insurgent49
  updated weekly
 home - contribute - donate -  message board - events - links - contact us - archive
November 11, 2005
The Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford

Rites and Wrongs

     On October 28, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision upholding the right of gay and lesbian public employees who are in committed domestic relationships to receive the same employment benefits that are offered to married heterosexual public employees.

     It was a courageous decision by the court, but it was not based upon any radical new legal thinking. Instead, it was based upon a very straightforward application of long established equal protection analysis to the facts of the case before it. Equal protection is the constitutional doctrine that says that similarly situated people should be treated similarly by the government, and that the government should not be allowed to discriminate based upon distinctions which do not serve a proper governmental purpose.
 
     The unanimous court found that gay and lesbian couples who are in a committed domestic relationship should not be deprived of equal employment benefits when they are doing equal work for a state or municipal employer. Equal pay and benefits for equal work, what could be wrong with that?

     From the reaction of the right wing to this decision, however, you would think that the world’s liberals had all just been raptured, and that the neo-con Christians had all been left behind. Senator Jack Coghill (R - North Pole) accused the court of ruling by “supreme decree” against the recent constitutional amendment in Alaska limiting marriage to a relationship between one man and one woman. Senator Fred Dyson (R - Eagle River) claimed that as a result of the decision, he did not know how to prevent polygamy and incest from being legalized in the next court case.

     Both of these comments are smokescreens. The Supreme Court repeatedly made it clear in its opinion that Alaska’s recent constitutional marriage amendment is not affected by the ruling. As for Senator Dyson, he may well be too ignorant to formulate arguments in constitutional litigation, but the fundamental difference is that homosexual relationships are legal in Alaska, while polygamy and incest are not.

     Several law makers have announced plans to introduce a constitutional amendment to make sure that married heterosexual public employees can get rights and benefits which are not available to their co-workers who are doing the same work. This is a perfect example to demonstrate that Alaska is run by reactionaries and not by conservatives. Conservatives like to preserve the status quo, resist change, and resist giving new powers to government. The reactionaries that run Alaska, on the other hand, now want to pass a second constitutional amendment on top of the one limiting the rights of people to marry the person they love. That new amendment would give the government more power to discriminate against disfavored groups, and reduce the rights of individuals.

     True conservatives will be horrified by that prospect, but reactionaries will love it, just as they love waging unnecessary war, torturing prisoners, ripping up long standing international treaties, destroying environmental protections, ignoring labor laws and implementing all of the other bone-headed policies of the reactionary movement.

     Constitutional amendments have primarily been used to protect individuals against the arbitrary and unjust exercise of power by the government. The Bill of Rights, protection against racial discrimination, the vote for women, and the vote for 18 year-old citizens are just a few of the constitutional amendments which have been used to limit the power of government, and to increase the rights of individuals.

     The reactionaries, however, have sought to amend the constitution to increase the power of the government, and to decrease the rights of individuals. They don’t want freedom, they want government control. In this instance, they want to be able to monitor what goes on in bedrooms across the state, and to punish those who do not conform to their narrow definition of what is acceptable.

     Many people came to Alaska to escape that type of intrusion into their lives. Let our reactionary political leaders know that you do not support their "Big Brother" philosophy.







Kevin Morford is a political activist and an attorney in private practice in the Anchorage area.  He can be reached at kmorford@insurgent49.com.
- Columnists -

Editor's Desk
by Aaron Selbig

Red Alert
by Soren Wuerth

Alaskan In Exile
by Neil Zawicki

The
Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford





Copyright 2005 Insurgent Media. All Rights Reserved.
in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership.