Well-constructed law would serve all

Alaska authorities must challenge the Federal District Court ruling invalidating the Alaska Constitution’s definition of marriage. This is by doing the duty that that ruling failed at — upholding respect for the U.S. Constitution and our political heritage that generated it.

Alaska and its fellow states have negligently created a conflict between the historically religious nature of marriage and the fundamental principle that everyone has rights to equal treatment and protection under the law. This arises from a shameful abuse of lawmaking power wherein marriage — an institution religiously originated — has been subjected to regulation by civil authority (example: marriage licenses).

Rather than creating civil formulations of law to satisfy government’s legitimate needs to justly regulate non-business relationships amongst individuals, American governments just got lazy and attached law to the pre-existing institution of marriage.

This original abuse of lawmaking is a direct and blatant violation of the First Amendment’s provision that Congress shall make no law respecting religion (binding on all states under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy clause). So for want of respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers, we now suffer from unnecessary dissension. This should not be.

Does “marriage” have a historically religious origin? Yes. Originating from an overwhelmingly common contention amongst humanity that an Almighty is the all-powerful original Creator of all, couples have sought the blessings of their God for joining to procreate original humans since the beginnings of history. The miracle of conception from sex, pregnancy and birth is the closest mimicry of god-like creativity humanity can respectfully aspire to. Thus it’s an inevitable religious contention that a marriage requires opposite sexes to seek the Almighty’s blessing on procreation.

But civilization, as it has arisen from simple human communities, has joined five more functions to the original construction of marriage. These are organized maintenance of: sexual pleasure, rearing of children, health, emotional stability, and economic stability. They are all often embraced by the word “family.” However, execution of these functions — except for sex — is more or less social. This brings such activity naturally under some degree of inspection and action from government. Moreover, not all of these functions require opposite sexes or even the component of some sort of sexual activity. For example, you can have a confirmed bachelor and his spinster sister, with no sexual involvement, raising children of other relatives.

So the issue is not just about same-sex couples, engaged in sexual activity, getting socially and legally recognized. Well-constructed law would serve to guide all types of relationships in their potential legal consequences. We could construct a legal recognition for all relationships — calling them “civil unions.” And if, in addition, a heterosexual or same-sex couple can find a religious denomination willing to marry them, so be it. American government has no authority whatsoever to tell a religion how to conduct itself, nor should government be manipulated to do so. Read my lips: “Congress shall make no law… respecting religion…” Even the U.S. Supreme Court can’t reject this without losing all its authority.

The state of Alaska should do the following:

• Give this proposal to Alaska’s Attorney General for consideration under his statutory duty to advise the Legislature about federal directives which conflict with Alaska’s Constitution and law.

• Modify all Alaska statutes and regulations that mention or use the word “marriage” by substituting “civil union.” Make getting a license for a civil union mandatory to access the courts and to have legal rights as a couple. Make sure the state is legally compelled to be blind about the participants of the union, except in the case of incest or other health-based incompatibility. Make non-sexual type civil unions a vehicle for all other relationships so that all are treated equally under the law forever.

• Leave the Alaska constitution’s marriage definition intact until Alaskans can be shown that the true problem that it was enacted to solve — First Amendment violations against religion — has been better solved as above. Then ask them for repeal of it for being unnecessary and legally indefensible.

• Have all Alaska government branches together petition the 9th Circuit Court for an apology for failing in its duties to ensure respect for the U.S. Constitution, and for bringing the U.S. Court System into disrepute through failing to enforce the plain language of the Bill of Rights. As the court may ignore it, publish it widely to let America know.

Final note, too many Americans think government acts correctly only if its actions are wholly attuned to their prejudices or greed. This self-centered arrogance is the corruption our founders believed would eventually be the sole cause of our country’s demise. Notwithstanding all the ideological riches they left us for the maintenance of liberty and justice, they knew the truth of this adage: you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.

Stuart Thompson lives in Wasilla. Contact him at lookitover@att.net.