Gay Republic Daily :: View topic - Forget Kansas... what's up with ALASKA?!

(Juneau, Alaska) The state's proposed rules on benefits for same-sex couples are too stringent, according to a ruling by a Superior Court judge in Anchorage.

Judge Stephanie Joannides also found the state's view of an Alaska Supreme Court decision on the types of benefits to be offered too narrow. Hearings on the proposed regulation will be held in Juneau and Anchorage.

Last year's Supreme Court ruling required the state to establish benefits to same-sex partners of its employees in response to an action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and nine Alaska couples.

The high court ruled that because same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying in Alaska, denying them rights extended to married couples deprives them of equal protection guaranteed under the Alaska Constitution.

The state's proposed regulation would require same-sex partners to swear they have been in "exclusive, committed and intimate relationships" for at least a year.

In her decision earlier this month, Joannides noted that the ACLU objected to the proposed rules because they impose requirements on same-sex couples not imposed on married couples. For example, married couples don't have to file annual affidavits reaffirming that they are married, as would be required of employees in same-sex relationships.

First, Alaska lawmakers thumb nose at court-ordered gay benefits

Quote:

Alaska Republicans have drawn a line in the sand, refusing to obey a court order mandating health and other benefits for the same-sex domestic partners of state employees and retirees.

Called into a special session this week by Gov. Frank Murkowski to approve a benefits package worked out by the Department of Administration to comply with the order the legislature the House voted instead to tie the governor's hands on the issue.

It passed a bill prohibiting Murkowski's administration from granting any court-ordered health and retirement benefits for same-sex partners of state employees.

The House then passed a second bill that would put the issue to a statewide plebiscite, asking voters if a constitutional amendment barring gay benefits should go on the 2008 ballot.

Alaska already has a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the state. An attempt to extend that to include benefits failed earlier in the House.

Following Friday's vote the House adjourned. Both measures now go to the Senate.

Then today, Alaska Senate advances anti-gay bills

Quote:

A key Alaska Senate committee has ratified two bills passed Friday by the House that could result in a constitutional showdown between the legislature and the state Supreme Court over same-sex benefits.

[...]

If passed and signed into law by the governor the first measure would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court, but a constitutional amendment banning benefits for same-sex couples would tied the court's hands from further action.

Last year the state Supreme Court ruled the state must establish benefits to same-sex partners of its employees in response to an action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and nine Alaska couples.

The high court ruled that because same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying in Alaska, denying them rights extended to married couples deprives them of equal protection guaranteed under the Alaska Constitution.

My guess -- they're evil.

In a perfect world, the 101st Airborne would even now be loading the C-130s, in preparation for seizing control of Alaska's state government.

Remember Little Rock Central High?

Quote:

If passed

It passed.

Quote:

Gov. Frank Murkowski called lawmakers into special session to grant the commissioner of administration the authority to adopt the new benefits plan.

But instead, the Senate passed a House bill that prohibits the commissioner from taking action on the plan by the court deadline of Jan. 1. The vote was 11 to 6.

The Senate also voted 12 to 5 to approve a bill setting up a nonbinding statewide advisory vote in April. It would allow voters to say whether they think lawmakers should place a constitutional amendment on the 2008 ballot to overturn the court's mandate.

There's no mention in the story of whether the governor intends to sign the bills.

Quote:

Democrat Hollis French of Anchorage said the Legislature's action in trying to tie the commissioner's hands sets up an unnecessary fight between the Legislature and the courts.

"The court is going to strike the statute down as unconstitutional ... period," he said.

Quote:

"The court is going to strike the statute down as unconstitutional ... period," he said.

There really does need to be some mechanism to lay sanctions on the members of legislative bodies (of whatever size, from Congress down to the local Drain Commission) when they can be shown to have *knowingly* passed unconstitutional measures.

In most cases, these people are lawyers, after all-- and in the cases where they're not, every one of them has had the advice of counsel when they do these things. They just do it anyway, content that it will take 5-7 years for the laws to be finally done away with.

MonkeyBoy wrote:

"They just do it anyway, content that it will take 5-7 years for the laws to be finally done away with.

