Federal judge strikes down Alaska's same sex marriage ban as unconstitutional; State to appealACLU Criticizes Governor’s "Pointless, Expensive Appeal of Alaska Marriage Victory"By MARY KAUFFMAN October 14, 2014
Judge Timothy M. Burgess of the U.S. District Court of Alaska wrote that Alaskan same-sex couples “wish to participate in the existing liberty [to marry] granted to other couples to make a deeply personal choice about a private family matter,” and in the Court’s “reasoned judgment . . . Alaska’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage ‘usurp, disregard, and disrespect’ the fundamental right of all [same-sex couples] to choose who to marry; a right of liberty, privacy, and association freely given to [opposite-sex couples].” “Judge Burgess ruled that discrimination has no place in Alaska or America,” said Joshua A. Decker, executive director of the ACLU of Alaska. “His decision that loving, committed same-sex couples can both marry in Alaska and have their marriages from elsewhere recognized here, embodies America’s guarantee of equality and Alaska’s tradition of keeping the government out of our private lives. In 1998, we were the first state to ban equal marriage and stitch discrimination into our constitution. Yesterday’s ruling ends that ban and removes that badge of dishonor.”
Longtime Ketchikan residents and local professionals Marina Rowe and Sharon McIntyre became engaged on January 3, 2014, and were legally married in California on September 27th. They welcome the federal court's ruling which now requires the State of Alaska to also recognize their same-sex marriage.
Sharon and Marina were married in California on October 7th, and with the court's ruling, their same-sex couple marriage which took place legally outside the state in California must now also be recognized by the State of Alaska. Attending and participating in the McIntyres' wedding and celebrationin California were several Ketchikan residents. More friends could have attended this special event if the wedding could have taken place in their hometown of Ketchikan. After hearing of the federal court's ruling, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell (R-AK) announced over the weekend that the State will appeal Sunday's ruling by the U.S. District Court. Governor Parnell said Sunday, “As Alaska’s governor, I have a duty to defend and uphold the law and the Alaska Constitution.” Parnell said, “Although the district court [Sunday] may have been bound by the recent Ninth Circuit panel opinion, the status of that opinion and the law in general in this area is in flux. I will defend our constitution.” The State of Alaska argued in its brief before the district court that the definition of marriage should be left to the democratic process of the states. It was through this democratic process that a majority of Alaskans voted for the constitutional amendment, which has since been challenged. “We are thrilled that couples can start applying for marriage licenses this morning [Monday],” said Decker, “but we are disappointed that Governor Parnell wants to double-down on discrimination by appealing this equal marriage decision." Decker said, "Judge Burgess recognized that Alaska’s ban harmed same-sex couples with ‘unwarranted social, economic, and political burdens.’ Instead of embracing equal rights for all Alaskans, it is sad that Governor Parnell wants to try to continue this harmful discrimination.” “With Alaska’s $7 million-a-day deficit, Governor Parnell spends more money each day that we do not have. Given that and last week’s multiple marriage victories, from the U.S. Supreme Court bringing marriage equality to 30 states, to the Ninth Circuit striking down Nevada and Idaho’s equal marriage bans, we are surprised that Governor Parnell wants to waste more taxpayers dollars on this futile appeal,” Decker said. “The law is clear. Rather than trying to discriminate against and harm Alaskans, Governor Parnell should heed Judge Burgess, that the ‘more effective way to . . . build[] strong, supportive families,’ is ‘to allow same-sex couples the same [rights] for creating and nurturing a family.’” The American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska celebrated Sunday’s decision that overturned Alaska’s ban on equal marriage. Same-sex couples can now marry in Alaska and have their Outside marriages recognized in Alaska. “Alaska had the misfortune of being the first state, in 1998, to ban equal marriage and bake discrimination into our constitution,” said Decker, executive director of the ACLU of Alaska. “[Sunday's] decision allows Alaskans to marry and to have their Outside marriages recognized here. This victory brings equal rights to thousands of Alaskan couples who are in loving, committed relationships.” “The Court forcefully rejected all of Alaska’s supposed justifications for the ban on equal marriage,” said Decker. “Judge Burgess wrote that this discrimination has ‘nothing to do with promoting or ensuring a citizen’s voting rights,’ or any ‘rational relationship to the preservation of traditional marriages,’ and it in fact harms couples, families, and children. We are gratified that the Court recognized that rather than making second-class citizens and families, the ‘more effective way to . . . build[] strong, supportive families with children would be to allow same-sex couples the same public resources as heterosexual couples have for creating and nurturing a family.” According to the ACLU of Alaska, this is a historic moment that the ACLU has worked towards for decades, from 1970, when the ACLU filed the country’s first freedom-to-marry lawsuit, to 2012, when the ACLU helped win marriage at the ballot box in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, to 2013, when the ACLU helped Edie Windsor take down the core of the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review several cases on similar constitutional bans in other states. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled the next day that constitutional amendments in Nevada and Idaho must be overturned. On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stayed the Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling at the request of Idaho, putting a halt to implementation of the decision, and that order was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court on Friday. Whether Idaho will request and receive review by the full panel of the Ninth Circuit is uncertain. There are also other circuit courts that have not ruled yet, which will likely result in additional requests for U.S. Supreme Court review once those cases are complete.
Source of News:
|
||
