1998 Alaska Measure 2

Last updated

Measure 2
Alaska Marriage Amendment
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes152,96568.11%
Light brown x.svgNo71,63131.89%
Valid votes224,59698.87%
Invalid or blank votes2,5601.13%
Total votes227,156100.00%
Registered voters/turnout453,33249.54%
1998 Measure 2 election in Alaska by Alaska House of Representatives districts.svg
Source: [1]

Ballot Measure 2 of 1998 is a ballot measure, since ruled unconstitutional, that added an amendment to the Alaska Constitution that prohibited the recognition of same-sex marriage in Alaska. The Ballot measure was sparked by the lawsuit filed by Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, after the two men were denied a marriage license by the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics. [2] In Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743, the Alaska Superior Court ruled that the state needed compelling reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and ordered a trial on the question. [2] In response, the Alaska Legislature immediately proposed and passed Resolution 42, which became what is now known as Ballot Measure 2. [2] Ballot Measure 2 passed via public referendum on November 3, 1998, with 68% of voters supporting and 32% opposing. [3] The Bause case was dismissed following the passage of the ballot measure.

Contents

The text of the adopted amendment, which is found at Article I, section 25 of the Alaska Constitution, states: [4]

To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

On October 12, 2014, U.S. federal Judge Timothy Burgess struck down the ban as a violation of the U.S. constitutional guarantee of due process and equal protection. [5] Burgess wrote, "Alaska’s denial of the benefits and dignity of marriage for them only perpetuates this discrimination without legitimate grounds.” Burgess also barred Alaska from refusing to acknowledge lawful same-sex marriages conducted in other states. [6]

Article I, § 25. of the Alaskan Constitution remains an unconstitutional constitutional amendment to this day. It can repealed by either a state constitutional convention or by a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds vote in both the Alaskan State Senate and the Alaskan House of Representatives and a majority vote in a referendum.

Background

In 1995 two men, Jay Brause and Gene Dugan, relying on the then-gender-neutral marriage code of Alaska submitted an application for a marriage license to the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics, Third Judicial District at Anchorage, which was denied despite satisfying all of the requirements of the state with the exception of being of the same gender. [2] In the wake of the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Baehr v. Lewin , in which the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the State's marriage statute constituted sex discrimination under the Hawaii Constitution but was later overturned, the two men sued the State of Alaska. [2] They sought to have the marriage statute denying same-sex marriage declared unconstitutional, and seeking an injunction that would permanently prevent the State from applying or enforcing the statutes denying same-sex marriages. [2] Before the initial hearing was held, the Alaska Legislature made an amendment to the marriage statute to discard the gender-neutral language and restrict marriage to only one man and one woman. Brause and Dugan responded by amending their complaint to ask for a court declaration that this statute was also unconstitutional, arguing that by failing to issue them a marriage license the State had denied them due process and infringed their right to privacy under Alaska's Constitution. [2]

Superior Judge Peter Michalski issued his memorandum and order on February 27, 1998, which stated: "The court finds that marriage, i.e., the recognition of one's choice of a life partner, is a fundamental right. The state must therefore have a compelling interest that supports its decision to refuse to recognize the exercise of this fundamental right by those who choose same-sex partners rather than opposite-sex partners." [7] Granting the plaintiffs' motion and denying the State's, Judge Michalski concluded that there must be "further hearings to determine whether a compelling state interest can be shown for the ban on same-sex marriage found in the Alaska Marriage Code." [8] Immediately after the ruling, the State filed a petition to the Alaska Supreme Court to review the decision, asserting that the lower court's decision had constituted judicial legislation, wrongly construed the Alaska Constitution as providing a right to same-sex marriage contrary to the history and intent of the constitution, and erroneously held that the marriage law constituted sex discrimination. [2] The Alaska Supreme Court refused to consider the State's appeal in the Brause case, allowing litigation to continue. [9]

