A Compelling Interest

Back in 1998, I ran in the Senate race and a question was asked on a Vote-Smart questionaire.

The question was asked if I supported the Marriage Amendment to Alaska's Constitution. I answered I did not support it. The reason I did not support it was I felt that if you deny a right to an individual it should be done through a statutory law.

I felt then and I feel today that the Alaska Constitution is there to protect us from government intrusion and discrimination. And for the state to deny a right, it should be done through statutory law and the state must have a compelling interest.

I took an unpopular stance then and I would today, take the same stance. I have stated this previously on this website.

The reason I state this now, is because a very important court ruling was handed down in New York by the appellate court there.

The decision can be found here: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf

The basis for decision was what in effect is the doctrine on "the best interest of the child" standard.

The New York Court of Appeals is considered to be liberal and as such, the advocates for same-sex marriage had thought that they would have a sure winner.

What is troubling in these cases is the falsehoods that are contained in legal documents and misrepresentaions of facts. In the New York case, scientific evidence was entered as fact that children faired just as well in a same-sex family as a traditional family.

The Court did not buy it. The Court stated to the effect that children in same sex relationships have been a short time and as such, the scientific data was not credible.

As such, according to the Court, the state it is found, has a compelling interest. It's the well-being of the children.