Regarding the March 11 editorial: "A 'No' vote on April 3 supports family values," also printed in the Mat-Su Frontiersman, Sunday March 18. There is much in this editorial that I would like to address but I would exceed the allowed word count. I will focus on a couple points.
Sound off on the important issues at
First, the writer begins by insinuating that voting "Yes" on April 3 is a vote against "family values" and taking care of our "loved ones." The Alaska Supreme Court's "misinterpretation" of our constitution and abuse of the vote of the people is an attempt to push their own political agenda by forcing upon voters the use of public money to extend health care coverage to gay partners of public employees.
This has nothing to do with "fairly" taking care of "loved ones." If it did, this coverage would extend to include other potential dependents such as parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings or adult children, whom may be dependent for various reasons, but also legally not able to marry the insured.
Next, the statement: "If people believe gay relationships are wrong, that's their right. But there's a big difference in personal morals and everyone's laws." I would be interested in knowing where our laws come from if not from some sense of moral foundation.
If a community has predominantly the same moral perspective on an issue, and they vote to create a law upholding that issue, is that not then "everyone's" law? The citizens of Alaska voted to define marriage.
Perhaps using the writer's own logic, the phrase should be reworded to read, "If people believe gay relationships are 'right,' that's their right. But there's a big difference in personal morals and everyone's laws."
A "Yes" vote on April 3 not only upholds traditional family values but let the Alaska Supreme Court know they cannot disregard the will of the citizens.