a dependent so as to exclude domestic partners, children of domestic partners, disabled adult dependents, and children of state workers older than 23 years old who are full-time students [R1.2].

However, see 5. Courts & Tribunals at R4.1-4, below.

On 01 April 2008, taxpayer-subsidized health coverage for the domestic partners of state employees and retirees was approved by the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council. Employees are be able to sign up for benefits as of 01 October 2008 [R1.1].

The Pima County Attorney filed suit challenging the provision of health benefits insurance to the domestic partners of county employees and the country employees successfully intervened, represented by Lambda [C2.1].

On 14 December 2013, Cottonwood City Council was reported to be likely to approve a new Ordinance 604, amending the city code to provide for a new Title 16 Civil Unions on 17 December 2013 [R3.15].

On 24 September 2013, Sedona City Council voted 5-2 to allow civil unions regardless of gender. AB 1664 provisions include a registration process and a city-maintained list of agreements that couples wish to register [R3.14].

On 30 July 2013, Jerome Council adopted an ordinance enabling couples that file for civil unions to be eligible to receive partner benefits like health insurance. A fee of $73 applies [R3.13].

On 25 June 2013, Bisbee City Council gave final 5-2 approval to Ordinance O-13-08 recognizing same-sex and heterosexual couples who want to have legal status for their partnership within the city limits. The Ordinance takes effect in 30 days. Civil Union Certificates will cost $75.00 [R3.12].

On 18 June 2013, Tucson City Council approved 6-0 with 1 absentee, an ordinance that allows for domestic partnerships and civil unions between same-sex couples. Same-sex couples will have the right to file contracts of inheritance rights, power of attorney, and living wills, among others [R3.11].

On 04 June 2013, the Bisbee City Council voted 5-2 to approve a new version of Ordinance O-13-08 under which people who are in civil unions recognized only within the city of Bisbee could file contractual statements spelling out their agreed-upon “rights, obligations and expectations” in matters such as inheritances, property ownership and children. Such agreements “may require additional documentation and other formalities” to make them effective under state law [R3.10].

On 29 May 2013, under a unanimous Tucson City Council decision, an ordinance will be prepared for a council vote this summer providing civil-union certificates to couples who cannot marry and allowing them to record contracts defining their relationships [R3.9].

On 21 May 2013, the Bisbee City Council voted 5-2 to formally propose a scaled-back version of Ordinance O-13-08 that would legalize civil unions for same-sex couples. That sets the stage for a 04 June vote by the council on whether to approve the measure. Under the new version, people entered into civil unions recognized only within the city of Bisbee could file contractual statements spelling out their agreed-upon “rights, obligations and expectations” in matters such as inheritances, property ownership and children [R3.8].

On 02 April 2013, Bisbee City Council members voted 5-2 to add a section to the city charter that clears the way for civil unions in their town regardless of the sexual orientation. State Attorney General Tom Horne will likely challenge the ordinance as unconsitutional [R3.7].

On 06 December 2011, Flagstaff City Council unanimously approved the creation of a domestic partner registry that would allow couples to visit each other in hospitals and clinics, to give the same rights granted to spouses at city facilities and to serve as a form of identification to demonstrate a domestic partnership to other government agencies, employers and businesses [R3.6].

On 19 May 2009, the Flagstaff City Council passed Ordinance No. 2009-12 amending the City of Flagstaff Personnel Policies Section by adding domestic partners [R3.5].

On 15 September 2003, the Tucson City Council unanimously approved a domestic partner registry, giving registered couples the right to visit partners in health-care facilities in the city and qualify for city discounts, such as family rates at recreational facilities [R3.4]. The Registry opened 1 December 2003 [R3.3].

The ordinance defines a domestic partnership as two people not related by blood closer than would bar marriage, not already in a marriage or recognized domestic partnership, 18 or older and competent to enter into a contract, who declare they are each other’s sole domestic partner, who share a primary residence, are in a relationship of mutual support and declare that they intend to remain in such for the indefinite future.

