ANCHORAGE — The Alaska Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in an appeal from the state over an Alaska taxation policy that treats same-sex couples differently from straight couples.
Last year, a superior court judge ruled same-sex couples are entitled to the same senior citizen and disabled veteran property tax exemptions as married couples, saying a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman doesn’t trump equal protection laws.
Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner said in his September 2011 decision that the state’s marital classification violates the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The state did not sufficiently distinguish this case from a 2005 Alaska Supreme Court ruling that addressed discrimination based on sexual orientation, Pfiffner said. In that case, brought by the Alaska American Civil Liberties Union, the court said state and municipal same sex employees could not be denied partner benefits given to married couples.
The ACLU also represented three same-sex couples in the taxation case.
In its appeal, the state argued the earlier case has no bearing in the taxation issue and the ACLU, along with Pfiffner, were too narrow in limiting the scope of the marriage amendment approved by voters in 1998.
Comments (24)
Add commentChange the law
Life is hard, this world can really suck the life out of you. I believe if you find someone who you love and support and who loves and supports you back. Then you are blessed and should get married. Share your life with someone in a loving relationship of mutual love trust and respect. Grow up and define marriage as a union of two loving adults, period. This case is a waste of state resources. If couples were allowed to marry regardless of gender these cases would be easy. Married tax break. Living together no tax break. Simple.
Marriage
The State should get out of the 'marriage' business. Marriage is a religious construct. Leave that to the churches.
The State should issue domestic partnership licenses, which is where all of the legal stuff associated with marriage is connected to - property rights, child custody, tax status, etc.
The churches could be empowered to issue domestic partnership licenses along with their own marriage certificate during a wedding. If you get married in a church with no DPL, then it might be legit in the eyes of God, but carries no legal substance. And if you're same-sex, you can get a DPL, and then get married in a willing church of your choice if you so choose.
Then the church has no voice in the domestic partnership discussion - if they don't like same-sex marriage, they don't need to perform them.
Domestic Partner health benefits............
While the state does provide its staff members with same sex health benefit coverage, (as do many municipalities ) the state does also assess an annual imputed income amount equal to the market value of the coverage via a 1099 form every year to the subscriber. This is NOT equal treatment as married couples who enjoy those same benefits are NOT assessed the imputed income as taxable income. The state views this cost as an employee benefit (albeit reserved for heterosexual married couples). A note of interest... the State of Alaska does NOT provide heterosexual sex domestic partner health benefit coverage.
The fear for SOA in allowing same sex tax exempt status for couples may well lie in their responsibility to re-evaluate and equalize all SOA polices regarding same sex benefits for employees and constituents. This process will cost the state millions of dollars to review and millions of dollars in lost revenues that they currently enjoy extorting from hard working non-heterosexual staff members and constituents who simply want equal treatment and access.
It is time that we cease politicizing and legislating religious morality (not behavioral morality) and leave peoples personal choices between themselves and God as is taught again and again in the Bible.We need to create and maintain community accepted norms of behavior but we do not need to create isolationist or discriminatory practices to accomplish that.
Children are not property. The uterus has been the leading
traditional counterweight in weighty legal custody issues favoring the mother. The elephant in the room here is children cannot be denied married couples hence the inevitable divorce of same-sex couples will certainly not be treated equally. Or are we talking separate but equal?
It is impossible to remove the state from the equation because that is where these decisions are made, in court.
Legal Union vs. Marriage
Marriage between a man and woman vs. Legal Union between man and man, woman and woman, man and woman could just end the debate. The fundamental institution of marriage can remain in tact, and society can embrace equality through recognition of legal unions. If a couple chooses to marry as a religious recognition, then that is the choice of the couple; but all people should be allowed to enter into a legal union if the government is providing benefits. Why is this so difficult to implement?!
Ken - not difficult
Why would this be difficult? Presumably the court currently reviews the fitness of both parents now - as in some cases custody is NOT granted to the mother. If both parents were women, or men, the court simply evaluates the fitness of both parents and makes a judgement - same as now. That this system currently traditionally favors the mother is perhaps outdated anyway.
Latitude -
perfectly said.
The problem we have now is that some people equate the word "marraige" as covering BOTH legal and religious traditions simultaneously. Time to break that notion.
Legal is legal...................religious is religious.
Take your pick or have both. Up to you. One should not interfere with the other - no matter what you call them.
Civil Unions are not the same...
There are over 1,000 benefits and protections marriage affords over civil unions (http://www.freeuslaw.com/civil-union-marriage.htm). Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a civil rights issue and is discriminatory. Those who say marriage is a church issue should leave it to the individual churches if they want to perform a ceremony. It is their right to refuse. In the mean time, there are clergy in the Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Unitarians, as well as some Jewish, Lutherans and Methodists who will be happy to marry commited couples.
