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

Skip to comments.

Same-sex benefits a polarizing issue (Alaskans to vote Tuesday on issue)
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner ^

Posted on 04/02/2007 11:47:04 AM PDT by Princip. Conservative

Local preachers rallying voters in support of Tuesday’s advisory vote were offset by local “vote no” advocates who showed up at the Friday morning press conference at the Noel Wien Library with placards in hand.

Former state Sen. Ralph Seekins, representing Alaska Family Action, a pro-family organization formed a year ago and based on Dr. James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” principles, took the podium to introduce an assembly of ministers from Bethel Baptist, Bible Baptist, Mount Pleasant Baptist, Door of Hope, Fairbanks Assembly of God, and New Jerusalem Church of God in Christ.

Seekins said the advisory measure doesn’t have anything to do with health or retirement benefits. “It has to do with marriage,” he said.

-- SNIP --

Tuesday’s special public advisory vote, set up by the Legislature, is meant to advise state lawmakers whether or not to propose a constitutional amendment to prohibit the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of public employees and retirees.

Keith Payne, associate pastor at Bethel Baptist Church, said, “Same-sex relationships fall outside of what God intended. Voting yes promotes a biblical ethic, and marriage exists between one man and one woman.”

Leon Roth of Bible Baptist Church urged a yes vote to override the state Supreme Court’s decision saying, “I believe people should make these decisions.”

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


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: civilunions; domesticpartners; gayagenda; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda
Well, it's not exactly about gay marriage (Alaskans overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage in 1998), but it's still down that road. Here's praying that Alaskans do the right thing an approve this advisory referendum and outlaw such stupid benefits.
1 posted on 04/02/2007 11:47:10 AM PDT by Princip. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Princip. Conservative
Sigh

Gay marriage is banned in Alaska. So, under Article 1, part 1

(This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.)

the equal protection part - gays sued and won. If they cannot get married, it is argued, how can they have equal rights with married co-workers who get benefits for their families?

Easy solution - State pays for employee and the employee pays for any 'dependents' up to - say 5. Everyone pays the same, gayness is not an issue. The vote is just a fig leaf for the gutless pols in Juneau to hide behind IF they try to change the law.

Blech.

I'll go out on a limb and predict the voters tell the Pols to butt out, the proposition will fail.

2 posted on 04/02/2007 12:00:25 PM PDT by ASOC (Yeah, well, maybe - but can you *prove* it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Princip. Conservative
Well, it's not exactly about gay marriage (Alaskans overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage in 1998),

Back when Texas banned "same sex marriage," the amendement included language banning local goverments from recognizing them or giving benefits for anything that resembled a marriage. This means Austin is can't give to same sex partners or unmarried heterosexual couples the benefits they give to married employees.

3 posted on 04/02/2007 12:07:32 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Princip. Conservative

Polarizing - Alaska - heehee! Funny...


4 posted on 04/02/2007 12:12:37 PM PDT by jagusafr (The proof that we are rightly related to God is that we do our best whether we feel inspired or not")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Princip. Conservative

You know, I would not have a problem with these benefits if they were not tied to performing deviant sexual acts as a qualifier. Imagine, have such benefits for a good friend, a sibling, an elderly parent, or just a normal roommate.


5 posted on 04/02/2007 12:28:59 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

"Back when Texas banned "same sex marriage," the amendement included language banning local goverments from recognizing them or giving benefits for anything that resembled a marriage. This means Austin is can't give to same sex partners or unmarried heterosexual couples the benefits they give to married employees."

Good for Texas. And it was approved with more than 76% of the vote. Doesn't sound like gay marriage or any other substitute will be happening any time soon in the Lone Star State!


6 posted on 04/02/2007 12:29:26 PM PDT by Princip. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I will indeed be a-pingifying later today.


7 posted on 04/02/2007 12:51:28 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Only those who thirst for truth can know truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Princip. Conservative

I am one Alaskan who is definately voting yes along with my wife.


8 posted on 04/02/2007 2:04:04 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASOC

homosexuals can get married to members of the opposit sex.

Homosexuals want an orgasm clause. They want a guarantee of orgasm based on their selected sexual behavior.


9 posted on 04/02/2007 2:16:06 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Well, they can go to any church and tie ther knot, the STate will not recognize it tho.

As for the other, I have no idea what you are trying to say.....


10 posted on 04/02/2007 3:41:10 PM PDT by ASOC (Yeah, well, maybe - but can you *prove* it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ASOC

Homosexuals want marriage to be based on how they achieve orgasm. Homosexuality is only about recreational sex.


11 posted on 04/02/2007 6:31:46 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan; Agitate; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; BabaOreally; Balke; BigFinn; BlackElk; ...
Anyone want to bet how the vote will turn out?

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

12 posted on 04/04/2007 9:44:48 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Only those who thirst for truth can know truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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