Miller To Murkowski: Stop Waffling On Federal Marriage Amendment, Take A Stand
Debate on Same-Sex Marriage Looms; Murkowski Still "Undecided"
North Pole, AK - Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Mike Miller said that Lisa Murkowski is sending contradictory messages about her position on a federal constitutional amendment that would prevent activist judges from redefining the institution of marriage.
"In less than two weeks, the U.S. Senate will begin debating the issue of same-sex marriage, and nobody has a clue where Lisa Murkowski stands - she is all over the map," Miller said. "In her campaign propaganda, Lisa tells Alaska voters she supports a constitutional amendment, but then she tells Capitol Hill lobbyists that she is undecided. She refuses to pledge her support for the amendment backed by President Bush and virtually every pro-family organization in the nation."
In a campaign brochure, Murkowski claims she "supports a Constitutional Amendment to make the Defense of Marriage Act permanent." Also, in a letter to Republican convention delegates, Murkowski says she is on the "right side" of the issue of "preserving the sanctity of marriage." But on Capitol Hill, Murkowski shows up on the "undecided" list of virtually every group that is lobbying for passage of the amendment. In a June 14 statement released from her office, Murkowski says, "I remain concerned about the respective state's rights under the various proposals and will be studying all the options carefully." Similarly, in a letter to a constituent dated March 10, 2004, Murkowski writes: "A Constitutional amendment would take the power from individual states to decide if they will recognize or allow same-sex marriages. I believe that enacting laws that interfere with individual state's right versus federal mandates should carefully be considered."
Miller said he stands with President Bush in supporting the federal marriage amendment, S.J. Res. 30, which states as follows: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." "The question for Lisa is simple: what part of this language makes you uncomfortable?" Miller asked. "I support this language, Tony Knowles is against it, but Alaska's appointed Senator can't figure out where she stands."