Murkowski Sullivan

In what some are calling one of the most devastating defeats conservatives have endured when it comes to family and marriage issues, Alaska’s Republican Senators Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski broke from the majority of their party to join the Democratic-led effort to enshrine same-sex marriage into federal law.

The 62 to 37 vote on Nov. 16 included 12 Republicans who sided with all Democrats to advance the so-called “Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA).

As was widely reported, Democrats need 10 Republicans to join them in order to overcome the 60-vote filibuster so they could debate and vote on the bill. With that hurdle now cleared, the law is expected pass Congress and head to the president’s desk by late this year.

Murkowski has long-supported same-sex marriage and was viewed as one of the Republicans who would abandon her fellow GOP members in order to pass the legislation. Sullivan’s support, however, was unexpected.

Democrats have pushed the bill out of concern that the U.S. Supreme Court may one day overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling which imposed gay marriage across the nation.

During his 2020 Senate campaign Sullivan said he opposed same-sex marriage, and in 2015 he sponsored an act that would protect contractors’ ability to conduct business in accord with their traditional religious beliefs regarding marriage and human sexuality.

“Senator Sullivan’s vote makes it clear that he is willing to ‘evolve’ on a central tenet of the Christian faith and sacrifice fundamental religious liberties on the altar of ‘wokeness,’” said Jim Minnery, president of the pro-family policy group Alaska Family Council. “Very disappointed to have confirmation that we have two U.S. Senators aligned with the Biden regime.”

In voting for the same-sex marriage bill, both Sullivan and Murkowski have effectively abandoned the official Republican Party Platform, which states that “traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society.” It adds that the party condemns U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have “wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage” as between one man and one woman.

The bill passed the House in July with 47 Republicans voting in favor. Schumer had hoped to get the controversial legislation through the evenly divided Senate in September but did not have a at least 10 Republicans who were willing to side with Democrats to pass it in the evenly divided Senate.

Democrats have pushed the bill out of concern that the U.S. Supreme Court may one day overturn its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling which imposed gay marriage across the nation. If the court ever did strike down Obergefell, then each state would again be free to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

Although it has not been enforced since 2014, Alaska’s Constitution still affirms marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Once passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Biden, the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the longstanding (but unenforced) federal Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The federal law protects states’ rights to have similar laws, although the 2015 Supreme Court ruling has suspended this right, for now.

As written, the law would also require the federal government to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed by any state and would force all other states to recognize those marriages as well.

While the bill does not force churches or other groups to host or facilitate same-sex “marriages”, it does threatens the religious freedoms of non-profits or business owners who do not affirm homosexual “marriage.”


— Click here to contact Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

— Click here to contact Sen. Dan Sullivan.

Sullivan teams with Murkowski to help Dems advance same-sex marriage law

Joel Davidson
Joel is Editor-in-Chief of the Alaska Watchman. Joel is an award winning journalist and has been reporting for over 24 years, He is a proud father of 8 children, and lives in Palmer, Alaska.


  • Alissa Greber says:

    Absolutely disgusting!! This reptile shook my elderly Christian mother’s hand and looked her in the eye when he asked for her vote. She would *never* have knowingly voted for a man with anti-Christ positions in major social issues like this. One day he’ll have to answer to God for seducing and lying to the elderly. Rot in HELL Dan you creepy homo snake!!

    • Terry Stires says:

      Joel: Watchman is diminished by comments like Greber’s.

      • Matthew myers says:

        Not really. It is an issue which actually should evoke anger. Marriage has been something that has built up the family and society for thousands and thousands of years. This is the first time we have sought to engineer it for ‘woke’ reasons. Homosexuality used to be in the DSM manual. It was taken out for political, and not for scientific reasons. Just like with mutilating the human body for gender dysphoria, it is bad science. Supporting psychological pathologies is cowardice. It is not compassion, only virtue signaling. Encouraging sin is sick and cruel.

