Alaska High Court Backs Partner Benefits

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Alaska-Gay-Benefits.html

October 28, 2005
Alaska High Court Backs Partner Benefits
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:55 p.m. ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday it was unconstitutional to bar benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees.

In overturning a lower court's ruling, the state high court said ''the public employers' spousal limitations violate the Alaska Constitution's equal protection clause.''

..a little more at link....

wonder how long it will take the fundies to change the state constitution up there

The Alaska constitution has already BEEN amended to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. The court found this unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause: straight couples can get benefits because they're married, but gay couples can't get the same benefits because they CAN'T get married. And I read that the governor is livid and wants to get this overturned, even though it was a unanimous decision! LOL They never stop, do they?

Absolutely the icing on the Fitzmas cake!

Now Alaska Supreme Court Justices are selected via what is called the "Missouri" System (So named for Missouri was the first state to selected its Supreme Court justice this way). The Governor selects a name off a list provided to him and then that person is subject to a Retention vote.

Please note in 1959 and 1960 when Alaska and then Hawaii were admitted as States, the belief was Hawaii would produce Two REPUBLICAN Senators and Alaska would produce two DEMOCRATIC Senators. Tell you how things have changed since 1960 when Hawaii is a Solid Democratic State and Alaska is almost as Republican. Also read the decision all it covers is Government Benefits Provided by the State of Local Governments of Alaska NOT marriage or any thing more.

The present Alaskan Supreme Court is made of the following (3 Democrats, 2 Republican):n

http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ctinfo.htm
1. Chief Justice Alexander O. Bryner, Appointed by a Democratic Governor and had served a the US Attorney For Alaska by Jimmy Carter, so probably a Democrat
2. Justice Warren W. Matthews, Appointed by a Republican Governor.
3. Justice Robert L. Eastaugh was appointed by an "Independent" Governor who in the last year of his Governorship became a Republican.
4. Justice Dana Fabe, Appointed by a Democratic Governor
5. Justice Walter L. Carpeneti, another Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Supreme_Court
http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ctinfo.htm

Here is the Decision if you want to read it:
http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sp-5950.pdf

Now this Decision Scares me, for the Court to get around Alaska's Constitutional requirement that Marriage is between a man and a woman only, it could NOT declare same sex marriage to be required but that Benefits can be given to same sex couples IF IT IS PROVIDED TO MARRIED COUPLES. By implication one way for municipalities can get around this ruling is just to WITHDRAW BENEFITS FOR SPOUSES. That would be perfectly legal under this ruling. Under the Common law a Spouse is NOT a heir to his or her Spouse (But is entitled to the Spousal Right or whatever your states calls what the Common law called Dowry and Cutesy Rights). Children were heirs but not spouses. Given the Traditional Common law rules and this ruling a Local Municipality can provide Benefits for someone's Children and then DENY such benefits to their employee's spouse AND STILL FULFILL THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS RULING.

There has been a gentle push to "Eliminate" marriage. Notice I use the term Eliminate not abolish. What appears to me is that employers want to be able to treat everyone as if they were single for marriage interferes with people moving from one part of the Country to another (The Spouse is generally working and thus often a hardship for both, for one has to give up his or her job). You need two incomes to make ends meet today but that second income means the spouse has to decide to quit her or his job or the marriage if the first spouse is told he or she has to move with her or his job. Prior to the 1970s this was NOT a problem for most wives did NOT work (or if they did work it was for "pin money", please note I use the term "Most" not all, in all periods of time women have worked often as the sole provider to their families). Since the 1970s this conflict has become more and more of a problem, especially for skilled professionals (The people Corporate American would most like to move around). I Suspect some people in Corporate America believe if you eliminate marriage, it would be easier to move their professional around, for their can always get a new paramour.

At the same time Corporate America knows that married men (or men in some sort of committed relationship) tend to stay on task longer and be more dedicated to keeping their jobs (They have a wife and family to support). Thus in many ways Corporate America want their male employees married but free to move. I believe they think that can be achieved by eliminating marriage so that people can leave a relationship Any time their employers want them to (of course at the employer's convenience not the employees).

Marriage has lasted a long time in Human History, it has evolved from two people living together, to the merger of two extended families, to the modern Nuclear family, but doing all of these changes the fact that marriage was a commitment between two parties to stay together with support of whatever society that couple is in has not changed. 94% of all adult humans form some sort of pair bond and it is this pair bond that Corporate America wants to destroy for it interferes with their ability to treat people as interchangeable parts.

Thus why I hate this decision. It basically asks the Local Municipalities of Alaska to eliminate Benefits for Spouses and blame that elimination on the Gay Community not the Business Community who wants to do the same thing. It is a truly Frightening Decision, hopefully none of the Municipalities will do what I fear they can do, and if that happens this decision will have minimal effect, but on the other hand I can see just one Municipality adopt the policy of no benefits to spouses and then another as the effect snowballs.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might get it. In this case you may see same sex couples being treated like married couples, with BOTH being cut off of benefits.

We could use some help.

.

.


Write (snail-mail), email, FAX, or telephone the Alaska Attorney General David W. Marquez. Tell him to let the ACLU, Carter, et al v. Alaska, et al (Alaska Supreme Court, docket #S-10459, October 28, 2005) case stand as is.

Here's a suggested letter to him:

Dear Attorney General David W. Marquez:

As a resident and voter of Alaska, I ask that you please let the ACLU, Carter, et al v. Alaska, et al (Alaska Supreme Court, docket #S-10459, October 28, 2005) decision stand as is. Do nothing. Do not challenge it in court or otherwise opine to over-turn it.

This ACLU Carter decision is fair to the gay community and fair to the heterosexual community as to employment benefits granted in the public employment sector in the State of Alaska.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

/signed/ (your real name here)
(your real address here)

Attorney General David W. Márquez
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
tel: (907) 465-2133
fax: (907) 465-2075
email: Attorney_General@law.state.ak.us

.

Activist Judges Activist Judges! :eyes: