Sen. Lisa Murkowski speaks in Sitka earlier this year.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski is being applauded by some in her home state for her new-found support for gay marriage.

After the announcement Wednesday, Juneau Rep. Beth Kerttula said she’s proud of Murkowski for being a leader in the U.S. Senate Republican caucus.

The statewide group Alaskans Together for Equality called Murkowski’s stand courageous.

Murkowski doesn’t come up for re-election until 2016 and Alaska’s conservative landscape could change by then.  But Alaska was the first state to ban gay marriage in its constitution, which she supported in 1998.

Up to this point, the senator has said her opinion on the issue was evolving.  Now she says she is rooting her support for same-sex marriage in conservative principles.

Murkowski penned a lengthy op-ed on her website recalling  lunch with a family who visited her office.

They adopted not one, not two, but four children. And by all accounts seemed like any normal family. The parents are Alaskans, one’s in the National Guard.  Both parents are women.

Murkowski says it concerned her that if one parent became ill, the other — who was not officially recognized as a spouse — would have not been recognized by the law, despite “all the love that she had given those children, every ounce of parenting she had lovingly given.”

She says that experience, along with a growing acceptance of same-sex unions  throughout the country, forced her to reflect on her stance.

She says she’s framing her new position in a conservative light.

“Protection of freedom, government limitation in our lives, religious liberty; those are pretty conservative principles,” she says.

Many of her colleagues disagree. Arkansas Sen.  John Boozman, a fellow Republican, says such a visceral issue like marriage is too serious for party principles.

“You need to look at what’s best for families, what’s best for raising children,” he says. 

Many observers say the political debate is over – that opposing gay marriage is a losing argument. But Murkowski says the debate is far from finished; many are still wrestling with the issue.

And some, like Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, have settled in opposition.

“I just think once you change the definition of marriage, you’re asking for it. I’ve been for civil unions, I’ve been for trying to solve this problem, but I just don’t think that should happen,” he says.

Just two months ago, the Republican National Committee affirmed its opposition to gay marriage.

Murkowski, who supported Alaska’s constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in 1998, sought the advice of Republican Senator Rob Portman. She wanted to know how his constituents reacted when he announced his support for gay marriage in March.

She says she’s not looking to lead her party on the issue.

“I did not make the announcement I did in an effort to start a parade. I felt it was important to be honest and clear with Alaskans on where I stood,” she says.

But she did make the announcement in advance of what is sure to be a major national dialogue on the issue. The Supreme Court is set to rule on two gay marriage cases as early as Thursday.

Gustavus has a year-round population of around 450. Many residents like to congregate at the town’s ‘Four Corners,’ where the Fireweed Gallery and Coffee Shop is located. (Photo by Lisa Phu/KTOO)

State ferry service between Juneau and Gustavus is in its third season. While most Gustavus residents are happy with the additional transportation option provided by the Alaska Marine Highway System, others aren’t sure the change is good for the small community.

• Ferry to Gustavus in its third seasonBy Lisa Phu/KTOODownload

The first ferry between Juneau and Gustavus sailed on November 23, 2010.

“I waited pretty much most of my life and just thought it was a dream that would never ever happen,” says Sylvia Pederson.

Passengers on the LeConte relax during their four-hour ride from Juneau to Gustavus.

Pederson has spent her whole life in Gustavus, a town with a year-round population of 450. She’s also spent most of her life in fear of flying, which used to be the only way to get to and from Gustavus. So whenever Pederson left home, she had to take anxiety pills.

“There was no other option so I mean I did it, because you have to, but I never liked it. All the pilots would humor me and say, ‘It’s a Sylvia day or not,’” she laughs.

Now Pederson doesn’t let six weeks pass by without traveling to Juneau by ferry. She goes for medical purposes and visits her mother in the Juneau Pioneer Home. On this particular journey, Pederson went with her mother to the Senior Ball, something Pederson would’ve never considered if it meant flying.

Gustavus residents Leslie Sirstad and Betty Markey are also traveling back home from Juneau.

Aboard the LeConte: Gustavus residents Leslie Sirstad and Betty Markey use the ferry to get supplies and to take a break.

“I’m working on family record kinds of thing, so I got some scrapbook things. That was the real reason why I went in,” says Sirstad.

Markey’s trip was for a similar purpose. “I went in to get supplies and just to look around.”

