Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_els  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. |
No case has been brought up on the constitutionality of the amendment in Alaska, so the supreme court has not addressed it. Also no ruling has been made on the constitutionality of discriminatory laws passed by the legislature in the early nineties.
The ruling did not relate to any legislation, it was a result of a suit brought by GLBT public employees against the state who were not allowed to marry and were seeking equal treatment, and based on another part of the constitution. I was present in the courtroom when the arguments were made, and am very active in these things. A previous case for university employees had been won ten years previously.
There have been other cases seeking the right to marry that have been lost.
Perhaps the statement of rights in the Michigan constitution is weaker than the one in our relatively new one. (I know personally two of the authors, who are still very active in progressive causes)