Alaska's same-sex marriage ban stronghold denies benefits to same-sex couples

Finally, some spine is being shown in our state government. Trends being followed in the Lower 48 do not necessarily apply to Alaska.


---------------

Alaska House panel rejects license perk for same-sex partners

​

JUNEAU, Alaska — A state House panel on Tuesday rejected extending a proposed perk for military spouses to same-sex partners of military members, citing a pending court case.

State law currently exempts military members legally licensed to drive in their home states from getting an Alaska license while they're in the state temporarily. HB212, from Rep. Doug Isaacson, R-North Pole, would extend that allowance to their spouses.


Isaacson, in his sponsor statement, said not extending those same benefits to the spouse "can pose an unnecessary burden on the military family. HB 212 corrects that imbalance and strengthens the harmony of the family unit."


During a hearing of the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs, Rep. Max Gruenberg, D-Anchorage, sought to amend the bill to extend the proposed benefit to same-sex partners of military members as well.


Gruenberg said he was concerned with the constitutionality of the bill as written, noting prior court decisions in cases involving state employment and property tax benefits.


Rachel Witty, with the Department of Law, said the bill doesn't clearly violate equal protection if one reads a 2005 Alaska Supreme Court case as extending only to employment benefits. If the high court widens its holding, there might be an equal protection issue, she said.


The Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the case against the state and municipality of Anchorage over a property tax exemption. A Superior Court judge in 2011 found the tax exemption's marital classification violated the equal protection clause, but the case was appealed.


Committee co-chair Gabrielle LeDoux, R-Anchorage, said she favored taking a wait-and-see approach when it came to Gruenberg's amendment.


She said depending on what happens in the pending case, the state will either proceed as it has or changes will have to be made in a number of different laws. "There's no point in singling out this particular bill right now," she said.


Co-chair Neal Foster, D-Nome, said he supported the proposed amendment, in spite of the pending court case, "because I feel that as a Legislature, it's our duty to also direct good public policy."


Gruenberg and Foster voted for the amendment. LeDoux, and Reps. Pete Higgins and Shelley Hughes voted against.



---

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2014/02/11/3320360/panel-rejects-license-perk-for.html#storylink=cpy​

 

You'd think that with a communist state like Alaska, their government would be more inclined to follow the will of the people...

 

Good to know that unnecessarily burdening military families is still a firmly held value in the great state.

 

All this push back kinda makes me feel sorry for teh gayz. They have marketed the legalization of same sex marriage all wrong. Trying to jump on the civil rights band wagon was a mistake.

 

Yes, they should have stayed in the closet like proper perverts!

 

As more of the 33 states that ban gay marriage realize that the gay marriage trend is dangerously close to entering their backyards (no pun intended) like what is now going on in Kentucky, teh gayz can expect the pushback to continue to grow. >>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

They should at least be honest.

 

Who knows what liberals will want to legalize next. What is the next largest group of voters that the desperate dems can court? The liberals would try and legalize detail killing if they knew they could get votes.

 

You think the desire for equal rights is not honest? Why?

 

Simply calling it equal rights is dishonest.

 

The gay agenda and federal activist judges having their way with our U.S. Constitution, attempting to enforce laws and recognize marriage rights that do not exist, is tantamount to raping our collective rights away.

 

Equality is dishonest? You aren't making yourself clear.

- - - Updated - - -

And what right have YOU lost?

I guess it's time, once again, to ask >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<< how they personally are injured if someone somewhere else enjoys the same rights they do. Of course, I never get an answer because nobody is injured and nobody can admit it.

- - - Updated - - -

And what right have YOU lost?

I guess it's time, once again, to ask >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<< how they personally are injured if someone somewhere else enjoys the same rights they do. Of course, I never get an answer because nobody is injured and nobody can admit it.

 

Where did I say equality was dishonest?

 

I don't get it, what collective rights are we losing?

 

Ironic, I thought protection from the tyranny of that majority was a collective right. What's the use of a right if it can't be protected in court?

 

It is. But in the case of gay marriage, who is losing rights? I don't see anyone losing anything.

 

You said it was dishonest to CALL equality, equality.

And I notice you carefully ignored the request to explain how granting equality to others injures you. As I predicted. You can't answer, because to do so you'd have to be honest. You have a real problem with honesty, don't you?

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe you can join me in asking, at least once per bigot-thread, what they personally are losing. Sooner or later, SOMEONE might be honest enough to answer.

 

Precisely. Giving gays more rights UNDERMINES straight rights.

 

Yes...because working for your equal right under the law is...raping someone.

Only the far right mind could handle that cognitive dissonance.

- - - Updated - - -

How are your rights raped by gays being able to marry?

Let's be specific here.

 

If you were intellectually honest you would quote me directly.

 

And this to will be overturned because it is in fact applying the law unequally. Legally married heterosexual couples benefiting where as legally married homosexual couples are denied.

Textbook 14th amendment issue that doesn't stand a chance in court.

 

Refer to post #11 on this thread. There, you said calling equal rights equal was dishonest. I still haven't got a straight explanation out of you. What, exactly, do you consider dishonest about equality?

 

I don't understand why anyone would take pride in making life more difficult for military families but to each their own I guess. It's a shame people support hurting and burdening others via the law simply because they don't like how those people live their lives.

 

These people, who admire the military, do not care who they hurt, as long as they win. These are the very same people who booed a gay marine during the election last time.

We're talking about folks who put themselves in the line of fire.

 

I have and the response is cricketts.
Then they go to another thread and cry about losing rights or being infringed upon. Silly folks they are.