State constitutional amendment

During the legislative process, the main group supporting the amendment was the Alaska Family Coalition (AFC), which was formed in June 1998 and included many civic leaders, businessmen, attorneys, a former Mayor of Anchorage, and a former Governor's Chief-of-Staff. The main argument brought forth by the AFC was that the amendment was necessary to counter the radical redefinition of marriage established by the Brause decision. [2] Another main proponent of the amendment was the Catholic Bishops of Alaska, which argued that the Marriage Amendment classifies the traditional view of marriage and expresses the true importance of marriage to society. [2] The main group opposing the amendment was Alaskans for Civil Rights/No On Two Campaign (ACR), which claimed official support from the Alaska Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. [2] The ACR framed the amendment as an attack on the right to privacy and warned that it may lead advocates to attack other groups later. [2] Polls in April 1998 revealed mixed views with some claiming as many as two-thirds of Alaskans supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, while another claimed only half of Alaskans favored a ban. [2] As the debate progressed, the issues shifted from homosexuality to the privacy and civil rights along with self-government and the reaffirmation of the meaning of marriage. [2] Although many had anticipated an ugly campaign, it was widely viewed as spirited rather than contentious. [2]

Legislative passage

After the Superior Court ruling, with the State legislature already in session, the Senate Majority Leader Robin L. Taylor reacted stating: [2]

It is apparent that our Judiciary needs further clarification on fundamental values. Marriage has been the foundation of civilization for thousands of years and in cultures around the world. Marriage is the most important social institution in our society. The state has a... principle interest in preserving and protecting the special status of marriage, regardless of religious beliefs.

In February 1998, just days after Michalski's ruling, the Alaska Senate Health, Education and Social Services Committee introduced Joint Resolution 42, which stated that "each marriage contract in Alaska may be entered into only by one man and one woman. The legislature may, by law, enact additional requirements relating to marriage." [10] The Twentieth Alaska Legislature passed the Constitutional amendment with a vote of 28 yeas to 12 nays in the House and 14 yeas to 6 nays in the Senate. [11] After passage by the legislature, the amendment was set to be voted on by the citizenry of Alaska for ratification in the November 1998 election as ballot "Measure 2." [12]

Ballot Measure 2

On November 3, 1998, the citizens of Alaska voted on ballot Measure 2, introduced by language that indicated the measure "would amend the Declaration of Rights section of the Alaska Constitution to limit marriage." The majority of the funding in support of the amendment, $500,000, came from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah, with another $25,000 contributed by Gary Bauer's organization, Campaign for Working Families, in Washington, D.C. The constitutional amendment determined that a valid marriage could exist only between one man and one woman." [11] The statement of support was written by Senator Loren Leman, the primary sponsor of Resolution 42, and indicated that the "debate is about who should define marriage: the people, or a handful of non-elected judges." [11] In the statement of opposition, the League of Women Voters of Alaska argued that voters should vote "no" to eliminate limits on citizens' individual liberties and rights and to preserve the checks and balances of the three branches of government of Alaska. [11] The results of the referendum revealed that with 68% of the votes, Measure 2 had been approved. [3] [13] After the passing of the amendment, Article I, section 25 of the Alaska Constitution was amended to read as follows:

Marriage. To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. [2]

Subsequently, in light of the amendment, the Alaska Superior Court dismissed the Brause lawsuit and rendered the previous rulings moot. [8]

Federal question

Although the arguments in Brause for full legal recognition of same-sex marriage were effectively mooted by the constitutional amendment, the plaintiffs alternatively argued that principles of equality demanded that same-sex couples be accorded the rights and benefits of marriage, even if marital status itself were to describe only different-sex couples. However, the Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, determining that the plaintiffs had failed to present an actual controversy. [9]

In October 2014, in the case of Hamby v. Parnell, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess found Alaska's constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately denied review of the case, allowing marriages to proceed pending further guidance from the 9th Circuit. The state was also denied a larger, 11-judge en banc review of the case.Governor Bill Walker's attorney general, Craig Richards, asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to put the matter on hold in January 2015, pending the Supreme Court decision on the matter. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Same-sex marriage has been legal in California since June 28, 2013. The State of California first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples from June 16, 2008 to November 5, 2008, a period of approximately 4 months, 2 weeks and 6 days, as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Alaska</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in the U.S. state of Alaska

