Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High court ends ban on benefits for gay couples (in Alaska)
Anchorage Daily News ^ | 10-29-05 | RACHEL D'ORO

Posted on 10/29/2005 10:45:07 PM PDT by akdonn

The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday ruled it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a major victory for gay rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on homosexual marriage.

The unanimous decision essentially hinged on the issue of equal protection for all Alaskans, which could have a sweeping effect on other states, said Michael Macleod-Ball, director of the Alaska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Other courts in other states could be looking to the state of Alaska on how it handled the equal protection rationale," he said.

The Alaska Supreme Court said in its ruling that public employees and their opposite sex partners can marry and become eligible for the city- or state-provided benefits.

"But no same-sex couple can ever become eligible for these benefits because same-sex couples may not marry in Alaska. The spousal limitations in the benefits programs therefore affect public employees with same-sex domestic partners differently than public employees who are married," the ruling says.

"We conclude that the public employers' spousal limitations violate the Alaska Constitution's equal protection clause," the ruling says.

(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: aclu; alaskaconstitution; culturewars; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualunions; judicialactivism; ruling; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
Another reason for misfits to come to Alaska; you'd think we have enough already!!!!
1 posted on 10/29/2005 10:45:10 PM PDT by akdonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: akdonn

Equal rights for sodomites!


2 posted on 10/29/2005 10:46:39 PM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akdonn

One wonders why the court did not specify that hetro couple "living together" don't get the same bennies?

Also, how long does someone have to have a relationship to get these bennies? Two weeks? One date? How many 'partners' a year is one of these special employees allowed to have? One? 6? A dozen?

Not a can of worms, a diet of worms....


3 posted on 10/29/2005 10:51:18 PM PDT by ASOC (The result of choosing between the lesser of two evils still leaves you with - evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akdonn
The unanimous decision essentially hinged on the issue of equal protection for all Alaskans, which could have a sweeping effect on other states, said Michael Macleod-Ball, director of the Alaska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Wishful thinking on the ACLU's part.

4 posted on 10/29/2005 10:54:33 PM PDT by Hacksaw (Real men don't buy their firewood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akdonn
"But no same-sex couple can ever become eligible for these benefits because same-sex couples may not marry in Alaska. The spousal limitations in the benefits programs therefore affect public employees with same-sex domestic partners differently than public employees who are married," the ruling says.

Well, DUH. Normal heterosexuals who do not marry can not become eligable for the benifits either. This was nothing more than judical legislation.

5 posted on 10/29/2005 10:57:44 PM PDT by Hacksaw (Real men don't buy their firewood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akdonn
The unanimous decision essentially hinged on the issue of equal protection for all Alaskans, which could have a sweeping effect on other states, said Michael Macleod-Ball, director of the Alaska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

That's quite a leap, typical for the ACLU though.

6 posted on 10/29/2005 10:58:04 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akdonn
Excuse me but doesn't the state constitution ban gay marriage? How can the Alaska Supremes reconcile their ruling with that provision except by ignoring it? Its an exercism in "creative" judicial activism.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

7 posted on 10/29/2005 10:58:25 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

"Wishful thinking on the ACLU's part."

Didn't you know that Alaska is the center of the universe?
;-]


8 posted on 10/29/2005 10:59:04 PM PDT by akdonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: akdonn
Regime change in the courts. Impeach activist judges!
9 posted on 10/29/2005 11:03:19 PM PDT by TigersEye (Wilson lied, people died, Sheehan cried, Schumer sighed, Hillary's wide, chicken fried.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Excuse me but doesn't the state constitution ban gay marriage?

That was exactly the reasoning the court gave for their decision. Since gay couples were denied that path to benefit, the 'state' was not treating gays equally with straights and thus denying them equal benefits. So the court made the benefits equal.

10 posted on 10/29/2005 11:06:12 PM PDT by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: akdonn

What part of equal protection under the laws do these miscreants on the Alaska Supreme Court not understand!?! A man may legally marry a woman and receive benefits. A homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man. The existing marriage laws apply equally to all Alaskan citizens.

Using the court's logic, a man could just as likely marry his dog, his mom, his brother, or all of the above!


