Senate Floor Statement in Support of SJR 42

By Senator Loren Leman (R-Anchorage)
Made Thursday, April 16, 1998 Before the Alaska State Senate Juneau, Alaska

Mr. President, Senate Joint Resolution 42 will give Alaska voters the opportunity to decide the definition of the institution of marriage, and protect it in our constitution.

Why are we here today? I think all of us are aware that less than seven weeks ago, in the case of Brause & Dugan vs. State of Alaska, Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski discovered in the state constitution a right to "choose a life partner." In a decision rich with ironies, he concluded that the state’s "failure… to provide public recognition" of a person’s homosexual relationship is contrary to the state constitution’s right to privacy.

The Senator from downtown Anchorage [Johnny Ellis] talked about what he calls the "premature action" of this body in considering this resolution. Let me remind the members that the state of Hawaii has dealt with this for the past four years, in litigation going back and forth between its superior court and its supreme court. And it is just this year that its legislature is placing on the ballot, for a vote this fall, the very same issue. The same will hold true in Alaska – this could be tied up for years in litigation, along with all the costs associated with it.

Judge Michalski’s decision set in motion a chain of events that could result in Alaska becoming the first and only political jurisdiction in the world to recognize marriage between homosexuals. No other state in the country recognizes homosexual marriage.

The federal government, in a bill signed by President Clinton, defines marriage as being a union that can exist only between one man and one woman. And I note this definition is controlling on more than 3,900 sections of federal statutes and regulations.

Marriage is a cultural institution with profound importance. Our existing definition, or one similar to it, is one that has served us through more than 6,000 years of recorded history. I recognize that there have been aberrations from this, even in our country. For a short time, in one territory, there was an experiment with polygamy. But over time, especially in the Western world, this has been the tradition.

Redefining the institution of marriage – even if that were possible – raises probably hundreds of cultural and legal questions. And I believe decisions of this magnitude should be made either by the representatives of the people of Alaska, or the people of Alaska, not by unelected judges.

Some have suggested that the motivation behind this resolution, and also Senate Bill 308 that we had before us two years ago, is to discriminate against homosexuals, to deny them rights and protections they deserve under the law. That is just not true.

A plain reading of the amendment shows that it offers constitutional protection to the marriage statute that this Legislature approved by overwhelming margins. Senate Joint Resolution 42 protects the statute we enacted in 1996 – nothing more, and nothing less. And any other interpretation of the motives behind the amendment is simply not true.

The marriage relationship has enjoyed preferred status in the Western legal tradition because of the unique social benefits it offers. William Bennett, well-known author of the Book of Virtues, which perhaps many of you have read or are aware of, recently wrote that

"Marriage is not an arbitrary construct; it is an ‘honorable estate’ based on the different, complementary nature of men and women – and how they refine, support, encourage, and complete one another."

He further stated that the recognition of homosexual marriages "would be the most radical step ever taken in the deconstruction of society’s most important institution."

Mr. President, I submit that Judge Michalski is attempting to redefine something that really is impervious to redefinition. We can no more redefine marriage than we can redefine gender. I accept that reality. Judge Michalski does not. And that is why we are here today.

Some critics have said that if this amendment is sent to Alaska’s voters for ratification, it will lead to a long, divisive debate with a lot of hateful rhetoric. I respectfully disagree – it doesn’t need to be that way.

In the last month, I’ve had the opportunity to participate in statewide debates on this subject. One of them was on television, and one yesterday was on radio. I debated a [homosexual] activist, an attorney from Anchorage who is a very intelligent woman, and we were able to conduct a debate that was civil. And for the most part, the questions from people who called in were the same, even when people had strong beliefs on the issue.

We’ve seen that people can get very emotional about issues before the Legislature. But that’s not a reason for not taking on an issue. In fact, I believe that this issue has probably generated more messages, more calls, more interest than anything else that we have before the Legislature today.

The issue of marriage is clearly important to many Alaskans. The people of Alaska deserve a chance to discuss and debate this issue – and I believe that it can and must be done with civility, and with respect for the dignity of all people.

Mr. President, I thought about this, and thought about digressing into some personal observations. It’s not always easy to do that, because sometimes that strikes really close to home. But in light of the messages that I’ve received, and suggestions by some that I don’t understand their lifestyle, that somehow I’m motivated by hate or fear, I just want to share something from my own past, from my own family.

I recognize that this can be, for some, a difficult issue. Although it’s a difficult issue to take on, I support it, as do many people in this body [the Senate]. But I do it because I believe in it. I believe this is one of the most important actions that we can take in this Legislature.

I’ve been troubled by accusations from some critics who question my motives. I have received hateful messages. I’ve received very, very perverse messages, some that I wouldn’t even share with my own staff, they were so bad. I don’t attribute that to the people who are in the gallery today who are watching this, or perhaps the people who are watching on TV. I believe that is the result of a very few people, and I also recognize that there are people who are supporters of this who are capable of doing the same thing. I don’t condone that, I don’t encourage it, and I hope that it doesn’t happen.

I have a few relatives – members of my extended family – who are homosexuals. My distant cousin is not an enemy. We love him. He’s a member of what we call "Agrafena’s children." That’s the name we’ve given to our extended family. It comes from our Alutiiq ancestor – our "great-great-great-great grandmother" who was married in Kodiak 200 years ago. And now our extended family not only is all around Alaska, but it’s in other parts of the world.

I have another cousin who was a homosexual, and he recently died. And as I reflect on my adult life, I can think back in recent years to three men who were friends of mine who were homosexuals. And unfortunately, all three of them are dead today. Two of them died of AIDS, tragically.

In the past decade, I’ve made the acquaintance of another man who formerly was a homosexual, but he abandoned that lifestyle. Sadly, he too is dying of AIDS.

I mention these things, because I believe it’s important for the public – and for us – to understand that we don’t operate in a vacuum or debate these issues in a vacuum. I doubt there is a single member of this Senate who doesn’t have a friend or relative who is a homosexual. But even when we disagree with the moral choices another person makes, our relationship can still be rooted in love.

However, it is a false compassion to suggest that tolerance requires us to publicly recognize and sanction and confer special benefits on homosexual relationships.

I know there is an article in this morning’s Anchorage paper about poll results. Recent polls tell us that 70 percent of Alaskans believe marriage should be limited to a union of one man and one woman.

I believe it is not appropriate for one superior court judge, and perhaps as few as three Supreme Court judges, all unelected, to redefine the institution of marriage and force it upon the 70 percent of Alaskans who don’t want it redefined.

I’ll close by reflecting on the words of Judge Andrew Kleinfeld on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe I shared this quote with the Senate earlier this year. In a dissenting opinion last year, he said:

"The Founding Fathers did not establish the United States as a democratic republic so that elected officials would decide trivia, while all great questions would be decided by the judiciary."

Mr. President, the definition of marriage is indeed one of the great questions of our time. It deserves to be resolved by the people and their elected representatives. SJR 42 will allow that process to happen. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

# # #