The Constitution of the State of Alaska was ratified on April 4, 1956 and took effect with Alaska's admission to the United States as a U.S. state on January 3, 1959.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Wisconsin Referendum 1</span>

Wisconsin Referendum 1 of 2006 was a referendum on an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would invalidate same-sex marriages or any substantially similar legal status. The referendum was approved by 59% of voters during the general elections in November 2006. All counties in the state voted for the amendment except Dane County, which opposed it. The constitutional amendment created by Referendum 1 has been effectively nullified since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Idaho Amendment 2</span>

Idaho Amendment 2 of 2006 is an amendment to the Idaho Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 Texas Proposition 2</span>

Proposition 2 was a referendum for a state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Texas legislature and approved by the voters at the November 8, 2005 general election. The measure added a new provision to the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 32, which provides that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman", and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." Thus Texas became the 19th US state to adopt constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It was the most populous state to adopt a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage until California passed its ban in November 2008. The amendment was later invalidated in June 2015 after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, though the amendment remains in the Texas Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 Nebraska Initiative 416</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Nebraska Initiative 416, officially titled "Ban Same-Sex Marriage Act", was a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. The referendum was approved on November 7, 2000, by 70% of the voters. The initiative has since been struck down in federal court and same-sex marriage is now legally recognized in the state of Nebraska.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Arkansas Amendment 3</span> Same-sex marriage ban

Constitutional Amendment 3 of 2004, is an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Georgia Amendment 1</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004, is an amendment to the Georgia Constitution that previously made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 76% of the voters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Michigan Proposal 04-2</span> Referendum banning same-sex marriage

Michigan Proposal 04-2 of 2004, is an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 59% of the voters. The amendment faced multiple legal challenges and was finally overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges by the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Hawaii Amendment 2</span> Referendum on same-sex marriage

Constitutional Amendment 2 of 1998 amended the Constitution of Hawaii, granting the state legislature the power to prevent same-sex marriage from being conducted or recognized in Hawaii. Amendment 2 was the first constitutional amendment adopted in the United States that specifically targeted same-sex partnerships.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage in Hawaii</span>

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Hawaii since December 2, 2013. The Hawaii State Legislature held a special session beginning on October 28, 2013, and passed the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Neil Abercrombie signed the legislation on November 13, and same-sex couples began marrying on December 2, making Hawaii the fifteenth U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. Hawaii also allows both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to formalize their relationships legally in the form of civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary relationships. Civil unions provide the same rights, benefits, and obligations of marriage at the state level, while reciprocal beneficiary relationships provide a more limited set of rights. When Hawaii's civil union law took effect at the start of 2012, same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions were considered civil unions in Hawaii.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Successful referendum on banning same-sex marriage

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Arizona Proposition 102</span> Successful referendum on an amendment banning same-sex marriage

Arizona Proposition 102 was an amendment to the constitution of the U.S. state of Arizona adopted by a ballot measure held in 2008. It added Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution, which says: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." The amendment added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage to existing statutory bans in place since 1996. In October 2014, Article 30 of the Arizona Constitution was struck down as unconstitutional in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and is no longer enforced by the state of Arizona, which now allows and recognizes same-sex marriages.

