In my previous post on this issue, I addressed KTUU Channel 2's story about the Bartlett Democratic Club's mayoral candidate forum held on Saturday February 21st, 2009. In the story, KTUU identified Paul Honeman as one of the many candidates who, when asked "Do you support gay marriage?", answered Yes.
However, Honeman himself has since stated that the story misrepresents his position. He has posted a clarification as a comment to this post by Rebecca Logan on The Alaska Standard. Since the information is not posted on Honeman's official campaign website, I am cross-posting the comment here so that the public has the most current and accurate information about Paul Honeman straight from the candidate's mouth. Here's the statement:
Thanks for the coverage
Submitted by Paul Honeman on Tue, 02/24/2009 - 10:14am.
I noted that Channel 2 and 11 were on hand to cover this first of quite a few debates and forums in the next 6 weeks. I'm shocked and dismayed that the ADN did not send anyone to provide their readers some coverage. While I am thankful of the efforts by the BDC in setting the logistics for this debate - I felt that the format was very distracting as a candidate. I'm not sure if there was enough time for anyone to give or get the information about a variety of many, many current and future concerns regarding our city.
I agree with most on the post that Gay Marriages are not a Mayoral issue - but if you want to know - I am pretty sure that I held both the red and green cards up on that question. WHY? While I am firmly convicted about marraige in the church being defined as one man and one woman, I am not opposed or threatened by civil unions - which would carry the similar benefits and rights as the church ceremony.
All citizens shoud be able to live their lives with ALL the freedoms and rights afforded under the U.S. and State Constitutions, and our Municipal Charter. To the extent possible - government should not make laws that interfere with those rights excepting life safety and social 'order'. I have read all of these documents - and I just cannot find any specific language that spells out that 'alternate lifestyles' are illegal under the law and/or should be restricted from any rights and freedoms. ( In fact the laws are VERY clear that no person shall be discriminated or treated differently on the basis of many factors)
As a Christian - I understand the scripture concerning homosexuality - and I prescribe to its intent ( personally). But I am not the judge of any man - I believe that right belongs to 'our father' and each of us have to face him in our own time. Thank GOD for the intent by our framers of our Constitution for the language specifying 'Seperation of Church and State'. That does not mean that an elected offical cannot be a christian, jew, muslim or any faith or none at all. To the contrary - it means any of us can be of ANY faith or NONE - and the LAWS are on our side. One post asked why the city offers same sex benefits - and my answer to that would be - the M.O.A. -SHALL ( no option) follow the current state law on the matter. If you don't like the law - get it changed. As the future Chief Executive of this city - I intend to have ALL laws enforced equitably - and if there are laws that are not needed - then I will move that the Assembly (it is their duty to make and repeal) abolish those laws.
Any questions - http://www.honemanformayor.com/ or email@example.com
Thanks for your support and VOTE on April 7th.
Honeman also has a MySpace website HERE, and a Facebook site HERE. His APOC campaign finance and contribution record can be found HERE. For information about other municipal candidates:
-- List of Anchorage 2009 Mayoral Candidates
-- List of Anchorage 2009 School Board Candidates
This appeared to be a "lightning round" question where candidates held up one color card to signify a "Yes" answer, and a different color card to denote a "No" answer. Honeman held up both cards to signify that he had a third answer. And that third answer is quite plain - he supports civil unions, but not gay marriage itself.
Some strict pro-family constructionists may consider the distinction academic. But the important thing is that, by Paul Honeman's definition, there is a distinction, and that's the message the public needs to hear. From there, the public can draw their own conclusions on how his answer will impact his electability. For my own part, while I could never vote for a candidate who openly espoused and promoted actual gay marriage, I would not reject a candidate simply because he or she favored civil unions.