Is HARASSMENT the right word for this? The same tactics were used here in Germany by "Christian Social Union" (which is indeed a rather un-christian and un-social gang) - they knew eexactly they were on the loosing part, but they have applied every trick to delay new laws for equal rights of gay people. The logic is of course simple - let's spoil someone's life if we can...

Harrassment is the least of it, I think.

It shows that such people simply do not have any esteem for the rule of law. Much as people used to fear, say, a President who was Catholic becuase of the idea (faulty or not) that his loyalties would lie first with Rome, it becomes clear that these people see themselves as answering to a Higher Power first.

And their divided loyalty is even more insidious than any imagined to be held by ordinary Papists. No, this loyalty is to a conception of right and wrong that is entirely self-constructed.

The stance reminds me of a line from The Terminator: you can't stop it, you can't reason with it, it doesn't feel pity or remorse, it never gets tired, and it absolutely will never give up until... you... are... dead.

Court enforces same-sex benefits deadline

Quote:

The Alaska Supreme Court late Tuesday ordered the state to comply with a Jan. 1 deadline and offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees and retirees.

The high court overturned a lower court judge's finding that pending regulations were too restrictive, saying that's a question to be litigated at a future date.

[...]

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Stephanie Joannides in October found the state's proposed rules for same-sex partner benefits unconstitutional in part because they required the couples to swear their relationship was exclusive, something married couples don't have to do.

In addition, under the state rules, affected employees and their partners must file a sworn statement that they "have been in an exclusive, committed, and intimate relationship with each other for the last consecutive 12 months and intend to continue that relationship indefinitely." They also must submit documentation that they meet five of eight financial criteria, such as having a joint checking account.

But Joannides' ruling jumped the legal gun, the Supreme Court said Tuesday. Once the regulations are in effect, people who think they're unfair can challenge them.

The situation was further complicated when then-Lt. Gov. Loren Leman balked at signing any rules conferring benefits to same-sex partners. Gov. Frank Murkowski called a special session, and lawmakers passed a measure forbidding any such regulations, which has not yet gone into effect.

Gov. Palin hasn't said whether she'll enforce the court ordered Jan. 1 deadline.

[...]

The order issued Tuesday by the Supreme Court left no doubt as to what the justices think should happen now:

"We therefore VACATE the superior court's decision, APPROVE the regulations as adopted, DECLARE those regulations to be deemed effective, and DIRECT the State of Alaska to comply with the January 1, 2007 deadline in accordance with this court's June 1, 2006 order," the Supreme Court said in Tuesday's order.

I predict there WILL be challenges...

Alaska Governor commits to gay benefits

Quote:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has reluctantly agreed to follow the state Supreme Court ruling that same sex partners should receive equal benefits to heterosexual couples.

...

She said: “The Supreme Court has ordered adoption of the regulations by the State of Alaska to begin providing benefits January 1, we have no more judicial options. We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution.”

...

“I disagree with the recent court decision because I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the Supreme Court has spoken and the state will abide.”

... kicking, and screaming and then sulking and pouting the entire way. What a bitch. What a whole bunch'a bitches.

Damn. I was hoping for a state Supreme Court bench warrant for Contempt of Court.

"Bailiff, take the Governor into custody."

Clearly the general level of dis-ingenuousness has caught up with Alaska.

Quote:

I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman.

Indeed, Alaskans DID speak on this issue with some authority. They battled tooth and nail, fought the good fight, and in the end triumphantly get to claim their prize: the word "married."

Quote:

To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

It's just a word. Enjoy your prize.

There still remains the question of whether persons who are not 'married' are entitled to certain benefits granted by existing legislation. The courts of Alaska have been suggesting for some time that they are. Romer v Evans has come up a great many times in these cases. Indeed, this decision was part of the argument that got half of the proposed amendment stripped off by the Supreme Court of Alaska.

The petulant people of Alaska may certainly amend their constitution again, make a second run at that missing second sentence... this will get them something along the lines of the amendments undertaken by Ohio and Virginia. They may not much enjoy the consequences of that act, as the people of Ohio are finding and as the people of Virginia have been warned.

Alaska governor vetoes anti-gay benefits bill. But not because she's suddenly developed into a decent human being...

Quote:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has vetoed a bill that would have blocked the state from giving health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees.

