Christine Bronson
Arizona Department of Administration
100 N. 15 th Ave., Suite 261
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Christine.bronson@azdoa.gov

December 28, 2007

Re: Proposed Rule Change: Domestic Partnership Benefits for Arizona State Employees

Dear Ms. Bronson,

United Families Arizona (UFA), an Arizona non-profit organization representing over 10,000 citizens, is concerned over the Department's decision to propose rule changes regarding domestic partner benefits for Arizona State Employees.

The newly proposed rules, dated November 30, 2007, are of concern for more than one reason. First, they violate the Arizona Constitution by instituting large additional spending and profound public policy changes that only the legislature has power to authorize. Second, the proposed rule change directly undermines marriage and its role in the health of our society.

The proposed rules authorize additional spending by way of adding “domestic partners” and their children as potential “dependents .” Additionally, the new definition of “dependents” is a broad policy change not authorized by the state legislature. If this truly is a needed policy change, then the legislature should take it up for debate and decision making by elected officials, not by an appointed agency head.

In addition to running afoul of the Constitution, the proposed rule changes are bad policy that sidesteps government's role in promoting a healthy society. The current policy regarding the definition of “dependents” authorized by the state legislature honors the marriage commitment over other relationships. The most important investment that government can make is in good public policy that promotes and sustains successful marriages; anything less is detrimental to the health and longevity to society. The proposed rule changes openly give incentives for not being married, and directly undercut the state's prior investment in the protections marriage offers.

The following social science evidence proves that government should and must have a role in promoting healthy committed marriages.

• A British study found that children living with cohabiting biological parents who are unmarried are 20 times more likely to be abused and children whose mother lives with a boyfriend who is not the biological father are 33 times more likely to be abused than children living with married biological parents.

  Robert Whelan, “Broken Homes and Battered Children, 1993. Patrick Fagan and Kirk Johnson, “Marriage: The Safest place for Women and Children,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder Report no. 1535, 10 April, 2002, p. 3.

• A national study on drug abuse found that adolescents age 12-17 who live with their married biological parents are the least likely to use illicit drugs.  Adolescents who lived with their father only or with their father and step-mother are the most likely to use marijuana or other illicit drugs.
  
  John Hoffmann and Robert Johnson, “A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (August 1998): 633-645.

• “There are few things I know for certain, but here is one: All societies need a critical mass of healthy marriages in order to function well, and when societies lose that critical mass, they will forever be seeking new programs and services to cope with the ever increasing social problems that result from its absence.”
  
  Wade Horn, “My Family Story,” The World Congress of Families III, March 29-31, 2004 Mexico City. (Assistant secretary for Children and Families, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, U.S. Government)

The new policy will not only be detrimental to Arizona families and society, but will also increase future state costs to welfare programs, prison budgets and benefits for state employees as shown by the JLBC's fiscal note. This increase, especially during a horrendous budget shortfall that may result in even more of a future deficit is not only irresponsible, but is careless and disconcerting to taxpayers and those who represent them.

UFA asks that the Director reconsider proposing rule changes and instead requests that the Director use the legislature process – both through policy change and budgetary consideration. The constitutional separation of powers demands this consideration. The Executive branch of government does not make law. Elected representatives are empowered to make and debate laws.

Sincerely,

Jason and Shelice Millett

Co-Presidents of United Families Arizona

.

.

.

.

.

.