1998 Alaska Measure 2

Last updated
Measure 2
Flag of Alaska.svg
November 3, 1998
Alaska Marriage Amendment
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes152,96568.11%
Light brown x.svgNo71,63131.89%
Total votes224,596100.00%

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. [1] 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. [1] In response, the Alaska Legislature immediately proposed and passed Resolution 42, which became what is now known as Ballot Measure 2. [1] Ballot Measure 2 passed via public referendum on November 3, 1998, with 68% of voters supporting and 32% opposing. [2] 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: [3]

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. [4] 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. [5]

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. [1] 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. [1] 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. [1] 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. [1]

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." [6] 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." [7] 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. [1] The Alaska Supreme Court refused to consider the State’s appeal in the Brause case, allowing litigation to continue. [8]

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. [1] 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. [1] 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. [1] 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. [1] 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. [1] 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. [1] Although many had anticipated an ugly campaign, it was widely viewed as spirited rather than contentious. [1]

Legislative passage

After the Superior Court ruling, with the State legislature already in session, the Senate Majority Leader Robin L. Taylor reacted stating: [1]

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." [9] 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. [10] 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." [11]

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." [10] 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." [10] 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. [10] The results of the referendum revealed that with 68% of the votes, Measure 2 had been approved. [2] [12] 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. [1]

Subsequently, in light of the amendment, the Alaska Superior Court dismissed the Brause lawsuit and rendered the previous rulings moot. [7]

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. [8]

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. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex (gay) or other unmarried homosexual couples.

Same-sex marriage in California has been legal since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 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">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">Nebraska Initiative 416</span> Ballot measure in Nebraska banning state recognition of same-sex partnerships

Nebraska Initiative 416 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>

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> Amendment to the Georgia Constitution

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 2</span>

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>

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">2008 Arizona Proposition 102</span> Electoral amendment to the Arizona state constitution

Arizona Proposition 102 was an amendment to the constitution of the 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> Ballot measure in Florida

Florida Amendment 2 is an amendment made to the Constitution 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.

Same-sex marriage in Arizona has been legal since October 17, 2014. The U.S. state had denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1996 and by an amendment to its State Constitution approved by voters in 2008. On October 17, Judge John W. Sedwick ruled in two lawsuits that Arizona's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and enjoined the state from enforcing its ban, effective immediately. Attorney General Tom Horne said the state would not appeal that ruling, and instructed county clerks to comply and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

<i>Baehr v. Miike</i> Lawsuit against Hawaiis prohibition of same-sex marriage

Baehr v. Miike was a lawsuit in which three same-sex couples argued that Hawaii's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. Initiated in 1990, as the case moved through the state courts, the passage of an amendment to the state constitution in 1998 led to the dismissal of the case in 1999. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution would have provided that all states would be potentially required to recognize marriages obtained in Hawaii, prompting the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 under Bill Clinton. Dozens of statutes and constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions at the state level also followed Baehr.

Same-sex marriage in Alaska has been legally recognized 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 in Nebraska has been legally recognized 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. Following the court ruling, the Attorney General, Doug Peterson, announced that the state of Nebraska would comply and recognize same-sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage in Arkansas has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, in which the court struck down same-sex marriage bans nationwide. Prior to this, same-sex marriage in Arkansas was briefly legal for a period beginning on May 9, 2014, as a result of a ruling by Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Chris Piazza striking down the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage as violating the U.S. Constitution. Approximately 541 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in several counties before the Arkansas Supreme Court stayed his ruling pending appeal on May 16, 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Virginia ballot measures</span>

The 2006 Virginia State Elections took place on Election Day, November 7, 2006, the same day as the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate elections in the state. The only statewide elections on the ballot were three constitutional referendums to amend the Virginia State Constitution. Because Virginia state elections are held on off-years, no statewide officers or state legislative elections were held. All referendums were referred to the voters by the Virginia General Assembly.

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. 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. Duke University School of Law. 16 (2): 213–268. Archived from the original on 14 June 2011. Retrieved 5 October 2010.
  2. 1 2 Robinson, B.A. (2007-09-10). "Same-sex marriage in Alaska". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Retrieved 2009-04-08.
  3. ↑ Alaska State Constitution Archived 2009-07-09 at the Wayback Machine Hosted on the Alaska Legislature's website. Accessed 30 November 2006.
  4. ↑ Thiessen, Mark (2014-10-12). "Federal Judge Strikes Down Alaska's Marriage Ban". ABC News. Retrieved 2014-10-12.
  5. ↑ Quinn, Steve (12 October 2014). "Alaska ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional". Reuters. Retrieved 13 October 2014.
  6. ↑ Memorandum and Order of Brause v. Alaska. Hosted on the Queer Resources Directory website. Accessed 9 October 2010.
  7. 1 2 Nolan, Laurence & Wardle, Lynn. Fundamental Principles of Family Law, pp. 107–08. Wm. S. Hein Publishing, 2002.
  8. 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 14 June 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2010.
  9. ↑ Rowland, Debran. The Boundaries Of Her Body: The Troubling History Of Women's Rights In America, p. 261. SphinxLegal, 2004.
  10. 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.
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ "Samesex marriage ballot measures". CNN Politics. 1998-11-04. Archived from the original on 2010-10-28. Retrieved 2010-10-09.
  13. ↑ 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.