To register, couples must fill out a form in the city Finance Department and pay $50.

In 1997, Tucson passed a law approving same-sex health and dental domestic partner employee benefits [R3.2] .

Some other Arizona municipalities (Scottsdale 2001, Tempe 1999) also offer domestic partner benefits to their employees [R3.1].

On 22 May 2018, the Court of Appeals rejected claims by Renee Loncar, who worked for the state, that she should be entitled to death benefits following the death of her live-in partner Christopher Kutcher, ruling that heterosexual couples who have always had the right to marry in Arizona are not entitled to the same benefits that the state provided to gay couples who were not at the time entitled to wed [C4.12], [R4.11].

On 27 June 2013, the US Supreme Court denied certiorari (declined to hear) the appeal of a preliminary injunction in Brewer v. Diaz, keeping a voter-approved ban on such benefits from going into effect. So state employees will continue receiving domestic-partner benefits while the challenge to the ban proceeds through the courts [D4.10], [R4.9].

On 24 September 2012, the US Supreme Court distributed the case of Janice K. Brewer v. Joseph R. Diaz for a conference of the justices meeting privately that will decide whether the full Court will review the case [C4.8], [R4.7].

On 02 July 2012, lawyers for the state filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is essentially an appeal, asking the US Supreme Court to overturn lower courts’ rulings (in Diaz v. Brewer) that the state cannot take away state workers’ same-sex domestic partner benefits [C4.6], [R4.5].

On 03 April 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an application for an “en banc” review of the three-judge panel’s ruling that upheld a district court’s preliminary injunction in a case involving domestic partnership benefits for Arizona state employees [R4.4].

Previously:

On 06 September 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction that blocked a 2009 state law from taking effect. That law would have eliminated health-insurance coverage for the same-sex partners of state workers. The court ruled that denying the benefits would violate the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution [R4.3].

On 14 February 2011, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco was scheduled to hear the appeal in Collins v. Brewer (10-16797) against a law barring gay couples from signing up their domestic partners and children for family health insurance coverage [R4.2].

On 23 July 2010, U.S. District Judge John Sedwick issued a preliminary injunction blocking the State from implementing a state law that eliminates domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian state employees [R4.1].

The State is appealing the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals [R1.3].

Arizona does not have a State law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in the areas accommodation, education, provision of goods and services and disposal of land, clubs and club members, sport and local government [R1.8].

On 26 February 2014, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062 allowing anyone to refuse services to anyone, for any reason including being LGBTI, as long as religious belief violations are claimed [R1.7].

On 20 February 2014, the House passed 33-27 and the Senate passed 17-13 House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062 that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers based on religious beliefs. The bill’s fate is now up to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer [R1.6].

On 04 February 2014, the Committee on Government passed 5-2 HB2153 that would, were it to become law, give individuals and the businesses they own more rights to refuse to provide services based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. The measure needs approval of the full House before going to the Senate [R1.5].

In June 2003, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed an executive order that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation in state agencies [R1.4].

A petition was been filed in the Arizona Supreme Court challenging the legality of the order but the Court refused to hear the challenge [R1.3].

On 31 January 2001, the Senate Commerce Committee voted to make it illegal for companies that do business here to discriminate against workers and job applicants based on their sexual orientation or gender identity [R1.1].

The 4–2 vote on the measure (HB2319) [L1.2] came after Sen. Elaine Richardson, D-Tucson, pleaded with colleagues to expand existing laws that already make it illegal for companies to discriminate based on age, sex, race, religion, handicap and national origin [R1.1].

Some municipalities have civil rights ordinances, policies, or proclamations prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination [R1.1].

On 08 September 2015, City of Sedona Council approved 7-0 Ordinance 2015-10 that amends Title 9 of the Sedona City Code Regarding Human Relations by adding Chapter 9.30 protecting LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace, housing and public accommodations [R2.8].

