The following are comments in response to David Newman's My Turn in the Juneau Empire on July 17.
The definition of marriage amendment (1998) is not the first or only time rights have been "taken" away from a group of people. A few examples of groups that have had their rights restricted by amendments are those under 18 (1970), nonveterans (1982) and nonpermit-holding fishermen (1972). Constitutions, laws, regulations and amendments exclude someone.
If, as stated in the article, the definition of marriage amendment violates the U.S. Constitution and conflicts with the Alaska Constitution, how could it come to exist and remain in effect?
The same-sex "marriage" question is not the same as the issue of interracial marriage. The "legal" recognition of marriage between a man and woman is the norm from earliest times, and interracial marriage has commonly occurred. The question of legally recognizing same-sex partnerships has only existed in the last few years of human history. The term "partnership" is used here because the marriage of two people of the same sex is impossible. Incidentally, the Bible doesn't condemn interracial marriage, as one Southern judge may have. For example, Moses married an Egyptian, and God supported him. The Apostle Paul had a Jewish mother and a Roman father, and God used it uniquely to spread Christianity.
I don't believe the framers of the Alaska Constitution had any thought of the concepts of "equal rights" or "guarantees of the pursuit of happiness" as being applied to anything other than normal and acceptable behavior.
The article's arguments are not original; the same ones are seen over and over in the Empire.
Several emotionally charged reasons are suggested as to why people may oppose same-sex "marriage," but left out is the one and only one that appeals to me - common sense.