For Some Alaskans One Sentence Doesn't Ban Enough

File this one with all the other evidence telling us that the second sentence of Wisconsin's proposed ban not only seriously threatens to take away families' health insurance, it was no doubt designed to do so.

Back in 1998, the state of Alaska added a one-sentence amendment to its constitution banning gay couples from entering into civil marriages. Now some there are coming back for more; they want a second sentence too.

It seems that a year ago, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that "equal protection" means providing lesbian and gay state employees with the same compensation packages as nongay employees. (That is, after all, why it's called equal protection.) Some there don't like that, and don't like it so much they're willing to amend the Constitution. Just so that they don't have to provide gay families with the same health care they provide to everyone else.

Think the most ardent proponents of that ban in Alaska have different motivations than those in Wisconsin? I don't. If Wisconsin passes its ban on civil unions and marriage, the very first thing that will happen is a flurry of lawsuits aiming to take away families' health insurance.

That's. A. Fact.


Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website