On 26 August 2014, voters in Tempe approved a proposition to change the city charter to ban discrimination against LGBT municipal workers. Future city councils would require voter approval to rescind the protections [R2.7].

On 27 February 2014, Tempe City Council enacted an ordinance banning anti-LGBT discrimination in housing, employment, and service in places like restaurants and hotels [R2.6].

On 26 February 2013, Phoenix city council passed 5–3 an ordinance that extended citywide protections in housing, employment, and public accomodations to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and disabilities [R2.5].

On 19 February 2013, Flagstaff City Council unanimously approved the city’s first civil rights Ordinance (No. 2013-08: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending Flagstaff City Code Title 14, Human Relations, by adding Chapter 2, Civil Rights), creating legal protections for sexual orientation, gender identity and military veterans in the areas of employment and public accommodations. A second and final read of the proposed ordinance is expected in two weeks. [R2.4].

On 26 February 2013, Phoenix City Council was expected to vote on a proposal to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, which includes those who identify as a different sex than they were born as. The changes would prohibit discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations, such as restaurants and hotels [R2.3].

On 07 February 1977, the Tucson Mayor and Council unanimously voted to approve an ordinance protecting the rights of Gays and Lesbians in employment, housing and public accommodation. Over the years, this ordinance has been updated to include Transgendered citizens as well [L2.2], [R2.1].

On 21 November 2018, it was reported that the Arizona Supreme Court had agreed to hear arguments in the case filed by Brush & Nib Studios’ regarding the City of Phoenix nondiscrimination ordinance. The case will likely be heard in 2019 [R3.9].

On 07 June 2018, the Arizona Court of Appeal upheld a Phoenix anti-discrimination law that makes it illegal for businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples because of religion. The Court sided with the City of Phoenix in a lawsuit first brought in 2016 by Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio a wedding invitation business, saying the ordinance is constitutional and does not violate freedom of religion or speech. The Court did not address the larger issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people [C3.8], [R3.7].

On 24 October 2017, the Honourable Karen A Mullins in the Superior Court of Arizona quashed the attempt by evangelical Christians Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio’s, to override a Phoenix ordinance that protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination. The owners alleged the city’s ordinance would compel them to create invitations or artwork for same-sex couples, which would conflict with their religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman and violate their freedoms of speech and religion [C3.6], [R3.5].

On 19 September 2016, Judge Karen A Mullins in the Superior Court of Arizona filed an Under Advisement Ruling denying the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction of the plaintiffs Brush & Nib Studio L C, et al. The plaintiffs challenged the Phoenix ordinance making it illegal for people to discriminate based on sexual orientation in public places, the work place and housing, seeking to exempt them from being forced to create products (wedding invitations) that are used in a same-sex wedding. The Court also denied the Motion to Dismiss of the defendant City of Phoenix [C3.4], [R3.3].

In March 2008, a US appeals court ruled Arizona-based website Roommates.com was prohibited from asking users to disclose their sexual orientation [R3.2].

In 2002, the Arizona Supreme Court revised its Rule 42, adding to comment D, of ethical rule 8.4, which addresses professional misconduct by lawyers [R3.1].

The revision makes it an ethical violation for any Arizona lawyer to show intentionally “by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability age, sexual orientation or socio-economic status” [R3.1].

On 08 June 2013, a Bill (SB 1432 [L1.4]) that sought to undo a transgender protections ordinance in Phoenix was reported to have been shelved by its sponsor Representative John Kavanagh [R1.3].

On 27 March 2013, the House committee voted 7–4 to advance SB 1045, the so-called “bathroom bill” with revisions to shield businesses from civil or criminal liability if they ban people from restrooms that don’t match their birth sex [D1.2], [R1.1].

On 26 February 2013, Phoenix city council passed 5–3 an ordinance that extended citywide protections in housing, employment, and public accomodations to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and disabilities [R2.1].

