One Governor’s Fight to Protect Marriage

Posted on November 2, 2005

What does it take to stop the ACLU from assaulting the sanctity of marriage? Apparently, more than an issue on a ballot. Voters in Alaska voting almost 2-1 to define marriage as between a man and woman, and courts there are now saying that their vote doesn’t matter, and they are legislating from the bench.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Defying the clear will of Alaska’s voters, who passed an amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the state’s supreme court ruled today that government employees in same-sex relationships are entitled to all the rights and benefits that are extended to married state workers.

“Alaska’s voters came out resoundingly for marriage, and not just in name only, by a greater than two-to-one margin,” said Glen Lavy, senior vice president of ADF’s Marriage Litigation Center. “Despite this, the state supreme court ruled that, for equal protection purposes, there is no difference between married couples and same-sex domestic partners.”

The ruling extends protection to a class of couples, with no ruling on sexual orientation discrimination. The court’s novel approach is very different from federal equal protection analysis, which protects individuals, not couples.

“Granting benefits is fine as long as they are granted on an equitable basis,” said Lavy. “However, the Alaska Supreme Court has created a special, state-sanctioned status for the purpose of granting benefits to a preferred group of single employees without extending those benefits to other unmarried state employees.”

Lavy explained that a risk of decisions like this is always possible unless state amendments include provisions that address marriage imitations.

“This terrible decision by the Alaska Supreme Court highlights the need for marriage protection amendments to go beyond simply defining marriage. Marriage amendments must also include language prohibiting any counterfeit marriage status,” Lavy said.

ADF-allied attorney Kevin Clarkson assisted in defense of the state statute at issue, and ADF provided funding for a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, American Civil Liberties Union v. State of Alaska. The full text of the opinion can be read at HERE- SOURCE

So now that one court has sided with the ACLU, what’s next? There’s always the option of appeal, and the Alliance Defense Fund will always continue working when the ACLU’s involved, but the Governor of Alaska has a different idea. Since the courts wouldn’t uphold the decision of the voters, he believes it may be nescessary to amend the Alaska State Constitution. The courts would then be bound to enforce it, since the State Constitution overrules state laws.

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - According to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski was right in calling for an amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit the state’s courts from mandating benefits for the same-sex partners of government employees.

“The court’s job is to interpret the law, not make it,” said Glen Lavy, senior vice president of ADF’s Marriage Litigation Center. “An amendment to the state constitution, such as the one suggested by Gov. Murkowski, would stop the ACLU and groups like them from using the courts to tear down marriage through the back door of so-called ‘domestic partnerships’ for a preferred group of single employees.”

Murkowski said he favors such an amendment in the wake of a ruling from the Alaska Supreme Courts Monday that granted government employees in same-sex relationships all the rights and benefits extended to married state workers.

“Homosexual advocacy groups have already attempted to use civil unions to undermine marriage in several different states. Now, the Alaska Supreme Court has, perhaps unwittingly, set its own state up for such challenges,” Lavy explained. SOURCE

Many, including myself, see this as the only way to stop activist courts from legislating from the bench on the national level too. If the courts will not respect the voters, then we will just need our elected officials to surpass the courts and add a Federal Marriage amendment. This Governor was right for calling for the sanctity of marriage.

REAL Teen is the founder of Right on the Right. He contributes to Stop the ACLU, Gribbit’s Word, Republican Voices, Conservative Spirit and Big Dog’s Weblog.

» Filed Under ACLU, Activist Judges, Homosexual Agenda, News

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “One Governor’s Fight to Protect Marriage”

Jay.Mac on November 2nd, 2005 1:17 pm

If ever proof were needed of the importance of getting good judges into the Supreme Court, this is it.

That a tiny number of black robed activists can so blatantly ignore the will of the people is outrageous.

The worst of it is, this isn’t the first time it’s happened.