<i>Varnum v. Brien</i>

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The case had the effect of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. In 2007, a lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of six same-sex couples who sued Timothy Brien, Polk County Recorder, for refusing to grant them marriage licenses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Florida Amendment 2</span> Referendum on legally defining marriage as heterosexual

Florida Amendment 2 is an amendment made to the constitution of the U.S. state of Florida in 2008. It added Article I, Section 27 to the constitution, which defines marriage as a union only between one man and one woman, and thus bans the creation of similar unions, such as civil unions or same-sex marriage. Since 2014, the measure was litigated in court and was struck down by multiple state courts in several counties of southern Florida. Same-sex marriage became legal in Florida when the decision in the federal case Brenner v. Scott found the amendments banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Alaska since October 12, 2014, with an interruption from October 15 to 17 while state officials sought without success to delay the implementation of a federal court ruling. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska held on October 12 in the case of Hamby v. Parnell that Alaska's statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. On October 15, state officials obtained a two-day stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend on October 17. Although Alaska is one of a few states which enforces a three-day waiting period between requesting a marriage license and conducting a marriage ceremony, at least one same-sex couple had the waiting period waived immediately after the district court's ruling. They married in Utqiagvik on October 13 and were the first same-sex couple to marry in Alaska.

This article contains a timeline of significant events regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. On June 26, 2015, the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively ended restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Nebraska since June 26, 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Following the court ruling, Attorney General Doug Peterson announced that the state of Nebraska would comply and recognize same-sex marriages.

In the United States, the history of same-sex marriage dates from the early 1940s, when the first lawsuits seeking legal recognition of same-sex relationships brought the question of civil marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples to public attention though they proved unsuccessful. However marriage wasn't a request for the LGBTQ movement until the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Washington (1987). The subject became increasingly prominent in U.S. politics following the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision in Baehr v. Miike that suggested the possibility that the state's prohibition might be unconstitutional. That decision was met by actions at both the federal and state level to restrict marriage to male-female couples, notably the enactment at the federal level of the Defense of Marriage Act.

References

  1. ↑ Election Summary Report State of Alaska 1998 General Election OFFICIAL RESULTS
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Clarkson, Kevin; Coolidge, David; Duncan, William (1999). "The Alaska Marriage Amendment: The People's Choice On The Last Frontier". Alaska Law Review. 16 (2). Duke University School of Law: 213–268. Archived from the original on June 14, 2011. Retrieved October 5, 2010.
  3. 1 2 Robinson, B.A. (September 10, 2007). "Same-sex marriage in Alaska". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved April 8, 2009.
  4. ↑ Alaska State Constitution Archived 2009-07-09 at the Wayback Machine Hosted on the Alaska Legislature's website. Accessed 30 November 2006.
  5. ↑ Thiessen, Mark (October 12, 2014). "Federal Judge Strikes Down Alaska's Marriage Ban". ABC News. Retrieved October 12, 2014.
  6. ↑ Quinn, Steve (October 12, 2014). "Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional". Reuters. Retrieved October 13, 2014.
  7. ↑ Memorandum and Order of Brause v. Alaska. Hosted on the Queer Resources Directory website. Accessed 9 October 2010.
  8. 1 2 Nolan, Laurence & Wardle, Lynn. Fundamental Principles of Family Law, pp. 107–08. Wm. S. Hein Publishing, 2002.
  9. 1 2 Baker, Joshua (2004). "Status, Benefits, and Recognition: Current Controversies in the Marriage Debate" (PDF). BYU Journal of Public Law. BYU School of Law: 582. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 14, 2011. Retrieved October 17, 2010.
  10. ↑ Rowland, Debran. The Boundaries Of Her Body: The Troubling History Of Women's Rights In America, p. 261. SphinxLegal, 2004.
  11. 1 2 3 4 Ballot Measure 2 Archived 2010-06-15 at the Wayback Machine . Hosted on the State of Alaska's Division of Elections website. Accessed 10 October 2010.
  12. ↑ Andersen, Ellen. Out of the Closets and Into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation, pp. 183–84. University of Michigan Press, 2006.
  13. ↑ "Samesex marriage ballot measures". CNN Politics. November 4, 1998. Archived from the original on October 28, 2010. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
  14. ↑ Walker administration asks 9th Circuit to pause same-sex marriage appeal pending Supreme Court ruling, Alaska Dispatch News, Suzanna Caldwell, January 16, 2015. Retrieved 18 January 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.