Markey went to Costco and Fred Meyer which are common stops for Gustavus residents who want to fill their vehicles, an option now possible because of the ferry.

Sirstad and Markey also go to Juneau to take a break, “to change the scenery, make home look better,” says Sirstad. Markey adds, “And to get to go to a restaurant, a different restaurant, different foods, ‘cause you’re limited in Gustavus. We’re not complaining. We’re happy the way it is.”

Barb Miranda Bruno is also happy with the way it is. In fact, she may have liked Gustavus better before the ferry. Bruno is co-owner of Sunny Side Market, a health food store and café that opened in 2007 and is geared toward locals. While the ferry does bring more people to her business, Bruno says inaccessibility is a key reason residents live in Gustavus. She calls herself a fence-sitter regarding the ferry.

“It’s just busier,” Bruno says. “It just changes the way Gustavus was. If you talk to the old timers, before the road was paved, that was a big deal, before electricity, that was a big deal, and now we have the ferry so there are these incremental changes that slowly have Gustavus become a little bit more like other places and I think a lot of us chose to live here because it was different.”

Toshco owner Toshua Parker says he opened his business based on the ferry coming to Gustavus.

Toshua Parker comes from a homesteading family in Gustavus. He’s the owner of Toshco, “which is a grocery, lumber, hardware, clothing and marine, and everything else store,” Parker explains.

It’s no coincidence that his store has been around for as many years as the Alaska Marine Highway has been going to Gustavus. Parker says he started his business because of the ferry.

“Without the ferry, there would be really no way for us to get these materials out here economically enough that we could pass the savings on to the customers and hit the price point that we need to hit to make this work. At this point I don’t know how we’d survive without it. It’s really been a godsend for us out here.”

An example of those savings – the price of a gallon of milk is $5.99. Parker says it was double that before his store opened. Toshco and Sunny Side Market are the only grocery stores in town.

Barb Miranda Bruno co-owns Sunny Side Market, a health food store and cafe.

Gustavus is the gateway to Glacier Bay National Park so residents are used to seeing tourists. But Kelly McLaughlin, owner of Fireweed Gallery and coffee shop, says the ferry has changed the type of people who come to Gustavus.

“We see a lot more of independent travelers who aren’t looking to spend a lot of money, who just want to come and see Gustavus. So there’s a higher traffic but maybe not as much money spent,” she says.

The ferry is also bringing in more vehicles.

“The traffic is a little bit difficult sometimes because we’re not used to quite so many cars. People haven’t quite figured out how to deal with all that, but it’s coming,” says Pederson.

Pederson is confident Gustavus residents will bend with the changes. They’ll need to – in October, the Alaska Marine Highway plans twice-weekly trips between Gustavus and Juneau year-round.

Women in the U.S. military will be integrated into front-line combat units by 2016, the Pentagon says. Here, female Marine recruits stand in formation during pugil stick training in boot camp earlier this year at Parris Island, S.C. Scott Olson/Getty Images

Women in America’s armed services will have new options for what units they can join in coming years, the Pentagon says. The military said in January that it will end its combat exclusion that set a minimum size for units in which women could be deployed; the limit kept many women away from front-line combat units. The shift means women could join elite forces such as the Army Rangers and Navy SEALs.

Mead Treadwell.

Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell announced early this morning he’s running for Senate. He said he’s entering the race, instead of running for reelection, because he knows he can win.

His announcement named neither Begich nor the GOP primary. If he wants to face Begich, he’ll need to survive what’s expected to be a rough nominating contest.

Treadwell took a swipe at fellow Republican candidate Joe Miller without naming him.

“I think Republicans know we need a credible conservative candidate to take on Mark Begich,” he said in an early phone interview. “We know we need unity to win.”

That unity was lacking in the 2010 race. Miller, then a political neophyte, stormed onto the scene and upset incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski in the primary. She went on to win the general election in a write-in campaign.

Murkowski urged Treadwell to run but out of principle will remain neutral during the primary.

“The best thing to do is steer clear of it,” she said Tuesday afternoon at the Capitol. “I learned that from my father, who didn’t endorse me for my very first race for the Alaska state legislature because I was in a contested primary. It was good advice.”

She called Treadwell the front runner.

Miller said he welcomes Treadwell’s announcement; that competition is good for the party. He said he sees himself as the anti-establishment candidate, and Alaskans will have a clear distinction in the primary.

