Quote:
Originally Posted by kalipygian  Not necessarily.
A court can do the right thing, even when a majority of the people do the wrong thing, and pass an unconstitutional constitutional amendment.
A very similar one was passed by the people here, in 1998. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it would be discriminatory to deny domestic partner benefits to public employees. They presently have them. |
The problem with Alaska's constitutional amendment was that it created a Catch-22 issue with benefits. The amendment as passed banned benefits for same sex couples yet the state's laws stated that state employees had to be married to receive employment benefits. Essentially the court vacated only a portion of the amendment but explicitly stated that the issue would have to be resolved by lower courts and, until then, the state could not deny benefits to domestic partners. The focus wasn't on marriage so much as benefits. It is still illegal for homosexual couples to marry in Alaska. Essentially the court is telling the legislature to re-write its poorly written amendment or change the laws regarding benefits being tied to marriage.