Last week, we sent the following question to all of the candidates running for State House District 10 and State Senate Seat E, both of which represent the KTNA listening area. Thus far, we have received responses from two candidates running for House Seat 10.
Democrat Neal Lacy was the first to respond by saying:
1.The government can’t tell you who to fall in love with.
2. The governor is wasting money pursuing this.
Republican Wes Keller, the incumbent for Seat 10, responded today:
The action of the District Court Judge last week to declare the definition of marriage in the Alaska Constitution unconstitutional is an outrageous and arrogant act by a federal district court. This court seems to have a very low opinion of what the people of Alaska have directly established as constitutional law. There is no acknowledgement that Alaska is a sovereign State that with all powers not specifically enumerated to the central government. It is unacceptable that an unelected judge, a mere agent in a federal agency created by Congress, can dispassionately, without apology, declare a clause of the highest law of Alaska to be void.
Irregardless of the underlying issue, this federal district court judge has callously run roughshod over our constitution and has left us, in the short term, with only two distasteful options; 1) roll over and continue to passively allow ourselves to be demeaned by denial of fundamental rights, or 2) appeal to the highest federal court for justice. Option 1) is not an option for me. I believe the jurisdiction of the federal court can and should be challenged, and I am unwilling to be pushed any farther. Option 2) is unsettling because the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), the only federal court actually created by the US constitution, has recently refused to hear similar cases and has now refused to provide a stay on the decision pending appeal. Still, option 2) is the only option I see that is consistent with values of American Constitutionalism that still allows for a hope for justice. Option 1) destroys hope for justice. Option 2) appeals for re-examination of the limits on the doctrine of judicial review, option 1) does not. Option 2) allows for the return to federalism (proper balanced powers between central and state governments), option 1) does not. It is uncomfortable to be forced to settle for one of these two options, but they are all we have at the moment. In the long term, we need to return to the principles of American Constitutionalism as revealed in the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. That return can only be the result of an extended effort to eliminate laws and court decisions that have eroded these values… something that will admittedly take a lot of time and effort. The alternative, submission to an all-powerful central government that uses State government as an outpost of it’s authority is contrary and unacceptable.
Unfortunately the passions and drama of the underlying issue, homosexual marriage, eclipses the real issue; abuse of state sovereignty. The judiciary needs to be re-educated that marriage is the fundamental social institution of civilization and has been from the beginning of time. The model of a Mom and a Dad rearing children is the fundamental corner-stone institution of society. Re-education of the judiciary is clearly a long-term venture, but in the mean time, Alaskans have the right to recognize and to create and allow incentives to encourage healthy families. It is wrong to simply annul Alaskan’s clear policy choice. I am gratified that the Governor has chosen to defend our laws and I will join those in the legislature that support that defense. Homosexuals have the same undisputed rights as anyone else to make contracts and agreements. There is an established body of law to define the use of these agreements. There is no presumption that they have special rights or access any more or less than any other segment of society.
