I would like to hear peoples opinions on this artical.

[Oni]

Court rejects voters' will on marriage

By KRISTINA JOHANNES

Published: February 3, 2007
Last Modified: February 3, 2007 at 02:44 AM

Contrary to the opinion of some, the Alaska Supreme Court is not the state's final constitutional authority. The people of Alaska are. The constitution says, "All government originates with the people" and "is founded upon their will only ..." That means we, the people, have the last say. Our state constitution creates three separate but equal branches of government, each to act on behalf of the people, the true owners of the document.

Nothing in the constitution gives judges the right to impose their own ideology on the people. Their responsibility is to interpret laws written by elected officials, not write their own. When judges venture outside their lawful domain, they abuse their authority. When this happens, our constitution provides steps that the other two branches should follow to defend the constitution.

In 1998, Alaska voters amended the constitution to make explicit its recognition of the natural-law definition of marriage. This didn't change the original meaning of the constitution. It merely recognized what marriage is and can only be: a union of one man and one woman. Marriage arises out of the sexual complementarity of men and women, which is ordered to the procreation of children.

True, not every marriage is blessed with the gift of children, but this does not change the fact that by nature's design, procreation is natural to marriage. Because of this, marriage is the foundation and future of any society.

Recognizing the essential and unique role that marriage plays in any civilization, societies have long provided special, preferential benefits to married couples. We thereby hope to encourage stable marriages in which the child's natural right to be brought into existence and raised under the loving care of both a father and mother is met. Today especially, marriage needs all the help it can get, and our future depends on it.

In October 2005, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that despite our constitution's now-explicit recognition of marriage's unique character, marriage benefits must be given to certain homosexual relationships of state employees and retirees. Its decision directly contradicts not only the marriage amendment but state law, which specifically states: "A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage."

Furthermore, Alaska's employment law states: "an employer may, without violating this chapter, provide greater health and retirement benefits to employees who have a spouse or dependent children than are provided to other employees."

The court's five justices tried to rationalize their decision by arguing that homosexual partnerships are similar to marriage. However, they didn't cite any constitutional or statutory authority for concluding that these relationships are "marriage-like." How could they? The marriage amendment and state law specifically rule that out.

So, in effect, their decision rests on their own bias of what constitutes marriage-like behavior, ignoring the clear words and intent of our constitution and Alaska law.

In one fell swoop, the justices effectively distorted the definition of marriage to include homosexual partnerships. What a slap in the face to the nearly 70 percent of Alaska voters who supported the marriage amendment.

Alaskans should be worried about the implications of this. How can we claim constitutional self-government while we let the court unilaterally impose its unconstitutional will on us?

Perhaps we've grown accustomed to this judicial abuse of authority. But really, isn't it time to put a stop to this behavior? Impeachment for misfeasance is one constitutional solution, but amending our constitution a second time to clarify voter intent to affirm the natural law on marriage is a less confrontational approach.

That brings us to the statewide advisory vote on April 3. This vote gives Alaskans the opportunity to tell the Legislature that the people meant what they said in 1998.

A yes vote makes a clear statement that we will not tolerate back-door efforts by the courts to overturn the will of the people regarding the protection of marriage. Our constitution's marriage provision means what it says. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and no other relationship is "marriage-like."

Kristina Johannes lives in Anchorage. She was a spokeswoman for the Alaska Family Coalition, which successfully campaigned for the passage of the marriage amendment in 1998.

This was taken from http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/8611567p-8504079c.html

Please share and post your opinion on this artical.

[yukonron]

1. "Nothing in the constitution gives judges the right to impose their own ideology on the people..."
    In reality, courts have been interpreting laws for hundreds of years. Usually their decision is written based on a majority of the court's member's opinions (not ideology) in terms of what is most fair for all of society. That's called 'case law', which is just as valid as statutory law and it's what makes the legal system a living, growing, changing entity.

2. "...marriage needs all the help it can get, and our future depends on it"
    Really? I agree that traditional marriages as a concept are in trouble. Women loving women shouldn't threaten it; a man loving and 'marrying' a man shouldn't threaten the future of our nation. Our future as a species does depend on procreation, but we seem to be doing fine in that department with or without traditional marriages. How many beautiful healthy children are waiting to be adopted as I write this?

3. "...they didn't cite any constitutional or statutory authority for concluding that these relationships are 'marriage-like'. How could they? The marriage amendment and state law specifically rule it out"
    Hmm, common sense and personal experience & testimony should be sufficient to establish that same-sex relationships can be marriage-like. We don't need laws for that, and laws get changed when reason and/or circumstances prevail...

[Goman Fox]

Cat wants my opinion on this article posted here as well as the thread it started in, so I'm just quoting it and placing it here as well.