On 25 April 2019, the State Supreme Court ruled that family courts have the authority to determine the type of care a child can receive, but only in limited circumstances, in a case that centered on a divorced couple who disagreed on how to care for their child with gender dysphoria, saying ”When an impasse occurs, the court is authorized to determine not only the parenting plan element in dispute, but also ‘other factors that are necessary to promote and protect the emotional and physical health of the child”’. The case was remanded to the family court with the directive that any future directives be narrowly tailored and supported by evidence that harm is imminent for the child [C3.2], [R3.1].

Sexual orientation is included in the Arizona hate crimes data collection laws and not in hate crimes penalty laws.

On 01 August 2017, the Pima County Board of Supervisors reportedly approved a resolution banning paid sexual orientation ”conversion therapy” for minors, restricting ”sexual orientation change efforts to change behaviors, sexual or gender identities or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards persons of the same sex” [R1.1].

On 11 March 2019, the state Senate voted 19-10 in favour of Senate Bill 1346 and Governor Doug Ducey signed it minutes later. The Bill repeals a controversial 28-year-old law prohibiting HIV and AIDS instruction that ”promotes a homosexual lifestyle” [R1.4].

On 10 April 2019, the House voted 55-5 in favor of a bill repealing a controversial 28-year-old law prohibiting HIV and AIDS instruction that ”promotes a homosexual lifestyle”. The Bill needs Senate approval before going to Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk [R1.3].

On 23 January 2013, Representative Lena Alston introduced Bill HB2218 that would – if passed into law — make it a felony to intentionally expose someone to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases [L1.2], [R1.1].

In October 2005, an administrative law judge ruled that an HIV-positive Phoenix woman can’t be denied a lifesaving liver transplant paid for by taxpayers because of her health status [R2.1].

On 08 May 2001, the criminal laws in Arizona prohibiting consensual sex between same-sex couples [L1.2] were repealed [R1.1].

On 22 March 2019, it was reported that the Senate unanimously passed a Bill that would get rid of marriage licenses because some judges in the state don’t want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Bill has been introduced in previous legislative sessions however it has regularly not progressed in the House of Representatives [R1.5].

In November 2008, a ballot measure to ban gay marriage was passed in Arizona [R1.4].

Previously:

In July 2008, Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona announced her opposition this week to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage [R1.3].

In 2006, Arizona voters made their state the only one to ever defeat a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage [R1.2].

In 1996, the Anti-Marriage Bill was adopted making marriage between people of the same sex “unlawful” and preventing recognition of lawful marriages performed in other states [R1.1].

House Bill 106 was introduced by Rep. Jeff Groscost (R). The measure was initially blocked by substitution of general “family value” language in place of the anti-marriage provision. The Bill was latter revived and passed through the House.

On 05 May 1996, as Senate Bill 1038 the measure was passed by the Senate and signed into law by Governor Symington (R).

On 24 October 2017, the Honourable Karen A Mullins in the Superior Court of Arizona quashed the attempt by evangelical Christians Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio’s, to override a Phoenix ordinance that protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination. The owners alleged the city’s ordinance would compel them to create invitations or artwork for same-sex couples, which would conflict with their religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman and violate their freedoms of speech and religion [C2.12], [R2.11].

On 25 October 2017, it was reported that the Ak-Chin tribal court had ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the constitution of the Ak-Chin community and the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 [R2.10].

On 22 June 2017, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Liza Michelle Oakley same-sex spouse of Heather Lynn Turner who gave birth to the child C.T. is not entitled to a presumption she is a parent, because Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-814, is gender-specific and cannot be applied to – or rewritten by the courts to apply to – women [C2.19], [R2.18].

On 19 September 2016, Judge Karen A Mullins in the Superior Court of Arizona filed an Under Advisement Ruling denying the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction of the plaintiffs Brush & Nib Studio L C, et al. The plaintiffs challenged the Phoenix ordinance making it illegal for people to discriminate based on sexual orientation in public places, the work place and housing, seeking to exempt them from being forced to create products (wedding invitations) that are used in a same-sex wedding. The Court also denied the Motion to Dismiss of the defendant City of Phoenix [C2.17], [R2.16].

