(SJR 20, proposing an amendment to Alaska's constitution to overturn an unanimous Alaska Supreme Court decision last fall that ruled denying same sex couples public employee benefits violates the Alaska constitution, was heard for the first time Thursday. Nearly two dozen Alaskans testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee--all but one opposed the resolution. Reprinted below is the testimony of Juneau residents Mark and Mildred Boesser. They testified first. Their remarks are printed here with their permission.)

February 16, 2006

     We are Mark and Mildred Boesser, 79 and 80 years old, respectively. We have been married 57 years and have been Alaska residents since 1959. We have raised four daughters, (now in their 50s) who work in Juneau and have grandchildren ranging in age from middle school to their early 20s.
     Mildred is a retired teacher and served on Juneau's first Human Rights Commission. I am 55 years a priest -- 45 of them served in Alaska and am now designated as Archdeacon of SE Alaska for the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska.
     We come to ask you in all sincerity to reject Senate Joint Resolution 20 (that is: vote "No") proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to Marriage.
     We assure you that we are aware of the values that accrue from a healthy marriage, complete with the benefits which support such an institution. Those of us who receive those benefits may sometimes forget how important they are and the difference it would make in our lives should they be taken away or were never there in the first place.
     We are here today because this resolution appears to want to put before the voting public an amendment which if passed, would write discrimination into our Constitution.
     Taking the Associated Press report (Matt Volz, Feb. 14. 2006) at face value: "An amendment to the state constitution has been introduced in the Alaska Legislature with the aim of overturning a court ruling and banning benefits to the same sex partners of public employees," one can hardly miss the intent.
     (The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in October that denying gay couples the same public employee benefits as married couples - life and health insurance, plus retirement and death benefits, violates the Alaska Constitution equal-protection clause.)
     The very idea of using the Alaska Constitution -- intended to guarantee basic human rights for all -- to intentionally remove the rights and benefits from one segment of the population, thereby making them 2nd class citizens. . . . We can hardly believe it! It certainly sounds like codifying discrimination against a particular group of people.
     Our oldest daughter is 53 years old and has lived in a monogamous, faithful relationship for 26 years. She and her partner have held responsible jobs for over two decades, own their own home free and clear, pay all taxes due, and are the kinds of persons any family would be proud to call their own. They have lived all these years without consequential benefits given to married couples. The "catch 22" is that they are not allowed to be married in Alaska because they are lesbians. Regrettably, that has already been written in the Constitution. That is not an issue here. Surely you see the irony. The proposed resolution says that benefits can only be given to married couples, but marriage is denied a significant number of Alaskan citizens, including our daughter.
     Believe it: Mildred and I are thoroughly in favor of the institution of Marriage. But take it from us, there is no way that allowing benefits to these non-marriageable persons can hurt our marriage or yours, or anyone else's. To couch this resolution to make it sound as if the vote is about marriage is to terribly mislead the public on the basic issue of equal rights for all.
     As far back as 1976 the National General Convention of the Episcopal Church expressed its conviction that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens and called upon our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality.
     In our view, this proposed amendment would go off in the exact opposite direction. We appeal to you to reject it.
     Thank you.
      

Phone: (907) 465-4947 Fax: (907) 465-2108 Mail: Sen. Kim Elton, State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801   Got a scoop? Call or email your tips and suggestions to any of the email addresses below: Email: Senator.Kim.Elton Jesse.Kiehl Paula.Cadiente Web: http://elton.akdemocrats.org

Capitol Undercurrents  

Quick witted--Perseverance Theater has for the last several years hosted a legislative night--inviting legislators, staff and the governor and first lady to be guests at one of their seasonal main stage presentations. This year it was The Crucible (and it was fantastic). This year, also, the governor and first lady attended. It was the first time the governor and I had seen each other since the somewhat toxic discussion of jet use had bubbled to the surface and since I'd done a couple of newsletters on the topic. When we met at Perseverance, the governor stuck out his hand to shake mine but I demurred because I had a slight cold and had been coughing and sneezing. I told him I didn't want to shake with the hand that I'd been coughing into. He smiled, and suggested I didn't want to shake, perhaps, because I had "writers' cramp". I was impressed. I always think of the witty thing to say 10 seconds too late.

Strange decision--Legislators from both sides of the aisle were surprised late Wednesday to hear the governor wasn't introducing his oil tax legislation on Thursday as he'd promised. The delay wasn't all that surprising, after all we've been waiting five weeks to see his long-awaited oil tax recipe. But the reason he gave for the delay rocked many of us back on our heels. Despite some flowery words, the essential message was: I'm showing it to the oil companies, at their request, before I share it with the legislature and other Alaskans. So, high-level execs from the multi-nationals will leave their office suites in Texas or other outside headquarters and jet to Juneau to get a presentation behind closed doors before the plan hits the light of day. If this is just a "courtesy" for the multi-nationals, it seems a discourtesy to Alaskans to have the talks behind closed doors where we can't see what the results of the private discussions are. If Alaskans have to present their opinions in public during the hearing process, why can't the multi-national jet-setters do the same?

Plain talk: Ketchikan style--After a lengthy and somewhat technical presentation to the Marine Transportation Advisory Board (whose charge is to guide the ferry system through turbulent operational and political seas), chair J.C. Conley, well-known for his bluntness down in our sister city at the gateway of Alaska, asked: "Does anybody remember what he said--I mean, any questions?"