Posted on 11/11/2006 9:01:58 AM PST by Graybeard58
Gov. Frank Murkowski and Republican lawmakers are both fighting a court order forcing the state to provide benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. Each is asking for more time to consider the issue and charging that the courts have overstepped their authority and acted against the will of the Alaskan people.
Lawmakers will take up the issue during a special session beginning Monday. Murkowski called the session late last month after Lt. Gov. Loren Leman, who is responsible for approving state regulations, argued that implementing the new benefits would require changing state law and was therefore a responsibility of the Legislature.
“You can’t change statute by regulation,” Leman said Friday.
But House and Senate leaders Friday suggested they weren’t interested in changing state law to allow the benefits. Instead, leaders in both bodies said they will introduce a resolution urging the Alaska Supreme Court to postpone its Jan. 1, 2007, deadline for the benefits to allow the next Legislature to address the issue during its regular session.
A work draft of the resolution provided by House Majority Leader John Coghill, R-North Pole, argues that expansion of benefits is a “critical state policy decision” that should involve the newly elected governor and lawmakers and should not be rushed through “without adequate public participation.”
The resolution suggests that instead of expanding benefits to same-sex partners, the state could cut benefits to spouses of newly hired state employees to satisfy the court, which ruled in 2005 that denying benefits to same-sex partners violated the equal protection requirements of the Alaska Constitution.
“Selection of the appropriate remedy to the benefits program requires and deserves the Legislature’s careful consideration,” reads the resolution.
The resolution also reprimands the courts for directing Murkowski’s administration to implement the benefits through regulations.
“The legislature reserves its authority to make policy decisions and will not surrender that authority to the courts,” it reads.
Coghill said Friday he believed the state should not provide the benefits and was not required to by its constitution.
“I’m in total disagreement with the court,” he said.
Not everyone supports the resolution.
Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage, called the idea a “joke.”
“The Legislature cannot tell a court how to rule on a case,” he said.
Gara accused Murkowski of calling the special session for political reasons and said he would have been happy with the administration implementing the benefits.
Coghill took his protest one step further by drafting a bill, retroactive to June 1, blocking the commissioner of administration from implementing the benefits.
He said Thursday he thought the court order went against the will of the people. On Friday, he said if the Legislature could not stop the benefits, he would push for a public vote to amend the constitutional to block them.
Senate Majority Leader Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, who said he expected the resolution to pass, stopped short of offering support for the bill.
“It’s something we’ll certainly consider,” he said.
While Leman said he blocked the new regulations because he lacked authority to approve them, he also opposes providing the benefits. Like Coghill, he said he didn’t think the constitution’s equal protection requirements forced the state to treat same-sex couples the same as married, heterosexual couples.
“The Supreme Court erred in its decision,” he said.
Rep. David Guttenberg, D-Fairbanks, accused Leman on Friday of refusing to implement the benefits because he was personally opposed to them. Gara said he had requested an opinion from the Legislative Affairs Agency on the administration’s authority to implement the regulations and was convinced that it could without calling a special session.
Opponents of providing the benefits point to a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1998 defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The measure passed 68 percent to 32 percent.
Leman pushed for the amendment as a state senator and wrote the official election pamphlet letter in support of the ballot measure.
“Ballot Measure No. 2 does not ‘target’ anybody or ‘deny’ anybody their rights,” he wrote in the letter, “You’ll hear that, but don’t believe it. All Alaskans are equal before the law.”
He said Friday the amendment didn’t prevent or direct any government to provide benefits to same-sex partners.
But Murkowski pointed to the amendment in arguing that the courts are “ignoring” the voice of Alaskans, and Coghill said the 1998 vote was “absolutely” about defining who should qualify for benefits.
Gara and Guttenberg disputed the claim that voters meant to block same-sex couples from benefits.
“They’re reinterpreting the constitutional amendment,” Guttenberg said.
Stefan Milkowski can be reached at smilkowski@newsminer.com or 459-7577.
Cool! When can I add my partridge, 2 turtle doves, 3 french hens, 4 calling birds, 6 geese, 7 swans, 8 maids, 9 ladies, 10 lords, 11 pipers, and 12 drummers?
Financing deviant behavior... I never thought that I would see the day!
LLS
How is it that a court can tell a govt to make a law?
Thank the "court" in ass-hat-chuchetts for that one...
We're too far down the slippery slope. In some cases, we've been able to stop the slide, but conservatives have gained no headway to swinging the pendulum the other direction. This country is doomed.
Since the lawmakers in our government became too spineless to put the judiciary back in it's place, which is to uphold the laws of the nation as they were origionaly written to mean.
This week I am going to San Freakcisco so I can marry my dog. Lots of benefits to be had from the twisted liberals....
Nathan, I thought it was the judiciarys job to determine whether laws passed by legislatures and signed by presidents or governors were within the confines of the constitution. And that is it.
Only if we allow the last saftey valve to be stripped away from "we the people". When the government, and that includes a out of control judiciary, fails to do the will of the people, they need to be removed and tried.
Isn't it time for some legislatures to tell the courts that, well, they're grateful for their opinion, but they'd just as soon set their own legislative agenda, thanks.
There is a way to make a change all across the board, at gov or private level. Not sure I can express it clearly, right now you have governments, companies, universities, etc. that have their 'health' departments which sets up you picking companies, they deal with companies, they set up the type of policies etc. The way to fix it, [and incidentally lower costs because the market will become single consumer oriented instead of group oriented]anyway, I think the way to fix it all, health, retirement and so on is to provide a so-called 'bonus' and let the employees go get their own benefits. It would also cut costs at government level since there would be no need for departments to run benefits. Sort of like in the vein of making SS private. Then the person can do what they like instead of our government supporting benefits for anyone but the person in the job.
The constitution, and it's amendments, must be upheld by the courts. It can't be amended by the courts. it's the duty of those we elect and swear an oath to protect it to ensure the constitution is protected.
The definition of marriage is defined already, if it is not clear enough, then the constitution needs to be amended to make it's origional intent clear.
So true equal protection would be that everyone gets to designate one other person, animal, plant, or inanimate object, or "person in contemplation of law", or anything which in any way could be construed as a person to receive "benefits" -- or NOBODY could.
It used to be, way back there in the Neanderthal times, that people thought that society had an interest in folks having kids, and society and the kids had an interest in the folks who had the kids being one each of either sex and in a relationship that involved something more than estradiol, lust, and convenience.
But now that life is optional and desire is sovreign, things have changed. Civilization and enlightenment are just SEW gold darn wonderful.
boy....you have not been following our great state....NJ...just told the lib/dems in the legislature (we have no republicans) to come up with law as well....
And that is why constitutional amendments must only be considered as a last resort.
We do not want to change our constitution. It is the foundation of our entire nation. Destroy it, and we destroy the nation. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Our moral compass is also found in our constitution, it's what made this nation great in the first place. We cannot change it, we must not change it, especially for stupid things like deviant behavior. If we allow that, we are doomed.
Yep. The "intent" on which such things were built on was the family, a man, a woman, and their children, not anything else. Not for a pervert satisfying their deviant sexual desires and having society pay for it. They can set up their own deviant sexual service worker association for that, and pay premiums for any desired coverage. They should also have their own medical coverage for industry related disease, pay for by themselves. They do not have any right to my money to pay for repercussions resulting from their choices which defy natures intent and laws.
Yes I do follow N.J. and its very screwed up politics. That particular ruling is one reason I asked the question.
It seems that is precicely what the libs are trying what with pushing the homosexual agenda.
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.