Swimmergirl: That is a simplistic view. Once a couple decides to
divorce one or the other moves out of the home. Usually the man. The court papers are filed, a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed, and it is not uncommon for procedures to take up to a year. I am vicariously familiar how it works in Juneau.
"Fitness" is not that cut and dry, particularly when both parents are equally fit.
During this interim the kids are invariably in the primary custody of the parent remaining at home, usually the woman, with visitations granted to the non-custody parent who is also ordered to pay child support during the course of the court proceedings before any judgement is made.
My point was same-sex legal couplings' divorces require non-traditional solutions. Courts are not really big on non-traditional solutions. Legal precedents move at a glacial speed. Woman-woman will invariably be handled differently than man-man because of the obvious benefits of being able to be a birth parent vs. adoption.
Personally I support same-sex marriage being recognized nationally. Fighting this national trend is living in denial.
But until this is recognized by the State I cannot support 'room-mates' or girlfriend/girlfriends, boyfriend/boyfriends cutting in line to reap the contractual benefits.
btw: The State does not require church-sanctioned ceremonies for legal matrimony.
Ken
I don't understand your point.
If there are children involved, then in a same-sex 'divorce', presumably one of the parties would move out and the children would temporarily remain in the custody of the remaining party. Why would that work any differently than with hetero couples?
Once same-sex partnerships are sanctioned as being legally equivalent to hetero partnerships, I don't see why it presents a problem for the courts.
Swimmergirl: Our custody cases are pivoted around the premise
of what is in the best interest of the child. The parties divorcing, and their wishes, are secondary.
The individual having the most sway with the courts' determination will be the court appointed official, the GAL, custody investigator or what have you. (Contrary to popular notions the judge does not have the time to invest in family dynamics.) So when we say "the court will determine" what we are really saying is the 'system' will determine.
Our system is much different from the bad old days when women couldn't even open a checking account without the husband's signature. Today it is fully recognized that the birth mother will get immediate primary custody barring any obvious 'unfitness'. The mother is usually holding all the cards. This social norm is the only thing that keeps the machinery operating efficiently and the bar for the man is set very high.
Enter the homosexual married couple who adopted the child. The 'mother' is not easily identified. In the above case the husband left the home, or is evicted, because it is the social norm for men to leave the children within their shelter with Mom, like it or not. In this case neither party is willing to do so. Two things can happen...the first one to get the protective restraining order wins or the child is removed into State care until the whole thing is sorted out. Remember, the child's best interest is paramount.
Enter the lesbian married couple. One is the birth mother. But the other is easily identified as a mother as well unless she speaks up to identify herself as the 'husband' which is unlikely if she is represented by counsel. The biological mother probably wins. Less complicated.
It is easy to identify assets and property, retirement and healthcare benefits and taxes. Children rise above the top of them all and our 'system' is not prepared to handle it. Just making it legal for same-sex marriage and calling it good does not begin to scratch the surface.
ken
I hear what you are saying, and there is a gray area there. But that is not a reason to not allow same sex marriage. Waiting for every possible eventuality to be worked out first is the same as banning it. Courts are becoming more and more open to child placement options. I certainly do not think giving birth makes you more of a parent, it is the number of dr appointments, sick days, school conferences, concerts, plays, sporting events one attends. Along with the hours spent engaged together.
I don't support "civil union" smacks of seperate but equal. That is never ok. Let the religious institutions come up with a new name for their union if they must. But any possible trademark they may have had on the union was lost eons ago through lack of protection. I believe that people should be able to get married, period. Telling them they can have a legal contract but not a marriage is bunk. They are fighting for equal treatment, they are fighting for marriage equality, not the right to civally union.
lvmykyk
I see your point and it's a good one.
I'm not hung up on nomenclature. The main point is that the State should issue legal standing to a marriage of either flavor, and a church should sanctify said marriage in front of God, Allah, or the Great Spaghetti Monster.
Two entirely separate roles. Neither one intruding in the other's territory.
I hear that
But truthfully it is already seperate. You don't have to get married in a church, in Alaska you can have the guy or gal on the corner perform the ceremony. There are many sects or denominations that are choosy about who they will and will not marry. Believe it or not there are some that still believe you are married to your spouse until death, regardless of divorce. There is nothing in the law that obligates them to perform a ceremony for anyone with a license. My point there is I really don't see the arguement against gay marriage, no one says they have to officiate.
Finding someone you can have a forever relationship of love and respect is hard enough. Why should gender cloud the issue?
Sorry
Realized that might have come out high handed. I have a tendancy to get a bit soap box when I feel strongly about something. Even when I agree with someone.
I have such a hard time with the denial of basic human rights. The right to love and be loved should be fundamental, a given. But to deny that from a segment of our population is more than not ok, it is in direct violation of everything we claim this country stands for.