On 16 October 2014, Judge John W Sedwick in the US District Court declared in two cases that the State constitution denying same-sex couples the equal protection of the law and right to marriage unconstitutional and ordered the state to permanently cease enforcement of those provisions. The judge also declined to effect a stay noting the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals binding precedent striking down bans in Idaho and Nevada [C2.15], [C2.14], [R2.13].

On 12 September 2014, US District Judge John Sedwick allowed Fred McQuire to be listed on his deceased spouse’s death certificate, perhaps qualifying him to receive Social Security and veteran benefits. Fred McQuire and George Martinez were married in California [C2.12], [R2.11].

On 13 August 2014, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that f2m transgender Thomas Beatie’s marriage to Nancy Beatie in Hawaii in 2003 is considered valid in Arizona and concluded it wasn’t a same-sex union and he could continue to pursue a divorce [C2.10], [R2.9].

On 06 January 2014, private lawyers in Arizona filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of four same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry and respect for their out-of-state marriages in Arizona [C2.8], [R2.7].

On 29 March 2013, Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach ruled that Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriages prevents Thomas Beatie’s nine-year marriage from being recognised as valid and there was no jurisdiction to approve a divorce, there being insufficient evidence that Mr Beatie was a man when he married [R2.6].

On 07 December 2012 (quaere) Maricopa County Family Court Judge Douglas Gerlach questioned whether the state’s same-sex marriage ban bars him from ending transgender male Thomas (previously Tracy Lehuanani Lagondino) and Nancy Beatie’s union – or even recognizing its validity. The matter is scheduled to be heard on 31 January 2013 [C2.5], [R2.4].

In May 2004, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the state’s so-called Defense of Marriage Act that bans gay unions [R2.3].

Previously:

In November 2003, a homosexual Phoenix couple were reportedly to ask the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriages [R2.2].

In October 2003, a unanimous three-judge panel of the State Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriages, ruling that the fundamental right to marry “does not encompass the right to marry a same-sex partner” [R2.1].

There is no statutory ban preventing single gay men and lesbians adopting children in Arizona. There is no clear prohibition on joint adoption and second-parent adoption is allowed in some areas.

On 22 April 2015, Gov. Doug Ducey issued a statement that effective immediately, married same-sex couples will be allowed to adopt and foster Arizona children together [R1.5].

On 13 April 2015, Governor Doug Ducey vetoed House Bill 2296 that would have given county attorneys the option instead of a mandate to help with uncontested adoptions [R1.4].

On 18 April 2011, Governor Jan Brewer signed SB1188 into law requiring state-funded and private adoption agencies to give primary consideration to adoptive placement with a married man and woman, with all other criteria being equal, and to consider other factors, including possible placement with relatives, or the wishes of children 12 or older [R1.3].

Previously:

On 12 April 2011, the legislature approved SB1188 giving married couples a tie-breaker preference over singles for state-arranged adoptions if all other criteria are equal. The Bill is yet to be signed by Governor Jan Brewer [R1.2].

Arizona Revised Statutes: Title 8 Children, Chapter 1 Adoption, Article 1 General Provisions [L1.1]

§8–103 Who May Adopt

Any adult resident of this state, whether married, unmarried or legally separated is eligible to qualify to adopt children. A husband and wife may jointly adopt children.

On 25 April 2019, the State Supreme Court ruled that family courts have the authority to determine the type of care a child can receive, but only in limited circumstances, in a case that centered on a divorced couple who disagreed on how to care for their child with gender dysphoria, saying ”When an impasse occurs, the court is authorized to determine not only the parenting plan element in dispute, but also ‘other factors that are necessary to promote and protect the emotional and physical health of the child”’. The case was remanded to the family court with the directive that any future directives be narrowly tailored and supported by evidence that harm is imminent for the child [C2.14], [R2.13].