11 posted on 10/29/2005 11:07:19 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: akdonn

Alaska rewards sodomy. I fear for God's patience running out. If He destroyed entire cities because the of mass-practice of sodomy a couple thousand years ago, how will it be any different this time around?


12 posted on 10/29/2005 11:10:36 PM PDT by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" -Pope Urban II, 1097AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

"I fear for God's patience running out. If He destroyed entire cities because the of mass-practice of sodomy a couple thousand years ago, how will it be any different this time around?"

Oh, gosh, I guess I better move...I mean I lived through the largest earthquake in recorded history in 1964 but I'm sure any day now the Big G could lose his "patience" with the Alaska legal system...and, given what some believe happened "a couple thousand years ago," (as recorded in a book that was written 200 years after JC reportedly died on a cross) who knows what the Big G might do now????

But don't you worry: Santa Claus lives at North Pole, Alaska! He's gay but I think he's a Christian. . .


13 posted on 10/29/2005 11:25:07 PM PDT by akdonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: akdonn

Those judges need an island without a 250 million dollar
bridge to it or ferry service either...How much longer before the people's patience runs out..


14 posted on 10/29/2005 11:25:36 PM PDT by Nextrush (Freedom is the "F" word for liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASOC

As somebody mentioned before, it's legal for hetro couples to get married, that option isn't available to gay couples.

Well we have two options, take away benefits for married couples that way married couples, non-married couples and gay couples are all treated the same way.

That's why we should allow gay marriage or some stupid partnership law.

Two friends living together can apply for shared benefits, and there's no way to really disprove the relationship, unless you actually want to watch. It costs people nothing. Now if we gave them marriage, people would think twice about getting these shared benefits marriages. Because it might be nice to give your lover of two weeks low cost health insurance, but it's another thing to give them the opportunity to take 1/2 of your 401(k), house and investments.


15 posted on 10/29/2005 11:27:02 PM PDT by Hong Kong Expat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Using the court's logic, a man could just as likely marry his dog, his mom, his brother, or all of the above!

As soon as it's legal, I plan to marry my dog, my mom, my brother and all my children. Think of the tax advantages!

16 posted on 10/29/2005 11:27:51 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: akdonn
"But don't you worry: Santa Claus lives at North Pole, Alaska! He's gay but I think he's a Christian. . ."

You have permission from your mother to be up so late at night?

17 posted on 10/29/2005 11:28:12 PM PDT by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" -Pope Urban II, 1097AD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

"You have permission from your mother to be up so late at night?"


Funny you should have to bring up my mother. I buried my mother in 1997. She deserted me, my brother and sister and I would have nothing to do with her for 30 years. Then my new wife told me I should deal with that pain and see if I could contact my mother. Well, I did find her in California and she came to Alaska to visit me on my 40th birthday. My wife and I will soon be married 16 years.

So, besides being a cheap shot from a so-called Christian, what does my mother have to do with anything except as a very un-Christian attempt to demean me because I made fun of your ignorant position?


18 posted on 10/29/2005 11:35:08 PM PDT by akdonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

Mr Ramsbotham wrote: "As soon as it's legal, I plan to marry my dog, my mom, my brother and all my children. Think of the tax advantages!"

Well, I'm sure it's presently against the law to marry all of them, but who are we to prevent you from living your private life as you see fit? Laws against beastiality unequally apply to those with an attraction to animals, just as laws against incest unequally apply to brothers and sisters. If a homosexual can say the marriage laws unfairly prevent him from the spouse of his choice, thereby denying him equal marriage benefits from the state, there's little rational reason for denying benefits to ANY kind of union. Shoot, why not just marry your entire town and really rake in the tax advantages!


19 posted on 10/29/2005 11:38:54 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: akdonn

akdonn wrote: "But don't you worry: Santa Claus lives at North Pole, Alaska! He's gay but I think he's a Christian. . ."

That's just plain rude and no way to treat a fellow Freeper! You may not believe in God, but please don't ridicule those of us who do. It's a matter of discussing the issues respectfully.


20 posted on 10/30/2005 12:06:44 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson