We're sorry, but the page you were seeking does not exist. It may have been moved or expired. Perhaps our search engine can help.
The Court decision on same-sex couples receiving employee benefits needs to be revisited and reversed.
Sound off on the important issues at
The plaintiff, American Civil Liberties Union, incorrectly applies Article I Section I of the Alaska Constitution. Article I Section I does not address individual rights in a marriage, spousal or same-sex domestic partner relationship. It did not intend the phrase "all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights" to be so broadly interpreted in the context of these unique relationships. Article I Section I does clearly address the rights of the individual citizen, solely as an individual and not as a result of a partnership. It would be correct to interpret it as stating every citizen has the right to get married (as defined).
The logic used by the ACLU is a step into anarchy. Their reasoning is because the state constitution restricts marriage their clients' rights to benefits are being violated. If individual rights override established law and order, there would be no restraints pertaining to age, gender, or personal desire. With this approach a 10-year-old should be allowed to run for president; a male play in the Ladies Pro Golf Association; and a robber rob a bank. Supposedly, the ACLU is an advocate of our civil liberty. Civil liberty involves being lawfully established as a result of being a citizen. In their eagerness to promote a liberal agenda, ACLU along with activist jurists stepped over the line.
Lastly, it sounds like a simple matter to set rules for the criteria for benefits as mandated by the litigation. The criteria require a legal framework that does not exist and will prove illusive to define.