      • DaveMaxwell says:

        I disagree with this response
        I agree with Greber

      • Sharon Alice Turner says:

        Although comments you dislike and or find certain words and ideas uncomfortably disturbing; this is precisely the platform for open ideas, comments and just plain ‘ole venting’.. Which is why and how our Founders pledged their lives, liberties, fortunes unto their very death to provide for Joel, Me and You too. Grandma Sharon PS: I was raised with “I may disagree with what you have to say, BUT I will defend to the death your right to say it”

      • John J Otness says:

        No she is spot on….. Time is now to call out the scum…. gloves off…go find a safe space…

    • Fran Turner says:

      I wouldn’t have quite put it that way, but am just as angry and disgusted. We’ll never vote for him again. I do encourage all of us to write to him. I just did. He’s always answered my letters, whether I’ve liked his answer or not. The more responses he gets, the more it will make him think about his political future. I had a lot to say, but it doesn’t have to be long, but be respectful. Just a sentence or two goes a long way. He’ll get the message. And write to Lisa too! I only had one thing to say to her. It’s easy, the links are right there, thank you Watchman

  • Steve Peterson says:

    Flood his email, that is what he responds to.

    • Neil DeWitt says:

      he has never responded to any requests of mine!

      • Steve P Peterson says:

        That is odd, I’ve had every one of my numerous emails answered. Maybe not the one I just wrote though, as I told him that I’ll do everything in my power to help kick him out of office and that the judgement of God will fall upon him. Write him anyway, it may go unanswered but it won’t go unnoticed.

    • Sharon Alice Turner says:

      I once read, that because so few ‘citizens’ participate these days (*this was over 20 years ago- and you see where were are now*) that every call or letter, email, is equivalent to 100’s of similar responses NOT said, or sent. So even if “they” who work your you and I , ignore us, it’s at their own peril. Grandma Sharon PS: this goes for our Muni Assembly, School board, ASD, etc..

  • Penny Seliger says:

    Very, very disappointed.

  • AK Pilot says:

    I’m not surprised at all; Sullivan proved he was a turncoat when he voted to confirm Haaland as interior secretary and effectively torpedoed Alaska’s oil and gas industry. This just removes any remaining doubt, of which there was little to begin with.

  • Kasey says:

    I’ve always considered that if you do not stand for something, you’ll fall for everything. When candidates are too sissy to take a hard position on something, their TRUE self eventually shows up. This is who Dan really is folks. Now, let’s see what else he sides with Dems on.

  • Neil DeWitt says:

    So I guess the only thing we can do is try to get ahold of tge Supreme Court and have them strick down Obergefell v Hodges before Groper Joe Biden signs this bill into law.

    • Clark says:

      Neil, I don’t think you understand how our laws work. You don’t get to just call up the Supreme Court and have then throw out rulings. That is a years-long process and there is no current lawsuits that would be suitable.

      Even if Obergefell were overturned, we would still have marriage equality in Alaska. Gay marriage was made legal here BEFORE the Obergefell ruling and based on different grounds. More importantly let me ask you something. How has my marriage hurt you? I’ve been with my husband for 22 years. How has that hurt you? Why do you support taking away a right from others that has never hurt you in any way?

      • Alaskan to the Bone says:

        Clark, it’s not about whether it hurts someone or not. You can call your relationship whatever you like, but it is not a marriage. There are plenty of exclusionary laws out there. Marriage, by its very definition, excludes members of the same sex. It just is- whether that fact “hurts” or not. Reality is reality, in spite of what the 9 black-robed prophets divined in the penumbras of our constitution… And fyi, you never had “the right” to marriage. It was never the state’s right to grant to begin with. Alaskan courts forced the gay “marriage” issue just prior to the Obergefell ruling, through the same wrongheaded reading of the Due Process and Equal Protections clauses of the Constitution. As I said before, marriage is a thing. It means something VERY specific, regardless of a judge’s ruling/restructuring.

