JUNEAU -- Making Alaska a better home for its military families wound up as part of a legislative clash Monday as some legislators voiced visceral opposition to same-sex marriage.
"Marriages between one man and one woman have been and are uniquely important to human history and human existence," said Rep. Wes Keller, R-Eagle River.
"If you think about that, that's a self-evident truth," he said.
The debate on the floor of the House of Representatives Monday came in a discussion of House Bill 212, which would allow spouses of military personnel in Alaska to continue to use their home-state driver's license while their spouses are stationed in Alaska.
The goal, said sponsor Rep. Doug Isaacson, R-North Pole, was to prevent military spouses from having to go to the Division of Motor Vehicles and obtain a new license when they're stationed in Alaska, at places like Eielson Air Force Base, which is close to his district.
Many aren't here long, he said, but if they are in Alaska longer than 90 days, they must surrender their home-state license and get an Alaska license he said.
That's not necessarily difficult, he said, even though the DMV might be 30 miles away in 40-below weather, but it's a hassle that service members' spouses should not have to go through.
Frequent moves are something that Isaacson knows about personally. He said that during his military career, he moved six times in six years before being sent to Alaska and permanently becoming an Alaska resident.
His bill found widespread support -- it eventually passed unanimously -- but a majority of legislators were adamant that the benefit should not also go to same-sex spouses, even if they'd been legally married in California, Massachusetts, or elsewhere.
To keep that from happening, and to keep from giving any support in Alaska to the idea of same-sex marriage, the House of Representatives Monday had to vote down an effort by Rep. Max Gruenberg, D-Anchorage, to make it clear that the benefit was available not just to opposite-sex partners, but to same-sex partners as well.
Keller called that "a way to make a case related to same-sex marriage," and urged legislators not to add that issue into Isaacson's bill.
But Gruenberg said that because the Alaska Constitution restricts marriage to one man and one woman, a benefit available only to "spouses" it would not be available to same-sex partners in Alaska.
Gruenberg said he doubted the marriage amendment the Alaska Constitution would withstand a court challenge, but for now adding "same-sex partners" to the bill would ensure all military spouses will be treated equally in Alaska.
"It does not state that they are married, it does not formally create even a civil union," he said.
Rep. Geran Tarr, D-Anchorage, said she supports state policy being in line with national policy in order to help with efforts she agrees with, like keeping Alaska bases off the list of closures and basing squadrons of the new F-35 fighter jets here.
"I want us to be the most competitive location possible," she said.
But Rep. Lora Reinbold, R-Eagle River, said Alaska's Constitution says marriage is between one man and one woman, and that by voting against Gruenberg's amendment she was defending the constitution, as her oath of office required her to do. It's Alaska's right to decide what constitutes marriage in Alaska, she said.
"States can define marriage, I'd like to keep that sovereignty," she said.
Reinbold also expressed dismay that courts were approving of same-sex marriage.
"I think we need to quit our political activism in our courts," she said.
Gruenberg's amendment was rejected largely along party lines, failing by a vote of 22-14, with four absent.
The majority Republicans led the opposition to the amendment, though Mike Hawker, and Lindsey Holmes, both of Anchorage, and Cathy Muñoz of Juneau voted in favor, while Democrat Bob Herron of Bethel voted against.
House Bill 212 now goes to the Senate.
Contact Pat Forgey at pat(at)alaskadispatch.com