Hide Article Text (OCR)
By KARSTEN RODVIK and MARY ANN PEASE ON Nov. 3, the eyes of the na tion will be focused on Alaska, as voters here decide Ballot Mea sure No. 2, the Defense of Mar riage Amendment. The proposed amendment con sists of one simple sentence: “To be valid or recognized in this state, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.” A “‘yes” vote will preserve the institution of marriage as it has always been understood: a union of one man and one woman. However, a “no” vote will allow government, especially none lected judges, to radically rede fine marriage and the family in ways that will forever change the face of society. Some voters are still unclear on why this issue has come be fore us. Why is it being debated in Alaska, and why now? To answer these questions, we have to go back in time a few years. In 1994 two Alaska men, Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, ap plied for a marriage license. To no one’s surprise, the application was denied. The laws of Alaska, consistent with statutes in all other states and every country in the world, have never recognized the concept of homosexual mar riage. After they were turned down, Brause and Dugan sued the state of Alaska, arguing they had a fundamental right to marry Guest opinion each other. Similar lawsuits have been filed in many states around the country, and all but one were dismissed because they lacked any legal merit. But on Feb. 27, 1998, an An chorage Superior Court judge reached an entirely different de cision, using a bizarre and ironic chain of reasoning. Although it is nowhere mentioned or even re motely suggested, he concluded that the state constitution con tains a right to choose a life partner and further stated that the failure of the state to provide public recognition of an individ ual’s private choice of a life partner is a violation of the right to privacy. In addition to privacy, the pre homosexual marriage arguments usually refer to government, dis crimination and redundancy. But these arguments are also com pletely without merit. A “yes” vote will not affect ho mosexual privacy. Homosexuals will continue to be free to do ex actly what they wish in private. A “yes” vote does not mean increased government. Marriage will remain exactly as it has al ways been. A “yes” vote is not discrimina tory. Homosexuals will continue to have exactly the same public and private rights everyone else has. No one can marry someone else of the same sex anywhere in the world. A “yes” vote does not lead to redundancy. The law the same sex activists refer to as on the books is exactly the law they sued to remove. With voter approval, Ballot Measure No. 2 will overturn the court decision and keep marriage as it has always been. In contrast, failure to pass measure No. 2 will pave the way for the courts to order that homosexual unions be recognized as marriages a pre ferred legal status in society. How will this affect you and your family? Consider the following: Public schools will be forced to teach your children, from the earliest ages through high school, that homosexual marriage is as healthy and normal as traditional marriage. Homosexual couples will be equally eligible as traditional married couples to adopt children. This means more and more children will be raised in households without role models from both genders. Public and private employers alike would be forced to endorse homosexual relationships by of fering economic benefits such as health insurance and family leave to same-sex couples. Rather than face this financial burden, many employers may choose to discon tinue these benefits for all em ployees. It will quickly become illegal to express disapproval of homo sexuality in the private market place. For example, many employers, such as managers of child care centers or schools who sincerely believe that openly ho mosexual persons do not make good role models for children, will be prohibited from denying employment for that reason. Legalization of homosexual marriage in Alaska will trigger legal chaos, as it will place our state laws in conflict with the laws of all other states, the fed eral government, and every country in the world. Most Alaskans have a live and let live philosophy. But tolerance requires mutual respect. When the vast majority of Alaskans dis approve of homosexual unions as marriage, it is unrealistic and un reasonable for homosexual activ ists to demand that their private lifestyle choices be granted the public legitimization associated with marriage. On Nov. 3, voters have the re sponsibility to preserve the tradi tional institution of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Amend ment deserves your support. Please vote yes on Ballot Mea sure No. 2. Karsten Rodvik of Anchorage is the Alaska Family Coalition campaign man ager.
Newspaper Details
Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Fairbanks, Alaska, US
Sun, Nov 01, 1998
Page 4
Full Page
Clipped by
Jakob D.
GB 10 Jun 2026
Other Publications Near Fairbanks, Alaska
Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Daily News Miner
Fairbanks Weekly News Miner
Fairbanks Evening News
Fairbanks Daily Times