        Marriage is a holy union. It is the foundational building block on which all human civilization stands/exists. Marriage is a bond between two members of the opposite sex, who come together for the creation and proper raising of their offspring. And even if you do not believe in God, marriage is still a practical good within itself. And… we can debate the effects of kid-less marriages, divorce, single parenting and out-of-wedlock parenting effect on kids; however, married parents are upheld as the standard. It has already been proven that two-parent families, consisting of a father and mother, offer kids the best possible outcomes in life. Kids in traditional families tend to be more adjusted, prone to success in life, and are generally, happier individuals. Societies benefit from structurally intact families and there is nothing wrong with government trying to promote the family. I know I part with my Libertarian friends on that, but I believe there are some laws that are morally good and right.

        Summing up.. Marriage is bond defined as, between two members of the opposite sex, coming together for the purpose of creating a stable environment for the creating and raising of offspring. This is its definition. Any other relationship falls outside of this and is NOT a marriage.

      • Aunt Sally says:

        For gosh sake, Clark, I can’t speak for Neil but your degenerate lifestyle is a crime against nature and statistically at least, you and this disturbed fellow you refer to as your “husband” are far more likely than any other segment of the populace to be walking, talking carriers of all manner of nasty diseases and parasites which nobody normal wants to be anywhere near. Moreover, in no way is it appropriate for kids to be groomed to accept the two of you and your disgusting behaviors as normal. It’s just wrong, Clark.

      • Alaskan to the Bone says:

        Clark, sorry buddy, but your relationship is NOT a marriage. It can never be a marriage. Marriage is an agreement and bond between two people of the opposite sex for the procreation and raising of children. In spite of what the high and might Supreme Court, or state court, says, marriage is exclusive to the bonding of one man to one woman. It has always been and will always be the natural order of things. We have been fearfully and wonderfully made to fit together for this very expressed purpose. Marriage provides stability for the raising of our future generations. Our civilization depends on healthy marriages; governments should promote marriage and family in policy and law, because it benefits society as a natural good.
        You are seeking to make something “equal” that is simply not possible. It’s like saying, “I can flap my arms, so now I am a bird.” That’s an illogical premise. You cannot be married as a gay couple. The courts can rule that a thing is not a thing, sure they can… but that doesn’t make it true or valid.
        You asked, how does allowing gays to “marry” hurt marriage? I give you present day America, as Exhibit A. All this stuff about multiple genders, men dominating in women’s sports, trans-ing the kids, and grooming in public education. Where do you think that slope started? Do you think that strengthens our society? Or, harms it?

      • Trouser Bark says:

        The cognitive dissonance aspect is the real deal here. The breakdown comes when one’s preference becomes twisted into a requirement that others provide both special consideration and special privilege; a shared deviant behavior isn’t reason enough to change laws. You may do what you want till your heart’s content in your own home without personal risk outside of rampant rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, AIDS and herpes, social stigmatism and fissures. Oh yeah, and whatever that was that was roaring through the homosexual community recently… Something about herpetic looking lesions covering huge areas of skin on infected people.

        It’s an issue of whether or not there’s a logical link between homosexual practices and special privileges, and the logical answer is, hell no. Homosexual behaivior doesn’t make you a special little flower.
        Wyoming, New Mexico, Hawaii, and West Virginia are states where bestiality is legal. Does that mean those folks should be extended special consideration? No Clark, it does not.

      • Matthew myers says:

        We have already seen the effects of normalization on society. Young people are getting married much more rarely these days. They see marriage as less important and less authentic and with decisions like this, they are absolutely correct. Making marriage mean anything will mean that marriage means nothing. We will still have holy matrimony. That will still bring forth children and help to continue the human race. That is part of natural law.
        I am sorry that society panders to certain groups out of fear. Encouraging psychological pathologies is only virtue signaling. It is not love, it is hatred. It is sick, sinful, and cruel.

