Advisory Vote and Both Sides

[Oni]

This information was taken from ... http://www.elections.state.ak.us

I have decided to post this to the forum. This came in the mail to our house, and I am sure just about everybody else’s house. But incase you missed it I thought I would share it with ya. I would love to see each of you post your opinion on this. This is taken directly from the Voters information pamphlet that as mailed out.

Special Election - April 3, 2007

The polls will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. TO LOCATE YOUR POLLING PLACE PLEASE CALL 1-888-383-8683. IN ANCHORAGE, PLEASE CALL 269-8683. The following informa-tion explains basic voting rights and will help voters with special needs.

SPECIAL ADVISORY VOTE

AN ACT AUTHORIZING AN ADVISORY VOTE ON EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREES

BALLOT LANGUAGE

Shall the legislature adopt a proposed amendment to the state constitution to be considered by the voters at the 2008 general election that would prohibit the state, or a municipality or other subdivision of the state, from providing employment benefits to same-sex partners of public employees and to same-sex partners of public employee retirees?

Yes     No

AN ACT AUTHORIZING AN ADVISORY VOTE ON EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREES

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT

A YES on the Advisory Vote sends a clear message to politicians and judges: the people of Alaska want the right to vote on whether the benefits of marriage should be given to homosexual couples.

A YES on the Advisory Vote does not change state law – it simply asks the Legislature to let the people decide, rather than un-elected judges. In contrast, a NO vote means that five unelected lawyers on the Alaska Supreme Court will decide this issue for the rest of us.

In 1998, almost 70 percent of Alaska voters approved a constitutional amendment to affirm that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Alaska was the first state to pass such an amendment, and now 26 other states have followed our lead.

However, in October 2005 the justices of the Supreme Court flagrantly disregarded Alaska’s marriage amendment. The Court ordered state and municipal governments to provide homosexual partners of state employees and retirees with health insurance and other benefits that were granted to the spouses of married employees.

By doing so, the court has given homosexuals a special legal status by providing the benefits of marriage without calling it “marriage.”

Is this what nearly 153,000 Alaskans meant when they approved the marriage amendment

– that we should create “de facto” homosexual marriage, but just give it a different name? The people of Alaska should be given the opportunity to answer that question. The court’s decision is also troubling because it discriminates: benefits must be given to homosexual partners of state employees and retirees, but not to the heterosexual partners.

For the first time in the history of Alaska, a public benefit is awarded to certain persons
based solely on the fact that they are living a homosexual lifestyle.

How long will it be before unmarried public employees with heterosexual partners demand the same type of benefits? On what grounds will they be refused? For that matter, why is any sexual relationship required? Why can’t a public employee designate an elderly parent, or even a roommate, to receive all the benefits that the married spouses of public employees receive?

Following the logic of the Alaska Supreme Court ruling, at some point in time, private
employers will also be required to provide benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. An employer offering these benefits at their discretion is one thing. Being required to do so is an entirely different matter.

A YES on the Advisory Vote tells the Legislature to “let the people decide” what conditions are appropriate for issuing public benefits.

A YES on the Advisory Vote is the first step Alaskan voters can take to reclaim authority on this issue, and undo the mistakes of activist judges.

Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature

Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Loren Leman
Former Lieutenant Governor
State of Alaska

The statement printed on this page is the opinion of the author(s) and is presented as submitted to the Division of Elections.
SPECIAL ADVISORY VOTE

AN ACT AUTHORIZING AN ADVISORY VOTE ON EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREES

STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION

All Alaskans deserve equal pay for equal work. In October of 2005, the Alaska Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that all public employees are promised equal pay and employment benefits under Alaska’s constitution. The Court required the State to offer family health insurance to all public employees. The measure you are voting on today urges the Legislature to offer an amendment to Alaska’s Constitution. The amendment would prohibit state and local governments from offering family health and retirement benefits to some of their workers. This is not the time, nor is there ever a time, to take health care benefits away from hardworking Alaskan families. The Legislature has important business ahead such as a gas line that will benefit all Alaskans. We should not be asking the Legislature to spend their limited session time trying to deny benefits to any hard-working Alaskan families.

Our state constitution is considered one of the best in the nation, and it exists to protect
everyone. We do not need to clutter up our state constitution with amendments that deny
equality to any group of Alaskans. We have never done this before, and we should not start now. Alaskan employers need all of the tools at their disposal to hire the best doctors, first responders, health care workers, and teachers. The proposed amendment would limit the ability of employers to negotiate effectively to hire the best employees. We urge you to vote NO.

Health care is vitally important to all Alaskans. The proposed constitutional amendment would strip families of health insurance benefits that they depend on. In a time when the State is struggling to make sure more people, not fewer, can get health insurance coverage, this is a step in the wrong direction. The question you must answer is: should public employees get equal pay for equal work, including family health benefits? If you believe in equal pay for equal work you must vote NO on this measure. Protect our constitution, and protect all Alaskan families:

Please vote NO.

Allison Mendel

Arliss Sturgulewski
Former Alaska State Senator

Clark Gruening

The statement printed on this page is the opinion of the author(s) and is presented as submitted to the Division of Elections.