He would not highlight those differences, but said they’ll be apparent as the race develops.

“I would consider all of the candidates that are at least contemplating getting into this race as establishment type candidates,” he said.

Many observers in Washington see Treadwell as the establishment candidate, too. He’ll be here next week meeting with party leaders – including the National Republican Senatorial Committee. That group – officially tasked with regaining control of the Senate – refuses to discuss Miller’s candidacy.

It would like to avoid another nasty primary, which doesn’t take place until August 2014.  The group has said Begich’s seat is crucial to winning control of the upper chamber.

“If you can put the Republicans back in the leadership you’d make Lisa Murkowski the head of the Senate Energy Committee. That’s going to help with ANWR. That’s going to help us with access to our lands. That’s the defining issue,” Treadwell said.

It’s hard to see a difference between Begich and Treadwell on the major issue in the state: Both support expanded oil and gas drilling.

Treadwell promised to campaign on three causes: Fighting for liberty, fighting for fiscal sanity, and fighting for Alaska.

He invokes a sacred name when he talks of his campaign: former Senator Ted Stevens. He said he’ll follow in the Stevens tradition of bringing power back to Alaska – letting Alaskans make decisions about the state, not the federal government.

“That part of his legacy, of trying to bring the decision making home is the legacy I want to work on,” he said. “We have a federal system now of spending too much, borrowing too much, taxing too much. Asking the federal government for earmarks is probably not the right way to go.”

Of course, Stevens is most remembered as the chair of the Appropriations Committee who doled out government money and projects all over Alaska.

Jennifer Duffy, senior editor with the Cook Political Report,said even though it’s early, this does not look like it will be as monumental a primary as 2010.

“You don’t see the Tea Party groups rallying around Miller like they did in 2010. The other thing is: I have not heard any of these groups having a real problem with Treadwell,” Duffy said.

Those groups don’t have any issues with Governor Sean Parnell either, and Duffy said that helps Treadwell.

And this far off, other candidates have plenty of time to enter the race.

Pat Lavin is one of the organizers behind the referendum. He says the harassment started in Anchorage last week and escalated on Monday, when an unidentified woman interrupted the signature gathering effort at the Barnes and Noble.

“This was physically putting her hands on people signing books to kind of get their attention and basically say, “Don’t do this. That’s a bad idea. You don’t want to sign that.”

The practice is called blocking, and the intent is to make it harder not just for a petition circulator to get an individual signature but to control a high-traffic space. Lavin says that because the incident upset customers, petition circulators were asked to cut their day short. He says he’s worried the same people could target them again.

“I don’t think it’s going to be an army, but you know a few persistent harassers can really — as we saw at the Barnes and Noble — shut things down.”

With less than a month to go, the referendum group has to collect over

30,000 signatures to get on the ballot. At last count, they were above 20,000.

Because interfering with constitutional rights is a misdemeanor, referendum organizers have requested a meeting with Anchorage Police Chief Mark Mew.

Management at Barnes and Noble was not able to answer questions about the incident.

BLM Legacy Well. (Photo courtesy Charisse Millett website)

A U.S. Senate committee has advanced a bill that would provide $50 million to clean up abandoned federal wells on current or former National Petroleum Reserve lands.

The money for this is expected to come from the sale of crude helium under the Helium Stewardship Act, which advanced Tuesday.

The bulk of the $50 million is expected to go toward cleaning up wells in the Alaska arctic.

There are about 90 abandoned wells in the Lower 48, according to information provided by the committee, with estimates that cleanup of those wells could average up to $75,000 each.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who serves on the committee, had called an Obama administration plan that called for Alaska to help with cleanup costs on lands in this state dead on arrival.

The legislative session is months away. But already, Sen. Pete Kelly’s office is drafting a bill that would make the signatures collected during the initiative process confidential. He sees it as a matter of urgency.

“We’re just kind of living in an odd environment right now where I believe people are pretty nervous about what happens to their names or how they get on lists. I don’t think the state should be able to sell those names, and those lists should be fairly private.”

Right now, there are a lot of petitions floating about. There’s one to legalize marijuana, and another to recall Anchorage Republican Lindsey Holmes from the legislature for switching parties. There are also propositions that would repeal a tax cut for oil companies, and make it harder to develop Pebble Mine, both issues where Kelly has taken a pro-development stance.