It was the first veto of her month old term in office. Palin, a Republican who opposes the benefits scheme, said her veto was based on a legal opinion from her new attorney general that the legislation was unconstitutional.

[...]

Shortly after coming to office this month Palin signed the plebiscite bill but held aside the legislation to block the benefits from going into effect in January until she received a legal opinion.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement announcing the veto.

Quote:

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a prepared statement announcing the veto.

Note that the legislature had no qualms about violating their own oaths by passing it.

Alaska to poll public on gay-lesbian benefits -- at a cost almost four times the price of the benefits package

Quote:

A plebiscite pushed through by Republican lawmakers in Alaska that would ask voters their opinion on amending the Alaska constitution to prevent the same-sex domestic partners of state workers from receiving health benefits will cost four times the estimated cost of the benefits it was learned this week.

[...]

But rather than approving the plan the House and Senate passed legislation prohibiting the Alaska Commissioner of Administration for implementing the court ruling.

Both houses then voted to endorse a move putting the issue to a statewide plebiscite, asking voters if a constitutional amendment barring gay benefits should go on the 2008 ballot.

Shortly before the January 1 deadline the new governor, Sarah Palin, vetoed the bill that would have blocked the state from giving the benefits and the plan kicked in at the first of the year.

But Palin has endorsed the referendum.

But the vote would be nonbinding, and even if voters said they thought there should be a constitutional amendment banning the benefits, the measure would then have to be approved by the legislature and then go to the people.

An attempt this week by minority Democrats to put off the vote failed and Republicans have set an April 3 date for a special election just for the nonbinding referendum.

Currently 55 state workers have been registered for the domestic partner benefits plan and another applications from another 22 are pending.

The cost of seeking the electorate's opinion: $1.2 million.

The cost of providing the benefits to 77 workers' partners: an estimated $313,562 a year.

That's 3.8269 times more than the total costs of benefits. Or, to put it another way, rather than pay a total of $4,072.23 in benefits to each worker's partner, the state is paying $15,584.42 per person on denying those benefits. And these people have the nerve to call themselves "conservatives" -- that's stupid thinking, even for a conservative.

There could be no clearer demonstration that this refusal to extend benefits is not about fears of equal marriage (which is constitutionally outlawed), or even about cost. It's about doing anything possible, going to any extreme, up to and including defying state laws and the state's own supreme court to in order to denigrate, belittle, and to try to cause harm to our relationships.

It's about hate, pure and simple.

Quote:

It's about hate, pure and simple.

Well, yes. This particular case is just a Stirling example of the principle as well.

"Oh, we can't afford that," but then they proceed to spend four times as much to ban this thing they can't afford.

(Juneau, Alaska) Alaska voters have passed a referendum calling on the legislature to begin work on a constitutional amendment to prevent the same-sex domestic partners of state workers from receiving health benefits.

The nonbinding resolution passed 56 percent to 44 percent in a special election Tuesday.

If an amendment passes the legislature it would still need to go on the next ballot and be approved by voters.

...

The cost of seeking the electorate's opinion was estimated at $1.2 million. The cost of providing the benefits to 77 workers' partners: an estimated $313,562 a year.

My guess -- they're evil.

The Alaska House on Monday failed to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow voters the chance to deny court-ordered benefits for same-sex partners of public employees.

However, representatives could reconsider the vote if backers can muster a two-thirds majority, which is needed for the proposed amendment to ever move to voters.

Resolution sponsor John Coghill, R-North Pole, asked for reconsideration after the measure failed 22-14. Twenty-seven votes in the House and 14 votes in the Senate are needed to reach the required majority.

An identical resolution was introduced in the Senate in late April but has not had a committee hearing. The Senate measure has three committee referrals before it can reach the floor for a vote. The Legislature adjourns next May 16.

The resolution would allow a constitutional amendment to be placed on the statewide election ballot that, if passed, could overturn an Alaska Supreme Court order that required health and retirement benefits be offered to the partners of gay state employees.

Opponents say the issue is about providing earned health care benefits to those employees. Proponents of the amendment say it is a veiled attempt to legitimize homosexuality and undermine marriage as defined by voters in 1998 in the state constitution as between a man and a woman.