Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

Alaska is reportedly considering a constitutional amendment that will extend their ban on gay marriage recognition to include a ban on employers offering benefits in acknowledgment of same-sex domestic partnerships:

The amendment would read that marriage between a man and a woman is the only union valid in the state "and to which the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage shall be extended or assigned."

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/021406alaska.htm

There you have it folks. It ain't about 'protecting' marriage - never was. It's about punishing gay couples in committed, long-term relationships any legal way that can be found. Yesterday it was by denying their marriages recognition. Today it's by withholding benefits and protections from any who fail to conform to the ideal of heterosexual marriage.

I wonder what it will be tomorrow?

[George W Bush]

dont know why marriage requires such things by the state.
the only obligation to marry should only require 2 people.
theres no basis for government to enforce some view, that 'its just not right'.
if you wanna marry, get married. forget if the state recognises it or not. screw em.

[Enoch]

Does the proposed Alaska law prohibit private companies from offering benefits, or just state agencies....as with Michigan?

[F'losrix]

UrielsFyre wrote: Does the proposed Alaska law prohibit private companies from offering benefits, or just state agencies....as with Michigan?
I'm inclined to say just state agencies - I can't imagine them ever making this fly against private companies, though so far I haven't found a complete wording of the amendment - probably too early as I don't think there's a final draft yet. If the wording quoted in the article is accurate though - it's chilling. It almost sounds like they mean it to be 'across the board'.

Of course, there's always the question of whether or not this could affect a couple's private legal arrangements that have been undertaken to approximate the protections of marriage that they can't get otherwise.

[Gryff1nd0r]

George W Bush wrote: dont know why marriage requires such things by the state.
the only obligation to marry should only require 2 people.
theres no basis for government to enforce some view, that 'its just not right'.
if you wanna marry, get married. forget if the state recognises it or not. screw em.

Well the marriage has to be recognized by the state to get the benefits that it comes with. So saying "screw em" doesn't really help the couple's situation, although it might make them feel slightly better to say it.

[connermt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Alaska is reportedly considering a constitutional amendment that will extend their ban on gay marriage recognition to include a ban on employers offering benefits in acknowledgment of same-sex domestic partnerships:

The amendment would read that marriage between a man and a woman is the only union valid in the state "and to which the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage shall be extended or assigned."

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/021406alaska.htm

There you have it folks. It ain't about 'protecting' marriage - never was. It's about punishing gay couples in committed, long-term relationships any legal way that can be found. Yesterday it was by denying their marriages recognition. Today it's by withholding benefits and protections from any who fail to conform to the ideal of heterosexual marriage.

I wonder what it will be tomorrow?

Welcome to Ohio, Alaska.....