Font Resize
In 1998, almost 70 percent of Alaskan voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage exclusively between a man and woman. Then, in October 2005, Alaska Supreme Court justices ruled state and local government officials had to provide the same-sex partners of state employees and retirees the same health insurance and other benefits their married counterparts' spouses received.
That measure had to be in place by January of this year. And, you'll remember, that's why former Governor Frank Murkowski called a special legislative session
"...and our Supreme Court obviously made a decision. Not only are you going to have a marriage between a man and a woman, but now you're going to have a class that has to have a mirror benefits package to a marriage," said John Coghill.
The Supreme Court justices' decision is what North Pole Republican Coghill says prompted him to push for a ballot measure asking if you think lawmakers should go through the process of putting a similar question on 2008's general election ballot.
"The problem of us having to respond the the courts is still there," said Coghill.
By the time the special session was over, lawmakers left the benefits question out there. But a majority of them had decided it was worth spending 1.2 million tax dollars to seek your advice Tuesday. And since then...
"What the Supreme Court ruling did was undermine...," said Jim Minnery.
"For us, we think this is a no-brainer in terms of fighting this...," said Jesse Cross-Call.
The campaigns working for and against the advisory vote have taken on lives of their own.
"A statement and testament to our lord and savior, Jesus Christ. I want to say that very clearly, that we're here to represent Him. And that's a tough thing to do," said Minnery.
Some 25 Anchorage pastors came together and joined the Alaska Family Action official who's championing yes votes. They say they are speaking for Jesus Christ by, literally, standing up for marriage.
"We think the issue truly is about public affirmation of a lifestyle. And let's have that discussion, in a way that is above board, a way that is civil. But let's disguise the issue and make it seem like a health care access issue. Because it's not about that," said Minnery.
"And we're simply talking about taking benefits away from people who are receiving them. And can't get any more clearer," said Cross-Call.
The "No," officials, who are known as "Alaskans Together," say they are taking a more grassroots approach by educating folks one-on-one, not to buy the Yes argument. They say the marriage issue was already dealt with back in 1998.
"And what we're talking about April 3rd is benefits. And if you look at the language on the advisory vote, the word marriage is nowhere in there. The word benefits is," said Cross-Call.
"We're saying it's OK to discriminate, in that certain relationships should receive public privilege. So we're not taking away any benefits, because they were not there to begin with. What we're doing is protecting an institution from people that are saying our relationship is as valuable to the public as marriage. And we're
To be very clear: again, your vote is not deciding the issue. It is really only giving lawmakers some advice.
If you vote Yes, you're saying you want to see this issue on the 2008 ballot.
If you vote No, you're saying you do not want to see it there.
In that case, lawmakers would be the ones to solely debate and decide this issue. One thing to understand: because this is just an advisory vote, in the end, lawmakers do not even have to follow the voters' final decision.
Some in some political circles call all of this a delay tactic. Others say it's a big waste of taxpayer money. The "Yes" officials say, if they win, it will send a message to so-called activist judges, the voters, not judges, should decide these sorts of issues.
To contact Matthew, call 907-273-3186.
.jpg)