      • Fran Turner says:

        Clark, not being gay, I couldn’t possibly understand completely, but I think I get where you’re coming from and I believe you’re living your best life and wish no harm on anyone. Your choice of lifestyle is between you and God. My beef is with activist couples who seek out, ruin and destroy small businesses and individuals in order to advance their agenda. You know who I mean. Those businesses have paid a horrible price because they did not want to participate in something they don’t believe in. It wasn’t a political or anti-gay statement, they just wanted to be left out of it. Our Constitution SHOULD have given them that right, but it became a feeding frenzy of anti-gay discrimination punishments that ruined the lives of the “guilty” ones. What about the religious discrimination those people suffered? What about Parental rights of those who object to their 5 year olds being taught gender ideology in schools and libraries? Or their gradeschoolers and teens given transition treatments and surgeries without their consent? Sometimes without even their knowledge? They get investigated as domestic terrorists by the DOJ and the FBI. So I ask the age old question: Where do your rights end and mine begin? What’s to be done when our individual rights overlap? I think we’ve seen what’s to be done. This bill opens up a can of worms once again that is much bigger and muddier than it looks on the surface. The citizens of this country have got to start respecting each others’ rights or this country is doomed. And that can’t be done by legislation.

  • Neil DeWitt says:

    So I guess the only thing we can do is try to get ahold of tge Supreme Court and have them strick down Obergefell v Hodges before Groper Joe Biden signs this bill into law. It’s very very sad both of our senator’s now are RINO’S!

  • Friend of Humanity says:

    What kind of game is Sullivan playing? He must have gotten some more dark money or a threat on him or his family.
    Murkowski, Sullivan, and Peltola are really counting on their mafia bosses to win and save them from trials by Humanity-loving People!

  • North to Alaska says:

    Sullivan will never get my vote…ever.

  • Bo Brown says:

    We should make sure these two are not Senators when it is time to vote again.

  • Andy says:

    Unbelievable, nothing like throwing your supporters under the bus. I now expect him to be more brazen now that his position is cemented in because of the rank choice scheme, we’ve all been betrayed.

  • Steve says:

    Dan Sullivan must have figured out that his re-election also depends on the liberals. He no longer a person I will support. He isn’t a man of stature any longer he is a spineless shell of what use to be a man.

  • Dinah Backford says:

    Dan wake up. Marriage is between a man and a woman only. You will answer to God unless you repent.

  • Fed up tax payer says:

    I can not believe how easy these people are bought and paid for. To think I trusted him and gave him my vote. Christian? Wow
    I am just sick to my stomach. This here is another reason the Capitol needs to be closer to the people! Then we can show politicians in person just what we think of their lack of representation!!

  • Reba M Brady says:

    Dan is slipping, for sure, but the Republican Party should have thrown Murkowski out long ago. She has not represented the Republican constituents for as long as I can remember. This is why she supported and pushed for Rank Choice cheating in the first place. She KNEW she would NEVER win again without it. Thoroughly disgusted with them all.

  • Steve Lankerd says:

    You can add me to the list of people not supporting Sullivan anymore…. This makes me want to puke.

  • Dee Cee says:

    Lost my faith in Sully last week when his aid spent an hour on the phone with me, gaslighting me about Ukraine. Sully supports all things WEF and will sell your future down river for its benefit. All the while lying bald faced to you about his conservative creds.

  • PHM says:

    Thank you for that information. I have been wondering who owns him and where his loyalty lies, now I know. I told him two years ago that he had lost my vote. This is all just confirmation.

  • Terry Stires says:

    Bone: your definition of marriage works for you. Keep it. But let others different than you enjoy the freedom, liberty and right to love whoever they want.

    • Steve says:

      They can love whom ever they want, just don’t REQUIRE us to accept or respect it… that’s our choice.

    • Matthew myers says:

      By law making marriage mean anything will effectively cause it to be seen as nothing. It is already happening in society. The effects in the future will be grave.