On 26 February 2018, the US Supreme Court denied certiorari so declining to take up an appeal of a case where the Arizona Supreme Court found that lesbian woman Suzan McLaughlin should be recognized as the legal parent of the child she and her former wife conceived through artificial insemination during their marriage [C2.12], [R2.11].

On 16 January 2018, it was reported that the Kimberly McLaughlin v. The Honorable Lori B Jones, et al. parental rights case was being appealed to the US Supreme Court [R2.10].

On 19 September 2017, the majority in the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Suzan McLaughlin, the spouse of a gay Tucson woman Kimberly McLaughlin, who gave birth to baby boy E, is entitled to the same parental rights as if she had been a man, even when though not ”biologically related” to the child [C2.9], [R2.8].

On 22 June 2017, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Liza Michelle Oakley same-sex spouse of Heather Lynn Turner who gave birth to the child C.T. is not entitled to a presumption she is a parent, because Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-814, is gender-specific and cannot be applied to – or rewritten by the courts to apply to – women [C2.7], [R2.6].

On 19 April 2017, the Arizona Supreme Court reportedly ordered a review as to whether Suzan McLaughlin, the same-sex spouse of Kimberly McLaughlin who gave birth a child through artificial insemination using an anonymous sperm donor, is entitled to the same parental presumptions and rights as if she were a man [R2.5]. (See below).

On 11 October 2016, the Court of Appeals ruled that Suzan McLaughlin, the same-sex spouse of biological mother Kimberley McLaughlin, who bore a child to them through artificial insemination using an anonymour sperm doner, is entitled to the same legal parental presumptions and rights as if she were a man. Arizona law spells out that a man is presumed to be the father of a child if he and the mother were married at any time within 10 months immediately preceding the birth and this ruling now makes that law apply regardless of the other parent’s gender. The couple entered into a joint parenting agreement and executed mirror wills, declaring they were to be equal parents to the child [C2.4], [R2.3].

On 13 September 2016, in a 3-2 decision, the State Supreme Court defined “sexual contact” under the child molestation statute, A.R.S. § 13-1410(A), and the sexual abuse statute, A.R.S. § 13-1404(A), as “any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact”. Chief Justice Bales and Justice Brutinel dissented in part writing: ”Parents and other caregivers who have changed an infant’s soiled diaper or bathed a toddler will be surprised to learn that they have committed a class 2 or 3 felony” by ”intentionally or knowingly” touching the genitals or anus of a child or the breast of a female younger than fifteen [C2.2], [R2.1].

In April 2011, Gov. Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2415, which requires public school districts to define and prohibit bullying, harassment, cyberbullying and intimidation. The law also requires written accounts of reported incidents, documentation for at least six years and easy access to reporting forms and resources available to students.

Arizona Revised Statutes. Title 15 – Education [L1.3].

Article 3. Powers and Duties of School District Governing Boards

Section 15-341. General powers and duties; immunity; delegation

37. Prescribe and enforce policies and procedures to prohibit pupils from harassing, intimidating and bullying other pupils on school grounds, on school property, on school buses, at school bus stops, at school sponsored events and activities and through the use of electronic technology or electronic communication on school computers, networks, forums and mailing lists …

In December 2010, activist Caleb Laieski notified officials at every school in Arizona that they must put a stop to bullying, or else he plans to file a lawsuit [R1.2].

In September 2000, a new law protects gay victims of domestic violence. Defendant and victim don’t have to be of opposite sex. That means the law not only affects gay and lesbian couples who live together, but also roommates – no matter what the gender, no matter how long ago [R1.1].

In April 2004, a federal appeals court upheld the firing of a boss who continually made homophobic comments to a lesbian employee and who tried to get her to go to a fundamentalist church “to be cured” [R2.1].

The 9th Circuit Court ruled that the supervisor had failed to show she had been ill treated by the company and in a written decision noted that she had admitted violating the company’s harassment policy [R2.1].