On the Alaska Same-Sex Benefits Ruling
---
The Supreme Court of Alaska has unanimously ruled that the state must grant same-sex domestic partners of public employees the same employment benefits that it provides to married heterosexual spouses of public employees. The decision is available here; the ACLU's press release is available here.
Some highlights of the decision:
--While it may be reasonable to deny partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples (since they have the option of getting married), it is not automatically reasonable to also deny those benefits to unmarried same-sex couples, since gays are expressly forbidden to marry under Alaska's bigot amendment (Section 25 of the state Declaration of Rights).
--The denial of benefits fails even the lowest form of scrutiny, commonly referred to as "rational basis review." So on the one hand, gays maintain their perfect track record of not being deemed a "suspect class" entitled to heightened scrutiny as a matter of constitutional law. But on the other hand, the increasingly potent touchstone of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (namely that mere animus toward gays is not a "legitimate government interest" and does not withstand constitutional scrutiny) has once again been the basis for striking down a discriminatory policy. As I've maintained for some time: as inspiring as Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was for gays, full marriage equality is not going to come from that case, but rather from the increasingly precendential Romer and its "this a state may not do" line in the sand regarding bigotry for the sake of bigotry.
--The Alaska Supreme Court was applying a provision (two if you include Alaska's bigot amendment) of that state's constitution. The case is therefore not subject to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. (The Alaska court refused, however, to engage in "judicial activism" and left it to the legislature to decide how best to end the state's discriminatory policy, so there are still unanswered questions as to what happens next.)
--Be sure to watch the response of Alaska's bigots after this decision. Remember, the Alaska Supreme Court did not disturb Alaska's ban on same-sex marriage in any way. Those who claim that "it's only about marriage" have nothing to complain about — "traditional" marriage is safe (for now) in Alaska. So if they disapprove of the decision, it must be because, when they say "it's only about marriage," they are lying.
Congratulations to Alaska's same-sex couples and the Alaska Civil Liberties Union for this important victory.
The case is Alaska CLU v. State of Alaska, No. 5950 (October 28, 2005).
UPDATE: An Alaska Republican legislator (who is, of course, "not a bigot") intends to introduce (yet another) state constitutional amendment overturning the Alaska Supreme Court decision. Because (again), when they say "it's only about marriage," they lie.
Some highlights of the decision:
--While it may be reasonable to deny partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples (since they have the option of getting married), it is not automatically reasonable to also deny those benefits to unmarried same-sex couples, since gays are expressly forbidden to marry under Alaska's bigot amendment (Section 25 of the state Declaration of Rights).
--The denial of benefits fails even the lowest form of scrutiny, commonly referred to as "rational basis review." So on the one hand, gays maintain their perfect track record of not being deemed a "suspect class" entitled to heightened scrutiny as a matter of constitutional law. But on the other hand, the increasingly potent touchstone of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (namely that mere animus toward gays is not a "legitimate government interest" and does not withstand constitutional scrutiny) has once again been the basis for striking down a discriminatory policy. As I've maintained for some time: as inspiring as Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was for gays, full marriage equality is not going to come from that case, but rather from the increasingly precendential Romer and its "this a state may not do" line in the sand regarding bigotry for the sake of bigotry.
--The Alaska Supreme Court was applying a provision (two if you include Alaska's bigot amendment) of that state's constitution. The case is therefore not subject to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. (The Alaska court refused, however, to engage in "judicial activism" and left it to the legislature to decide how best to end the state's discriminatory policy, so there are still unanswered questions as to what happens next.)
--Be sure to watch the response of Alaska's bigots after this decision. Remember, the Alaska Supreme Court did not disturb Alaska's ban on same-sex marriage in any way. Those who claim that "it's only about marriage" have nothing to complain about — "traditional" marriage is safe (for now) in Alaska. So if they disapprove of the decision, it must be because, when they say "it's only about marriage," they are lying.
Congratulations to Alaska's same-sex couples and the Alaska Civil Liberties Union for this important victory.
The case is Alaska CLU v. State of Alaska, No. 5950 (October 28, 2005).
UPDATE: An Alaska Republican legislator (who is, of course, "not a bigot") intends to introduce (yet another) state constitutional amendment overturning the Alaska Supreme Court decision. Because (again), when they say "it's only about marriage," they lie.
Posted by Kip on
30 October 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.