Explanation of Gov. Paylin's veto and setting the record straight on gay rights...
- Sep 2, 2008
Some members of the media have sought to divide social conservatives on the selection of Gov. Paylin’s veto of a bill dealing with domestic partnerships by suggesting she favors homosexual rights. The opposite is true. Below is an email communication with Kevin Clarkson, a Christian attorney in Alaska. Kevin has worked with Liberty Counsel on a case we defended on behalf of churches against the ACLU. Kevin was the key attorney behind the passage of the Alaska marriage amendment. He has advised the state legislature for many years and knows Gov. Paylin. I have attached his email below.
Before that email, below I have also attached a statement from the Human Rights Campaign opposing Gov. Payling. HRC is a pro-homosexual lobbying organization in Washington, D.C. This group obviously understands that Gov. Paylin is pro-traditional marriage and does not support the homosexual agenda.
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese: “Sarah Palin not only supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning marriage equality but, in her less than two years as Governor, even expressed the extreme position of supporting stripping away domestic partner benefits for state workers.”
All I can say is – I am happy and sad all at the same time. This is great for the Country, but bad for Alaska. Sarah Palin is the most pro-life governor we have ever had in the short history of our state.
She is solid on every social issue we care about. There are some folks who misunderstand what she did when she vetoed the Legislature’s bill to prohibit the Commissioner of the Dept. of Admin. from promulgating etc. regulations regarding marriage benefits for same-sex couples. But, she did this ON MY ADVICE. The scenario was as follows:
1. In Fall 2005 the Alaska Supreme Court issued a terrible decision holding that because the Alaska Marriage Amendment prohibits same-sex couples from marrying, Alaska Law granting marriage benefits to the spouses of state employees is ‘facially discriminatory” against state employees with same-sex partners. The Court held that granting benefits to the spouses of married state employees while not extending those same benefits to the same-sex partners of other employees, violates equal protection.
2. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the superior court to “determine the remedy.”
3. The superior court ordered the then Commissioner of Administration to draft regulations implementing marriage benefits for the same sex partners of state employees. There was no statutory basis for such regulations – Alaska’s statutory law actually said the opposite – no benefits shall be given except to married couples. The court’s order violated separation of powers – the Executive is allowed to promulgate regulations only based upon statutory authority from the Legislature. The court is not supposed to be involved in the process of promulgating regulations.
4. The then Governor (Murkowski) and the then Commissioner, rather than say “NO”, the Legislature needs to act, instead drafted regulations, submitted them to the court for approval, and then when ultimately approved by the court, sent the regulations to Lt. Governor Loren Leman for signature (it is the Lt. Governor’s task to sign regulations and place them in effect).
5. Loren called me and I advised him to NOT sign the regulations because there was no statutory authority for them. Loren refused to sign and sent the regulations to Governor Murkowski with a letter explaining his position.
6. Governor Murkowski called a special session of the Legislature to address the issue of “statutory authority.” The Legislature passed a bill that did two things – (a) it essentially forbid the Commissioner of Admin. From promulgating etc. regulations related to marriage benefits for same-sex partners; and (b) called for a state-wide advisory vote to determine whether the people of Alaska wanted an Amendment to their Constitution to forbid granting marriage benefits to anyone other than married couples.
7. Sarah Palin won the Republican primary and then won the general election.
8. The benefits litigation continued over the issue of whether the regulations that the former Commissioner had drafted were sufficient to meet the Court’s mandate.
9. Governor Palin who had just come into office was seriously considering refusing to implement any same-sex benefits program in defiance of the Court’s mandate. I arranged a telephone conference between the Governor, Edwin Meese, John Eastman, and I, to discuss her options.
10. The day before this telephone conference was to take place, the Alaska Supreme Court, sensing what the new Governor was likely to do, issued an emergency order that “retroactively” (back to July 2006) placed the already promulgated regulations INTO EFFECT. The Court had no power to do this constitutionally, but they did it anyway.
11. Thus, when the Legislature’s bill hit Governor Palin’s desk, she needed to veto the bill – because the only thing the bill would have done if it had become law would have been to LOCK THE BAD REGULATIONS IN PLACE by forbidding the new Commissioner of Admin. from ever changing the regulations.
12. I got a call from Lt. Govenor Sean Parnell asking me what the Governor should do with the bill – because I had been the primary legal advisor for the Legislature when the bill was passed. I told Parnell that the Governor should veto the bill.
She did the right thing when she vetoed the bill.