True, not every marriage is blessed with the gift of children, but this does not change the fact that by nature's design, procreation is natural to marriage. Because of this, marriage is the foundation and future of any society.

This section right here, I had a pretty big problem with.  It could be that I'm just misunderstanding her, but I'm not so sure.

First off, "nature's design"?  It may be nature's design for a man and a woman to be together for reproduction purposes, but nothing in nature suggests that a man and woman -must- stay together.  An argument could be made that "some animal species mate for life."  That would shut up the "anti-marriage" homosexuals, right?  Except in those same animal species, you see homosexual pairings that mate for life...  It wouldn't make sense to use something as an example for "marriage is natural," yet ignore another part of it and still say "homosexuality is unnatural."

Nature didn't design marriage, it is a creation of man.  All nature's design does is try to keep a man and woman together long enough for a child to be conceived.  At least that's how I understand it.  I seem to remember reading something a long time ago about how post-orgasm, a hormone is released into the male body to cause drowsiness, to keep the man next to its partner to ensure that if it conception wasn't successful, the male would still be there to pretty much try again to spread their DNA.

And I absolutely love how she mentions that "marriage is the foundation and future of any society."  Yet she neglects to mention the many cultures where the traditional view of marriage -isn't- "normal."  Unless she supports polygamy as well, I don't think she should be making that statement.  There are plenty of societies that have done well without the "normal" marriage practices.

Besides, what I hate the most about people who oppose gay marriage is their use of the whole "pro-family" title, or whatever it is exactly.  So to discriminate against your homosexual siblings, parents, cousins, children or anyone else, is supposed to encourage healthy families?  Back when I was younger, I had the naive, innocent idea of what marriage was:  A show of love between two people.  That apparently isn't the case though, because if it were, why would there be a problem for two men or two women to love eachother?  I miss being a child, when the world was so much simpler and seemed a lot nicer.

Another thing that some people never seem to mention is the history of homosexuality in the world.  It seems that a lot of major cultures had a tradition of homosexuality.  Although I think some of it came from the sexist views of the time, where women were seen as lesser beings and property more than anything...  But a lot of cultures, from the Greeks and Romans (most well known) to, Japan and, well, probably a lot of European countries.  I'm sure there are even more than that, but those are the only groups I'm familiar with.  The whole anti-gay kick we're in now seems to be more of a recent thing.  But of course, I could be wrong.  I'm not a historian or anything like that, I just take information from what I've read and been taught.

EDIT:  There was one more thing I forgot to add that I wanted to say.

I don't think her argument on "the voter's will" is completely sound either.  The bill that was passed that she is talking about was done in 1998.  It's now the beginning of 2007, at least a full 8 years later.  It may not seem like much of a difference, but I think people who are just now turning 18 could possibly view things differently than someone who is now 26 or, more likely, different from the ideas of the older people (who are more likely to vote...)

Laws and such aren't passed to be put into effect and forgotten about, I don't think.  They're meant to fit the needs and wants of the people.  Those wants change over time, so readdressing an issue from 8+ years ago really doesn't seem that strange to me.  I dunno, people may see things differently than me, but it just doesn't sound like a good argument to me...  "The people want things to be -this- way, because after 8 years, no one ever changes their mind, and the younger voting population that wasn't able to vote then just doesn't count."  The overall views of the state may still be the same, but you never know until you address the issue again.

[London_Fox]

Some times it is up to the court to do what is right.  The other two branches of the state government are based purely on people liking them, the judges/robes, are all about right and wrong.  So they do what they think is right, of course the popularity contest is going to have issues.  They by the AK Constitution had to find away to treat another part of the populous equal as the other part of the populous.  Since there is a new law that says homosexuals can't marry, they still have an obligation to meet the need of equal rights.  I'm still ashamed that Alaska could put up such an amendment.  Wasn't to long ago that if you weren't of the same race as you lover you couldn't marry (Not AK specific)  What the hell?  Public opinion constantly changes, right and wrong shouldn't.

[chuckhart]

The Alaska State Supreme Court is there to make sure that the state's entire constitution is upheld and that conditions promoting inequality are remedied.  We are all supposed to be equal in this state.  I am guilty of not writing a letter to the editor, but I am having trouble not coming across as a  left-wing hothead.  We should all be writing to the editor.
Chuck

[Oni]

How would everyone feel about writting letters to the editor?

[5m3rk]

"marriage like" - gay marriage but wait there is another type of marriage that to my understanding the the state of alaska does not recognize as well - Common Law.  If they were to recognize that common law is valid marriage after x number of years together - then i think that this issue of gay marriage would not be as big of a deal as the press/media want it to be.  If 2 people love each other - then that should be enough for the state.