His office is now warning Alaskans that they should be “very concerned about giving their names to strangers with clip boards.” Kelly thinks his announcement is timely because of the number of petitions currently circulating and because discussion about data-sharing is now happening at a national level. The motivation came:

“Mostly just from conversations about the NSA thing, and then somebody mentioned to me that the initiative [signers'] names are sold. And those two events just kind of crossed in my mind, and I thought, ‘Well, that isn’t a very good idea.’”

But some are wondering if there might be other reasons for bringing up this proposal now, so far ahead of the legislative session. Pat Lavin is one of the organizers of the referendum to repeal the oil tax cut. He describes the announcement as a sort of “black helicopter” message that could make it harder to gather the 30,000-signatures needed to get on the ballot.

“I hear a message designed to make people think twice about signing a petition.”

Kelly’s office says that’s not their intent. According to his staff, they’re not trying to discourage anyone from signing any petition — they just want people to know that their names are available upon request.

Meanwhile, government transparency advocates have some reservations about the actual substance of the proposal.

“We think this legislation is not a great idea,” says Joshua Decker with the ACLU of Alaska.

Decker gets why people might bristle at the idea of political operatives or even telemarketers buying their names and addresses. But he says the consequences of making these signatures confidential would be even more serious: If there isn’t open access to these lists, there’s no way for the public to verify if a petition got the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot. Decker also says that the concern that some people aren’t having their voice heard because they’re worried about privacy is overblown.

“We as an organization are not aware of anyone who has said, ‘But for the fact that my signature would be confidential, I am not going to sign on this particular ballot initiative.’”

Kelly’s staff say they’re open to hearing about any concerns about transparency or how their legislation would affect signature gatherers as they’re drafting the bill. They have six months until they introduce it formally in January.

Headquarters of the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland. (Photo courtesy of the NSA)

Alaska’s U.S. senators have signed on to legislation that would limit the government’s authority to search Americans’ phone and Internet records.

Sens. Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski say there needs to be a careful balance between security and personal privacy.

The proposal, according to the senators, would require that federal intelligence agencies show that communications records are somehow connected to terrorism or other intelligence activities.

Murkowski, in a release, said evidence is required to get a search warrant, and the government should be held to the same standard “when digging through” communications.

Aimee Olejasz and Fabienne Peter-Contesse have been together for 23 years and have spent most of their life in Alaska. This fall, they’re headed to Washington to say their vows. (Photo courtesy Fabienne Peter-Contesse and Aimee Olejasz)

The U.S. Supreme Court could rule as soon as Thursday on two same-sex marriage cases: The Defense of Marriage Act, and California’s Proposition 8, which recognizes  marriage only between a man and woman in that state.

For same-sex couples in Alaska who want to marry, the only option right now is to head out of state.

Alaska was the first state to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment in 1998. By statute same sex marriages from other states are not recognized.

In 2005, the Alaska Civil Liberties Union sued the state and Municipality of Anchorage on behalf of nine gay and lesbian couples who were seeking benefits for their spouses.

The Alaska Supreme Court said denying spousal benefits for gay couples was an equal protection violation. The result was that local governments as well as the state had to make employment benefits available to people in domestic partnerships.

Fabienne Peter-Contesse and her soon-to-be wife Aimee Olejasz were plaintiffs in the case. Both Peter-Contesse and Olejasz work for state agencies.

When the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACLU, Peter-Contesse describes it as a feeling of relief.

“It feels a little bit that way with DOMA, with the Defense of Marriage Act now. It’s just the right thing to do,” she says.

According to DOMA, marriage is between one man and one woman. DOMA’s definition prevents married same-sex couples from receiving any federal marriage benefits.

“If the Supreme Court decides that to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and allow same sex partners to receive all the same protections and responsibilities and rights that heterosexual couples have, it will be on one hand a huge celebration and on the other hand it’s like ‘yeah, about time,’ ” Peter-Contesse says.

Peter-Contesse and Olejasz are planning a fall wedding in Washington state. Washington legalized gay marriage last year. When they heard the news they were elated, and that’s when they knew they would get married in Washington where Peter-Contesse has family.

They wanted to get married in Alaska, but Olejasz says they didn’t know how long they would have to wait for that to be possible.

“Until perhaps there’s a shift in the culture here in Alaska, I think that will be slow in coming,” she says.

University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center Professor Jason Brandeis also thinks Alaska isn’t there yet:

“I just don’t see that happening anytime soon. But if there was a United States Supreme Court decision that required the state to change its laws then that would be a whole different story.”