    • Aunt Sally says:

      I think what you’re missing, Terry, is this little thing called the “social contract”, the implicit agreement between you and I and the rest of us in which we agree that we’ll strive to improve our society or at least we must avoid bringing harm it.
      Now this doesn’t mean that we need to police one another’s personal conduct at all but the clear fact of the matter is that same sex activity cultivates diseases at staggeringly unhealthy rates.
      Moreover, please note that I’m not pointing the finger directly at you but we’d be remiss as a society if we didn’t consider those who identify as LGBTQ unwell with the result that we must also help young and impressionable members of our society understand this.
      These aren’t difficult concepts to grasp.

  • M. O’Toole says:

    We have the majority, have you lost your path?
    Have you been lured by Lisa’s dark money?
    You are a REPUBLICAN, we expect you to vote as one!
    We the peopke demand you stand by US.

  • Johnny Furlong says:

    Sullivan proved who he really is in 2020 and has continued to prove he is NOT a true REPUBLICan, Conservative, Constitutionalist, or a man of integrity who stands up against wrong doing. He is a Mitch McConnel opportunist GOP…anyone who thinks otherwise surely voted for Murkowski, which says it all. He has sold his soul and Alaska to the Leftists and is not trustworthy to represent us anymore.

  • Matthew myers says:

    They are both leftists. They are both fake Catholics and fake Christians. Lying Lisa has never gotten a vote from me and never will. Sellout Sullivan is now also in that camp. I will do whatever I can every time to see these swamp creatures gone. I would vote for a Demoncrat before them to break the cycle.

    • Clark says:

      Matthew meyers has the right idea! Vote for the democrats to teach them republicans a lesson!

      • Matthew myers says:

        I am guessing that you are purposefully being obtuse (my charitable guess that you aren’t stupid). If a Republican votes as a garbage leftist, then break the cycle. There is no need to lie to yourself and think that a RINO cares about principles or the future of western civil society.
        All things being equal, I prefer a Demoncrat that doesn’t lie about claiming to be a Christian to one that does lie about being a Christian or being at all conservative, which these two are not.

  • Michael Hughes says:

    “Just another brick in the wall….”

  • Great Granny says:

    I for one personally ask that the Alaska Republican Party censure Dan Sullivan as he is proving to not represent Republicans and their values anymore! The creatures in the Swamp have ‘bitten’ him. He is no longer an Alaskan!

    • Matthew myers says:

      He has always been a leftist swamp creature. He was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations before winning the seat. This is why I gave him a vote in the beginning as a possible lesser of two evils (while he was somewhat hiding his leftism), but I never contributed a dime to his campaign.

  • Clark says:

    SCOTUS can’t really justify a legal reason to overturn Obergefell, but the religious zealots might just eventually do it anyways. Even if they did, there are still millions of legally married lgbt families in the USA. Religion can make you disapprove of other’s choice of spouses, but it doesn’t grant anyone the right to discriminate on others based on who they married.

    If scotus did overturn Obergefell, Alaska still will have marriage equality. Because instead of Obergefell being the legal precedent, Hamby v Parnell would become the legal precedent. Hamby was decided on OTHER grounds than obergefell, so it wouldn’t be vacated. I’m friends with two of the great guys that brought that case. They are still happily married today.

    • Matthew myers says:

      A fine example of logical fallacy and no real facts. It is instructive. Thank you.

    • Nunya says:

      Not only will we overturn it, we want all formal recognition removed as punishment for trying to destroy the social fabric of our nation and grooming the children. You do not deserve to have any tax benefits or to be subsidized for weakening the country.

  • DaveMaxwell says:

    Time for memory stimulation
    Remember both downing and pacarro and Fagan have been staunch supporters of Sulliedman! Fagan not so much in recent weeks! The others are suck ups!
    Perhaps we like sheep have been listening to the wrong shepherd?! You have heard that we better wake up before it is too late! Here’s breaking news, it is too late!!!