Is it inconsistent to support a rural preference for subsistence hunting and fishing while opposing Ballot Measure No. 2? It is a complex question, but I believe the answer is no. Proponents of Ballot Measure No. 2 have been criticized as hypocrites for opposing rural preference based on “equal treatment” arguments. Their response has been to claim people who support a rural preference while opposing Ballot Measure No. 2 are actually the inconsistent ones. Without further ado I will now attempt to show why it more consistent to oppose Ballot Measure No. 2 and support a rural preference than vice-versa.
Government is frequently placed in the position of arbitrating between competing interest groups. Consumer protection laws are an example. One group would like to see maximum profit while the other demands absolute safety. Occupational Safety and Health groups are similarly opposed by those seeking freedom from onerous safety regulations. In fact virtually every government regulation weighs the rights of one individual or group against another individual or group. This is true in areas as diverse as affirmative action and setting safe speed limits or establishing emission controls. In each case government is expected to find the compromise best serving the public interest.
In the case of fish and wildlife resources in Alaska, Congress has determined that the public interest is best served by establishing a rural preference to take effect in times of shortage. Urban dwelling hunters and fishermen would be expected to make use of other resources available only in more developed areas. This is obviously preferable to making rural dwellers dependent upon government handouts and destroying the last traces of their traditions and culture.
In the case of limiting marriage to mixed-sex couples there are also competing interest groups. One group feels excluded from the advantages of civil marriage. These advantages are wide ranging: from health care benefits and exemption from inheritance taxes to unquestioned legal access to hospitalized partners. Another group feels that marriage must be limited to mixed-sex couples. Before deciding what is in the best interest of the public, it is important to examine just what is at stake for each group.
Fish and wild game are tangible and can have a definite dollar value. It is reasonable for the government to allocate resources such as these. Likewise tax advantages of marriage have a definite dollar value. However, proponents of Ballot Measure No. 2 have no tangible interest in limiting marriage. Their interests are based simply on intangible personal prejudices. Other than not having things “their way” they can show no personal loss. Such prejudice is never a basis for good law.
This brings us back to the original question: Is it consistent to support changing the constitution to allow a rural preference in subsistence hunting and fishing while opposing a change limiting marriage? Yes, in the first case government must arbitrate between the legitimate interests of competing needs of opposing groups, and a vote by the people is the established way for this arbitration to take place. In the second case, only one side has a legitimate interest. Government must never make decisions to treat people unequally based solely on prejudice. Therefore it is inappropriate for questions of prejudice to be on the ballot. From this we can conclude that efforts to label people in favor of a subsistence vote and opposed to a vote limiting marriage as inconsistent are nothing more than bad rhetoric. On the other hand people who oppose a vote on subsistence based on equal treatment arguments while supporting Ballot Measure No. 2 are highly inconsistent. They demand equal treatment under the law, but are unwilling to extend equal treatment to others.