Don't Let Good Intentions Cloud Gay Marriage Issue

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 2283
Rockville MD 20847

310-910-9153

Don't let good intentions cloud gay marriage issue

By Jim Minnery Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, April 16, 2006

Good intentions often lead to unintended consequences. This truism is relevant regarding the same-sex benefits issue being addressed in Juneau. (News-Miner, April 16, 2006)

In 1998, Alaskans overwhelmingly voted to add one sentence to our constitution: "To be valid or recognized in the State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman." Although the issue has been dubbed one of the more contentious public discussions of our day, it's been anything but controversial in voting booths. Nineteen states have voted overwhelmingly to enshrine language in their constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Indisputably, a national consensus has been established regarding how we define marriage.

Alaskans are now being forced to further clarify what most people assumed was settled in 1998. This issue is in the public eye again, thanks to an Alaska Supreme Court ruling in October 2005 requiring state and local governments to recognize same-sex couples by providing them with taxpayer-funded benefits equivalent to marriage. In response, legislation was introduced that simply articulates what was inherent to the 1998 Marriage Amendment--marriage serves a public purpose in a way no other relationship can and should be legitimately and uniquely privileged.

It's not about hatred, bigotry or gay-bashing. It's not about taking rights away or discriminating against a segment of society either. It's about unapologetically distinguishing and intentionally lifting up marriage as a treasured institution that distinctively benefits our communities.

Are the basic civil rights of gays and lesbians really being denied? Same-sex couples, despite not being married, can easily obtain legal documents to establish hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights, grant power of attorney, have joint bank accounts, property ownership, inheritance rights and be life insurance beneficiaries. In Connecticut, despite having benefits identical to people who are married, same-sex couples are out in force suing their state for the right to marry. Is it possible this is more about public affirmation than essential benefits being denied?

The court's ruling was based on a false contention and will, if left alone, have consequences far beyond what many Alaskans may realize. One of the more slippery tasks will be defining what qualifies as a same-sex relationship. Will it be based on the length of the relationship or simply if they live together? Will the couple be required to be sexually active? To qualify for employee health benefits at the University of Florida, same-sex couples must sign an affidavit stating they are actually involved in a "nonplatonic" relationship. Should tax dollars be used to determine who is engaged in sexual activity and who is not?

Once we're mandated to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples, it becomes very difficult to deny that privilege to polygamists or even cohabiting friends or relatives. The homosexual movement has been very purposeful in avoiding any comparison to polygamists, but that argument is disingenuous. The American Civil Liberties Union is working to repeal all laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of what some call "plural marriage." Polygamy advocates are following the same script of the gay rights movement, and programs glamorizing it, like the HBO series "Big Love," are paving the way toward acceptance and more lawsuits demanding "civil rights."

The reality is that a segment of our population wants all of society to collectively approve of and legally endorse homosexuality in the same way we validate heterosexuality. Rulings from the Alaska Supreme Court cannot make that happen. Neither can an attempt to thwart the will of the people by denying them the right to vote on what the 1998 marriage amendment intended. Now is the time to contact your legislators and politely remind them to let the people of Alaska vote on House Joint Resolution 32 and Senate Joint Resolution 20.

Jim Minnery is president of the Alaska Family Council.

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.