The cases before the Supreme Court cover two main issues.

United States versus Windsor asks if the Defense of Marriage Act violates the right of equal protection under the law. In this case Edith Windsor sued the federal government over inheritance taxes she had to pay when her wife passed away. A married heterosexual person does not have to pay the tax when their spouse dies. (Here’s a link to the full transcript of the arguments heard in the case)

Hollingsworth versus Perry deals with California’s current ban on same sex marriage. California allowed same sex marriage until 2004, when the California Supreme Court ordered officials to stop issuing marriage licenses until constitutional challenges to marriage statutes were resolved. (Here’s a link to the full transcript of the arguments in Hollingsworth versus Perry)

Brandeis says marriage has traditionally been a state issue.

“If you think about marriage, you think about the classic wedding ceremony and someone says ‘by the power vested in me by the state of Alaska, I now pronounce you husband and wife.’ You never hear ‘by the power vested in me by the United States of America.’ Marriage is a creation of state law, though there are a number of federal laws that also affect marriage.”

States that define marriage as between a man and a woman. (Map courtesy National Conference of State Legislatures)

In fact, there are more than 1,000 federal laws and programs that affect married couples from taxes to adoption.

Jim Minnery is  president of Alaska Family Action. He calls same sex marriage an issue of state’s rights, federal overreach, and protecting the sanctity of marriage.

“It’s a 10th Amendment issue really in our view. That states should have the right to define marriage,” Minnery says.

Minnery believes same sex marriage does not uphold essential aspects of marriage such as monogamy, permanence and opposite-sex parents:

“It’s difficult for the public to grasp — but I think it’s important for people to know — that as some components of marriage become optional, meaning it’s no longer just one man and one woman, who’s to say that the other components are just as easily tossed aside.”

Professor Brandeis describes a number of U.S. Supreme Court justices as state’s rights advocates, who tend to defer to states to define social policies.

Given the makeup of the court and tenor of the oral arguments heard in March, Brandeis says it’s unlikely justices will ban all laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. However, he thinks the rulings will provide language that can be used in future cases to challenge bans on same-sex marriage.

No matter how the high court rules, couples like Olejasz and Peter-Contesse will be touched by the decision.

“If the Defense of Marriage Act is not struck down, basically that’s saying that we–our relationship of 23 years is not as important, it’s not equal to, it’s not recognized as any other straight couple would be. That doesn’t have just financial impact. That has emotional impact.”

 

Sen. Lisa Murkowski speaks in Sitka earlier this year.

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s version of the Sealaska lands bill has passed out of its only committee of referral.

That’s a major step toward a Senate floor vote.

But there’s no guarantee it will move any further in Congress. Its best chance is as part of a package of lands legislation. Read details of the bill.

Murkowski told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee today that it’s the result of years of negotiations.

“And I recognize it has created tensions within our communities. But we have worked aggressively and tirelessly with all of the stakeholders, not just Sealaska and their shareholders,” she says.

The bill is co-sponsored by Alaska Senator Mark Begich. A similar measure by Alaska Representative Don Young passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee earlier this month.

The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council has endorsed the legislation as a reasonable compromise.

But other critics – including environmental, sportsmen’s and small-community groups – continue to oppose the bill. They say Sealaska wants to trade marginal acreage it can already claim for the most valuable timberlands in the Tongass National Forest.

Andi Burgess is rainforest program director for the Alaska Wilderness League. Her group is particularly concerned about an area on the south end of Prince of Wales Island.

“One of the most productive salmon streams in the Tongass is in Keete Inlet. It’s an area identified by Audubon and Trout Unlimited scientists as being one of the most high-value watersheds,” Burgess says.

The bill would allow the regional Native corporation to choose about 68,000 acres of timberlands from within the Tongass.

Around another 1,600 acres would be transferred for renewable energy and ecotourism development or preservation as cemetery and historic sites.

The total, a little more than 70,000 acres, is less than the 85,000 Sealaska has said it’s entitled to.

Murkowski points to acreage that would gain new protections under the bill.

“It will help the Sealaska region’s timber industry grow, while at the same time we’re working to protect more than 150,000 acres of habitat for fisheries and wildlife,” she says.

Juneau-based Sealaska has about 22,000 shareholders. More than half live outside Southeast, but have family ties to the area.