Not only that...
...but it's better for society. Think of how much burden a spouse takes on supporting his/her better half. When one is unemployed, the other helps support them. One can help look after the home/family while the other works. Often a spouse can help support a business. If one gets sick, the other can assist. As they age, they can help each other remain independent.
This commitment to the partner means there's less burden that falls on community support services, meaning less expense for the taxpayers.
Pragmatic budget hawks should support same-sex marriage. It helps cut the size of government, and helps people take responsibility for their lives. It reflects conservative fiscal values.
Regarding...
...separation of the church and state in this matter, the problem is that the church is meddling in it. For instance, the last time the CA proposition was on the ballot, the catholic and mormon churches were pouring money in to defeat it.
Ivmykyk & Lat: In agreement here. Courts will iron it out.
Love is a many splendid thing and I highly recommend it. Too often, though, the betroths do not see the possible end game (all those stars in their eyes) so a letter of intent and certainly a Will is in order. Never know how the in-laws will try to gum it up.
If in fact it is true
that this argument is about two adults who love each other then why the fight for benefits. The argument is that same sex couples are jealous and want the benefits that married couples have. Sort of, actually exactly like the people who sue for money claiming its not about the money its about making sure it doesnt happen to others yet they mow everyone down in thier rush to cash the check.
If there were no benefits for being married whether same sex, same genus, or opposite sex would the fight be as vocal, as strong? I say no.
So, make it fair, no special benefits for marriage regardless, everyone is equal, if you choose to be a couple whether married, or not, same sex or not your treated as two separate humans by the government pay twice the tax that a single person would pay etc.
Why the special treatment for two people who live together. Everyone is an indivisual and should pay as such. If you choose to claim to be a couple well, thats your problem.
Your all whining wanting equal treatment but only if you get benefits and treated special over those wise enough to remain single.
Out with marriage of any type and everyone pay, collect, and be treated equal.
-< -< -< -< -<
If anyone looks at any mortality and morbidity report that identifies a high risk group for health reasons, then anyone should recognize that reasonable people do not encourage same-sex couples.
Municipalities should express their monetary research results. Insurance companies should express their monetary research results. Etc.
Then, to only use municipality or insurance statistics to encourage a high risk group does not paint the full picture. The ACLU is very adept at picking and choosing their court fights. Bravo ACLU, make more money for the divorce lawyers by making a property tax argument.
I shall pick up the pieces of destroyed lives when afforded the opportunity with resources, just like the churches volunteer and tithe to show their belief in GOD!
-< -< -< -< -<
Chicken
That was one of the more bizarre posts I've seen here in awhile.
As best as I can divine, you're stating that unhealthy groups of people should not be allowed to marry. And I think you're suggesting that same-sex couples would be less healthy, though you've provided absolutely no backup for that statement.
But following your logic, I presume you would be opposed to diabetics marrying. Or smokers. Or fat people. Or skydivers. Or people driving cars without airbags.
Because once those high-risk people married, they'd somehow become a larger drain on society...do I have that right?
Truly bizarre.
Let gays make it legal and give them the same rights
It's only fair. They should also be allowed to freely serve in the military, where tons of discrimination still exists.
If you work hard, pay your bills, obey the law and respect your neighbors who cares if a man or woman makes you happy?
31 reasons against gay marriage and why they're all wrong...
"In rallying to opposition to marriage-reform, religious campaigners claim that their arguments are grounded in reason and common sense. But take a closer look and you'll spot the homophobia says Jason Wakefield."
"I do not believe all opponents of gay marriage are hateful. Some have just not been exposed to the right arguments, and so I will demonstrate here that each anti-gay marriage argument ultimately serves to oppress or imply the lesser status of the minority of which I am a part. In rallying against the introduction of equal marriage, religious campaigners have frequently stressed that their objections are not driven by homophobia, and have deployed numerous arguments to demonstrate this. To the untrained ear these arguments sound like they may have grounding in reason, but on closer inspection reveal themselves as homophobic."
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why...
Mike
Latitude58
I do not agree that my post was bizarre. My comments do reflect my logic in not ever voting for same-sex marriage.
That said, I would never take an activist role on either side.
The courts, with the ACLU, moved this discussion to equal protection regarding taxes - then during their argument used the marriage argument.
"Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner said in his September 2011 decision that the state’s marital classification violates the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection clause."
I have not read "...the marriage amendment approved by voters in 1998."
Combining some paragraphs to make one consistent thought - there are high risk people that add to our health care costs. I was fat and cost more money. Those people should not be encouraged and should be respected. If I were to date or marry either sex I would cost more money. Dating and marriage in this town is not funny.
Hopefully MikeDziuba won't call me homophobic because I do not agree with expanding the definition of marriage via the Alaska Supreme Court.
-< -< -< -< -<