Legislature(2021 - 2022)
2022-03-09 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2044 HB 62 The following was read the second time: HOUSE BILL NO. 62 "An Act relating to solemnization of marriage." with the: Journal Page STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1AM 320 FN1: ZERO(DHS) 320 JUD RPT CS(JUD) NEW TITLE 4DP 3DNP 520 FN1: ZERO(DHS) 520 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2045 The Rules Committee submitted the following fiscal note: 2. Zero, Dept. of Health & Social Services Representative Claman moved and asked unanimous consent that the following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 62(JUD) "An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics Act; and relating to solemnization of marriage." There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Snyder: Page 4, lines 27 - 28: Delete "[AND THE TWO ATTENDING WITNESSES]" Insert "and the person verifying the marriage [TWO ATTENDING WITNESSES]" Page 4, line 29, following "copies.": Insert "The person verifying the marriage must be 18 years of age or older. The person verifying the marriage shall communicate with both parties before or after the ceremony, but before signing the original marriage certificate and the necessary copies, and confirm that each party intends to marry the other party. The person verifying the marriage is not required to witness the ceremony." Page 5, line 2: Delete "has [AND THE TWO WITNESSES HAVE]" Insert "and the person verifying the marriage [TWO WITNESSES] have" Page 5, following line 9: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 4. AS 25.05.321 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (b) The person solemnizing the marriage and the person verifying the marriage shall provide their printed names, 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2046 addresses, and telephone numbers on the forms provided by the bureau or by a church or congregation." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Representative Snyder moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Eastman objected. Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representatives Vance and Claman: Page 1, line 20 of the amendment, following "names,": Insert "mailing and electronic mail" Representative Vance moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 1 be adopted. There being no objection, Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 1 was adopted. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 as amended be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 62(JUD) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 as amended YEAS: 33 NAYS: 3 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Claman, Cronk, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Gillham, Hannan, Hopkins, Josephson, Kaufman, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, McKay, Merrick, Nelson, Ortiz, Patkotak, Rasmussen, Rauscher, Schrage, Shaw, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Tarr, Tilton, Vance, Wool, Zulkosky Nays: Eastman, Johnson, Kurka Excused: Carpenter, Prax, Thompson, Tuck And so, Amendment No. 1 as amended was adopted. Amendment No. 2 was not offered. 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2047 Amendment No. 3 was offered by Representatives Eastman and Rauscher: Page 5, line 22: Delete "$500" Insert "$4,500" Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 3 be adopted. Representative Claman objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 3 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 62(JUD) am Second Reading Amendment No. 3 YEAS: 6 NAYS: 30 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Eastman, Gillham, Kurka, McCarty, Rauscher, Vance Nays: Claman, Cronk, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Hannan, Hopkins, Johnson, Josephson, Kaufman, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeBon, McCabe, McKay, Merrick, Nelson, Ortiz, Patkotak, Rasmussen, Schrage, Shaw, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Tarr, Tilton, Wool, Zulkosky Excused: Carpenter, Prax, Thompson, Tuck And so, Amendment No. 3 was not adopted. Amendment No. 4 was offered by Representative Eastman: Page 2, lines 1 - 3: Delete all material and insert: "(D) a legislator from accepting a benefit in exchange for solemnizing a marriage under AS 25.05.261(a)(4);" Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 4 be adopted. 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2048 Representative Claman objected. HB 62 The following was before the House in second reading with Amendment No. 4 moved and pending: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 62(JUD) "An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics Act; and relating to solemnization of marriage." Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 4 was offered by Representative Eastman: Page 1, lines 3-4 of the amendment: Delete all material and insert: "(D) a legislator from accepting travel and hospitality and reimbursement for reasonable personal expenses incurred primarily for the purpose of solemnizing a marriage in their capacity as a legislator if all such gifts are disclosed to the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics." Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 4 be adopted. Objection was heard and withdrawn. There being no further objection, Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 4 was adopted. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 4 as amended be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2049 CSHB 62(JUD) am Second Reading Amendment No. 4 as amended YEAS: 15 NAYS: 21 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Cronk, Eastman, Gillham, Kaufman, Kurka, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, McKay, Rasmussen, Rauscher, Shaw, Tarr, Tilton, Vance Nays: Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Hannan, Hopkins, Johnson, Josephson, Kreiss-Tomkins, Merrick, Nelson, Ortiz, Patkotak, Schrage, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Wool, Zulkosky Excused: Carpenter, Prax, Thompson, Tuck And so, Amendment No. 4 as amended was not adopted. The Speaker stated that all further amendments to CSHB 62(JUD) am must be submitted within fifteen minutes. Amendment No. 5 was offered by Representative Eastman: Page 4, following line 17: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261(c) is amended to read: (c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty or obligation on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a) [(a)(1), (3), OR (4)] of this section to solemnize any marriage." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 5 be adopted. Representative Josephson objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 5 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 62(JUD) am Second Reading Amendment No. 5 YEAS: 14 NAYS: 22 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 0 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2050 Yeas: Cronk, Eastman, Gillham, Johnson, Kaufman, Kurka, LeBon, McCabe, McKay, Nelson, Rauscher, Shaw, Tilton, Vance Nays: Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Hannan, Hopkins, Josephson, Kreiss-Tomkins, McCarty, Merrick, Ortiz, Patkotak, Rasmussen, Schrage, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Tarr, Wool, Zulkosky Excused: Carpenter, Prax, Thompson, Tuck And so, Amendment No. 5 was not adopted. Amendment No. 6 was offered by Representative Eastman: Page 4, following line 17: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261(a) is amended to read: (a) Marriages may be solemnized by any person in the state [(1) BY A MINISTER, PRIEST, OR RABBI OF ANY CHURCH OR CONGREGATION IN THE STATE, OR BY A COMMISSIONED OFFICER OF THE SALVATION ARMY, OR BY THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OR ELDER OF RECOGNIZED CHURCHES OR CONGREGATIONS THAT TRADITIONALLY DO NOT HAVE REGULAR MINISTERS, PRIESTS, OR RABBIS, ANYWHERE WITHIN THE STATE; (2) BY A MARRIAGE COMMISSIONER OR JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE STATE ANYWHERE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OR OFFICER; (3) BEFORE OR IN ANY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OR CONGREGATION ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED RITUAL OR FORM COMMONLY PRACTICED IN THE ORGANIZATION OR CONGREGATION; OR (4) BY AN INDIVIDUAL HOLDING AN ELECTIVE PUBLIC OFFICE IN THE STATE]. * Sec. 3. AS 25.05.261(c) is amended to read: (c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty or obligation on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a) [(a)(1), (3), OR (4)] of this section to solemnize any marriage." 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2051 Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 5, line 23: Delete "AS 25.05.041(a)(3) and 25.05.041(a)(5)" Insert "AS 22.15.100(3); AS 25.05.041(a)(3), 25.05.041(a)(5), 25.05.081, 25.05.281, and 25.05.371 are repealed." Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 6 be adopted. Representative Claman objected. Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 6 was offered by Representative Eastman: Page 1, line 4 of the amendment following "person": Insert "18 years of age or older" Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 6 be adopted. Representative Wool objected and withdrew the objection. There being no further objection Amendment No. 1 to Amendment No. 6 was adopted. Representative Eastman rose to a point of order regarding the violation of section 121 of Mason's Manual. The Speaker, citing precedence, ruled the point out of order. Representative Eastman appealed the ruling of the chair. The question being: "Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?" The roll was taken with the following result: Sustain Ruling of the Chair YEAS: 21 NAYS: 14 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Hannan, Hopkins, Josephson, Kreiss-Tomkins, Merrick, Ortiz, Patkotak, Rasmussen, Schrage, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Tarr, Wool, Zulkosky 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2052 Nays: Cronk, Eastman, Gillham, Johnson, Kaufman, Kurka, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, McKay, Nelson, Rauscher, Shaw, Tilton Excused: Carpenter, Prax, Thompson, Tuck Absent: Vance And so, the ruling of the chair was sustained. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 6 as amended be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 62(JUD) am Second Reading Amendment No. 6 as amended YEAS: 17 NAYS: 19 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Cronk, Eastman, Gillham, Johnson, Kaufman, Kurka, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, McKay, Merrick, Nelson, Rasmussen, Rauscher, Shaw, Tilton, Vance Nays: Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Hannan, Hopkins, Josephson, Kreiss-Tomkins, Ortiz, Patkotak, Schrage, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Tarr, Wool, Zulkosky Excused: Carpenter, Prax, Thompson, Tuck And so, Amendment No. 6 as amended was not adopted. Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 were not offered. Amendment No. 9 was offered by Representatives Rasmussen, Drummond, Snyder, Spohnholz, and Vance: Page 1, line 1: (title amendment) Delete "and" Page 1, line 2, following "marriage": Insert "; and relating to consent to marriage" Page 5, line 23: Delete "and 25.05.041(a)(5)" Insert ", 25.05.041(a)(5), and 25.05.171(b)" 2022-03-09 House Journal Page 2053 Representative Rasmussen moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 9 be adopted. Representative Eastman objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 9 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 62(JUD) am Second Reading Amendment No. 9 YEAS: 33 NAYS: 3 EXCUSED: 4 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Claman, Cronk, Drummond, Edgmon, Fields, Foster, Gillham, Hannan, Hopkins, Josephson, Kaufman, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeBon, McCabe, McCarty, McKay, Merrick, Nelson, Ortiz, Patkotak, Rasmussen, Rauscher, Schrage, Shaw, Snyder, Spohnholz, Story, Stutes, Tarr, Tilton, Vance, Wool, Zulkosky Nays: Eastman, Johnson, Kurka Excused: Carpenter, Prax, Thompson, Tuck And so, Amendment No. 9 was adopted and the new title follows: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 62(JUD) am "An Act relating to the Legislative Ethics Act; relating to solemnization of marriage; and relating to consent to marriage." Representative Claman moved and asked unanimous consent that CSHB 62(JUD) am be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There was objection. CSHB 62(JUD) am will advance to third reading on the March 11 calendar.