Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120

04/17/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY


Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:15:43 PM Start
01:16:25 PM HJR9
05:49:32 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ HJR 9 CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHJR 9(JUD) Out of Committee
+ HB 213 CRIMES AT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS TELECONFERENCED
<Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 04/20/07>
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
HJR 9 - CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
1:16:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS announced  that the only order of  business would be                                                               
HOUSE  JOINT RESOLUTION  NO.  9, Proposing  an  amendment to  the                                                               
section of  the Constitution of  the State of Alaska  relating to                                                               
marriage.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
[Following  was a  brief discussion  regarding how  the committee                                                               
would be proceeding.]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS  relayed that a  legal opinion dated  4/2/07 written                                                               
by  Jean M.  Mischel,  Legislative Legal  and Research  Services,                                                               
would be provided to members.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG mentioned  that  the bill  has a  small                                                               
fiscal note  and a referral to  the House Finance Committee.   He                                                               
also  mentioned  that  he'd written  the  letter  requesting  the                                                               
aforementioned legal opinion.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:24:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEAN   M.   MISCHEL,   Attorney,   Legislative   Legal   Counsel,                                                               
Legislative  Legal  and  Research Services,  Legislative  Affairs                                                               
Agency  (LAA), offered  that HJR  9  proposes to  put before  the                                                               
voters  a proposed  amendment to  the Alaska  State Constitution;                                                               
that  proposed amendment,  should it  be adopted  by the  voters,                                                               
would  in  part add  to  Article  I,  Section 25,  the  following                                                               
language:   "No other union  is similarly situated to  a marriage                                                               
between a  man and a woman  and, therefore, a marriage  between a                                                               
man  and  a woman  is  the  only union  that  shall  be valid  or                                                               
recognized  in this  State  and to  which  the rights,  benefits,                                                               
obligations, qualities, or effects  of marriage shall be extended                                                               
or assigned."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MISCHEL characterized  that language  as fairly  lengthy and                                                               
deceptively simple in  the context of related  limitations to the                                                               
state's  current prohibition  on marriage  [being anything  other                                                               
than between one man and one woman].   She noted that there are a                                                               
lot  of legal  issues  raised by  HJR  9, one  of  which, as  was                                                               
pointed  out by  Representative Gruenberg  in his  aforementioned                                                               
request for a legal opinion, is  whether HJR 9 might constitute a                                                               
revision  of the  Alaska State  Constitution rather  than a  mere                                                               
amendment to  it.  She said  it is her opinion  that the language                                                               
in HJR  9 as  currently written may  well constitute  a revision,                                                               
which  may  not  be  proposed via  a  legislative  resolution;  a                                                               
revision  of  the  Alaska  State  Constitution  requires  that  a                                                               
constitutional  convention be  convened, and  then, if  passed by                                                               
the  convention, the  voters would  then have  an opportunity  to                                                               
ratify that decision.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS. MISCHEL explained  that the Alaska Supreme  Court has already                                                               
considered once  the question of  whether a proposed  amendment -                                                               
[in  the form  of Senate  Joint Resolution  42, which  passed the                                                               
legislature in  1998] - to Article  I, Section 25, of  the Alaska                                                               
State Constitution  constituted an amendment  or a revision.   In                                                               
that case  - Bess v. Ulmer  - although the court  opined that the                                                             
second sentence  of that  particular resolution  may have  been a                                                               
revision,  the appellees  characterized it  as surplusage  and it                                                               
was  therefore withdrawn  from the  resultant  ballot measure  on                                                               
those grounds.  She characterized  that second sentence of Senate                                                               
Joint Resolution 42 as similar  to and narrower than the language                                                               
being proposed via HJR 9.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MS. MISCHEL opined  that in that prior decision the  court gave a                                                               
pretty good  idea of how it  would view a revision  as opposed an                                                               
amendment, though it did not  give a bright-line rule; therefore,                                                               
although she could  be wrong, she acknowledged, HJR  9 looks like                                                               
a  revision  because of  its  substantial  effect on  many  other                                                               
provisions  of the  Alaska State  Constitute and  because of  the                                                               
breadth of its  proposed language, which encompasses  a whole lot                                                               
more  than  marriage.   She  said,  "It's interesting  that  it's                                                               
characterized in  the catch phrase  as, 'related  limitations' to                                                               
marriage," because  the aforementioned  second sentence  that was                                                               
at issue in  Bess related only to marriage,  whereas the language                                                             
that  HJR 9  proposes  to insert  relates to  any  union and  any                                                               
recognition in this state of a union.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MISCHEL noted  that there  is also  some question  regarding                                                               
whether HJR 9 would affect  private enterprise in this state, and                                                               
this question is not resolved  by the language in the resolution.                                                               
Normally,  she  relayed,  the   Alaska  State  Constitution  only                                                               
applies to  state action, but  in HJR 9,  use of the  phrase, "in                                                               
this State" is a very  significant departure from the phrase used                                                               
in the aforementioned second sentence  of Senate Joint Resolution                                                               
42 - "the State".                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:30:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MISCHEL  mentioned that  that  second  sentence read:    "No                                                               
provision of this constitution may  be interpreted to require the                                                               
State to recognize or permit  marriage between individuals of the                                                               
same  sex."   This  language, she  opined,  obviously dealt  with                                                               
marriage and with  actions by the state, whereas  the language of                                                               
HJR 9  does more than that.   She again acknowledged  that she is                                                               
not  sure  what the  Alaska  Supreme  Court  would do,  should  a                                                               
"revision" challenge be raised against  HJR 9, because use of the                                                               
term,  "union"  goes way  beyond  intimate  partnerships or  even                                                               
same-sex partnerships.   In Bess,  the court held that  the first                                                             
sentence  of  Senate Joint  Resolution  was  not a  revision  but                                                               
rather simply an amendment.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MISCHEL noted  that while reviewing that  first sentence, the                                                               
Alaska Supreme  Court said that  maybe the privacy interest  of a                                                               
person would be affected by it,  and so the court looked at what,                                                               
if any,  effect it had  on other  provisions of the  Alaska State                                                               
Constitution   and   whether    it   affected   the   fundamental                                                               
governmental structure of the state.   Also in Bess, in upholding                                                             
the first  sentence as an  amendment rather than a  revision, the                                                               
court said:                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     In our  view the first  sentence of the resolve  is not                                                                    
     so  broad  in scope  that  it  is impermissible  as  an                                                                    
     amendment.   It potentially affects the  meaning of the                                                                    
     equal rights clause contained in  article I, section 1.                                                                    
     Article I, section  3 is not affected, for  it does not                                                                    
     specify sexual preference  as a suspect classification.                                                                    
     Further, it is unclear whether  the right to privacy is                                                                    
     affected,  for the  first  sentence  is concerned  with                                                                    
     recognition  of marriage  as an  official relationship,                                                                    
     not with private relationships.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. MISCHEL  reiterated that the  language in HJR 9  is concerned                                                               
not  only with  the official  relationship of  marriage but  also                                                               
with any union  and prohibits the recognition, in  this state, of                                                               
a union, whether private, intimate, or publicly recognized.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the  sponsor of HJR 9, opined                                                               
that in Bess,  the second sentence of Senate  Joint Resolution 42                                                             
was deleted only because it was  surplusage.  He also opined that                                                               
the  phrase  used  in  HJR  9,  "rights,  benefits,  obligations,                                                               
qualities,  or  effects  of marriage"  clarifies  that  this  new                                                               
language only applies  to marriage and shouldn't  be construed as                                                               
affecting anything  else.  He said  he finds it hard  to envision                                                               
that a court would find otherwise.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS referred  to a memorandum dated 4/17/07  by Kevin G.                                                               
Clarkson of Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  offered  his   belief  that  the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court ruling in the  2005 Alaska Civil Liberties Union v.                                                             
State  & Municipality  of  Anchorage case  went  contrary to  the                                                             
"1998 marriage  amendment" to the Alaska  State Constitution when                                                               
it determined  that the benefits  of marriage should  be provided                                                               
to those  that are forbidden  to marry, adding that  he disagrees                                                               
with  the  court's  view  that  to not  do  so  raises  an  equal                                                               
protection  issue.   He opined  that HJR  9 deals  only with  the                                                               
single  issue  of  marriage and  thus  constitutes  an  amendment                                                               
rather than a  revision, adding, though, that if it  is true that                                                               
the proposed amendment does address  more than one issue, then it                                                               
is equally  true of  the court's recent  finding in  Alaska Civil                                                             
Liberties Union - that it has the effect of revision.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
[Following  was a  brief discussion  regarding how  the committee                                                               
would be proceeding.]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
1:44:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MISCHEL said  the Bess  case gave  a good  idea of  what the                                                             
court would look at in deciding  whether a proposed change to the                                                               
Alaska  State   Constitution  constitutes   an  amendment   or  a                                                               
revision.    In  Bess  the  court  applied  a  hybrid  test,  she                                                             
explained, that is essentially a  sliding scale:  if the proposed                                                               
change has  a substantial effect  qualitatively, then  the number                                                               
of  sections affected  appears  to be  less  significant; if  the                                                               
effect on the  Alaska State Constitution or the  structure of the                                                               
state's    government   is    somewhat   less    substantial   or                                                               
insubstantial, then the court looks  at how many other provisions                                                               
of the Alaska State Constitution  would be affected by a proposed                                                               
change.   So, in the  Bess case, although the  court acknowledged                                                             
the  effect of  the first  sentence  - which  was held  to be  an                                                               
amendment -  on the  equal protection clause,  the court  said it                                                               
wasn't   clear   whether   sexual  preference   was   a   suspect                                                               
classification.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. MISCHEL said, "We have a  lot more information about what the                                                               
[Alaska Supreme  Court] would do  with same-sex  partner benefits                                                               
in the  [Alaska Civil  Liberties Union]  case" wherein  the court                                                             
found that  the statute limiting  employment benefits  to married                                                               
couples was unconstitutional and  discriminatory and could not be                                                               
otherwise validated  through a  substantial state  interest under                                                               
the equal  protection clause.   "So now  we know,"  she remarked,                                                               
that the  effect of  limiting employment benefits  - which  HJR 9                                                               
certainly  proposes to  do -  has a  substantial effect  on "our"                                                               
equal protection  rights in Alaska.   "We also know,"  she added,                                                               
that privacy  interests are implicated  under Article  I, Section                                                               
22, and,  under Article  I, Section 7,  "our due  process rights"                                                               
are also  implicated, as are  perhaps freedom of  religion rights                                                               
and the retirement clause pertaining  to no reduction in benefits                                                               
since there  are current beneficiaries under  the [state benefit]                                                               
system.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS. MISCHEL,  referring to the  aforementioned memorandum  by Mr.                                                               
Clarkson, surmised that Mr. Clarkson's  approach seems to be that                                                               
the  striking of  Senate Joint  Resolution  42's second  sentence                                                               
occurred simply  because it was  surplus language.  She  said she                                                               
doesn't  quite  agree  with  that   view,  however,  because  the                                                               
appellants in  the Bess case  argued quite strenuously  that that                                                             
sentence  constituted  a revision  and  the  court was  concerned                                                               
about  that and  did  speak  to that  issue.    In response,  Mr.                                                               
Clarkson  -  attorney  for  the  appellees in  the  Bess  case  -                                                             
conceded  that  the court  had  the  authority  to strike  it  as                                                               
surplus  language, "so  we don't  really know  how far  the court                                                               
would have gone with that particular question," she remarked.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:49:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he'd introduced  HJR 9 in response to                                                               
the  controversy that  surrounds the  Alaska Supreme  Court case,                                                               
Alaska  Civil   Liberties  Union  v.  State   &  Municipality  of                                                             
Anchorage, wherein the court found  that when the voters approved                                                             
the 1998 marriage amendment limiting  marriage to between one man                                                               
and one  woman and thereby  created a  special class of  people -                                                               
those who  are forbidden to  marry - it  also created a  duty for                                                               
the state to  pay benefits to [employees  with same-sex partners]                                                               
that are the same as those  given to [employees] who are married.                                                               
In addition  to that opinion,  the Alaska Supreme  Court required                                                               
the Alaska  Superior Court  to order the  State to  [provide such                                                               
benefits]  via regulation.   Representative  Coghill opined  that                                                               
the court's decision  thwarted the will of the  people, who, when                                                               
voting  on the  1998  marriage amendment,  didn't  think that  it                                                               
created a relationship similar to  and with the same authority as                                                               
marriage.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his  belief that AS 25.05.013(b) -                                                               
[which says,  "A same-sex relationship  may not be  recognized by                                                               
the  state as  being entitled  to the  benefits of  marriage."] -                                                               
prohibits a  public employer from extending  marriage benefits to                                                               
same-sex  partners.     This  is  a  policy  call   made  by  the                                                               
legislature,   he   remarked,   adding   his   belief   that   AS                                                               
18.80.220(c)(1)  -   [which  says,  "an  employer   may,  without                                                               
violating  this chapter,  provide greater  health and  retirement                                                               
benefits to  employees who  have a  spouse or  dependent children                                                               
than are provided  to other employees;" - grants  an employer the                                                               
right to  give benefits  to married people  because of  the value                                                               
generally placed  on marriage.  The  aforementioned 1998 marriage                                                               
amendment came about  in response to the  Alaska Superior Court's                                                               
decision in Brause v. Bureau  of Vital Statistics, about which he                                                             
remarked,  "What  this  does  is   it  says  the  institution  of                                                               
marriage,  then, cannot  be its  own  standing unit;  it must  be                                                               
shared  by those  who society,  generally in  Alaska, have  said,                                                               
'No, we don't want it shared.'"                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that  the benefits of marriage were                                                               
thought of  as a societal  good, particularly after World  War II                                                               
because the  stability of  society was thought  to stem  from the                                                               
nuclear family, and so employers  began offering benefits as part                                                               
of   an  employment   package,   which,  at   the  time,   mostly                                                               
supplemented  single  income  households.    He  said  he  didn't                                                               
understand why  limiting such benefits only  to [married couples]                                                               
is considered  discriminatory, and  opined that the  recent court                                                               
cases  have  continually  attempted  to  "break  that  unit"  and                                                               
diminish things that he sees as being of value to society.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he doesn't  think that giving married                                                               
couples  a  special  place  is  dishonoring  anyone  else.    The                                                               
question  in  Alaska,  he  opined, is  whether  the  benefits  of                                                               
marriage should be afforded to  same-sex couples, and whether the                                                               
relationship of a same-sex couple should  even be thought of as a                                                               
marriage.  According to voters in  1998, the answer to the latter                                                               
question was, "No."  With regard  to the former question - should                                                               
the benefits  of marriage be  afforded to same-sex couples  - the                                                               
court  has  said  that  they  should  because  such  couples  are                                                               
similarly situated  to married couples; he  opined, however, that                                                               
similarly  situated means  "equal to"  and thus  same-sex couples                                                               
shouldn't  be afforded  the benefits  of marriage.   He  surmised                                                               
that those  who voted  to restrict  marriage to  one man  and one                                                               
woman would agree with him and disagree with the court.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL, referring  to the  Brause Case,  offered                                                             
his   belief  that   [the   plaintiffs]   wanted  the   benefits,                                                               
attributes, and  privileges of marriage  and viewed the  right to                                                               
marry as the gateway to the  benefits of marriage.  Currently the                                                               
court has ordered the State  to pay benefits to same-sex couples,                                                               
but there are  other provisions of statute, he  opined, that give                                                               
[extra] privileges to married people.   He also opined that there                                                               
is  also a  constitutional issue  involved because  the court  is                                                               
forcing the  State to implement regulations  offering benefits to                                                               
same-sex couples, and  surmised that this will be  construed as a                                                               
mandate on private businesses to provide such benefits as well.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said he proposed  HJR 9 because  he would                                                               
like to  see what  the voters  really want.   He opined  that the                                                               
courts have continually  pushed "the agenda to  have ... same-sex                                                               
partners  legitimately have  marriage  relationships and/or  take                                                               
over the benefits  of marriage."  Characterizing this  issue as a                                                               
civil matter,  he said  the courts  have overruled  statutes, the                                                               
voters,  and   the  administration   by  forcing  the   State  to                                                               
promulgate   regulations  to   provide   same-sex  couples   with                                                               
benefits.   He indicated that  the only  recourse is to  put this                                                               
question before  the voters because  he disagrees with  and wants                                                               
to challenge the  courts on this particular issue as  a matter of                                                               
societal policy.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[Following  was a  brief discussion  regarding how  the committee                                                               
would be proceeding.]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:04:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LIN DAVIS, after mentioning that she  is a state employee and one                                                               
of the plaintiffs in Alaska  Civil Liberties Union, said that she                                                             
and  her partner  are thrilled  to have  the health  benefits and                                                               
survivor benefits provided  by the state because  now her partner                                                               
can receive her last paycheck  [should something befall her.]  In                                                               
January [of  2007], Alaska became  the 12th state to  offer same-                                                               
sex  domestic  partner  benefits;   11  other  states  have  been                                                               
offering  such benefits  for years,  some since  the early  '90s.                                                               
For these states, [providing such  benefits] is "mainstream," and                                                               
it has  been a good business  practice and good public  policy to                                                               
include  more  people  under health  insurance  and  survivorship                                                               
benefits.  Furthermore, over half  of the "Fortune 500" companies                                                               
offer [same-sex  domestic partner] benefits, with  the percentage                                                               
of such companies increasing every  quarter, and, now, more small                                                               
businesses are  offering them as  well; "this" is  increasingly a                                                               
mainstream practice.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. DAVIS said:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     [House  Joint   Resolution  9],  however,  is   in  the                                                                    
     business of  taking away  health and  survivor benefits                                                                    
     from an  ever-widening circle of  groups of  people; it                                                                    
     would  remove them  from me  and from  other gay  state                                                                    
     workers who  recently acquired them, and  then it would                                                                    
     prevent new  gay ...  [state employees]  from obtaining                                                                    
     them.  And now we're  beginning to hear some new twists                                                                    
     and  troublesome  angles  because it  appears  to  also                                                                    
     target unmarried people, and  the ramifications of that                                                                    
     are  unknown  and  appear  troublesome.    The  "doctor                                                                    
     letter" that  ran in the  [Juneau Empire]  continues to                                                                  
     be helpful [with] ... -  before the April 3 [2007] vote                                                                    
     - 40 doctors  signing, saying that it's  a state health                                                                    
     crises to widen the circle  of groups that are targeted                                                                    
     for no benefits; Juneau doctors  do not want the health                                                                    
     of  Alaskan   families  harmed   by  this   unfair  and                                                                    
     undemocratic state legislation.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS. DAVIS  said that HJR  9 appears to prevent  private employers                                                               
from providing work-related, merit-based  benefits that they deem                                                               
necessary, and  appears to tangle  with the rights  of employers.                                                               
This doesn't  sound like good  public policy to her,  she opined.                                                               
Currently there  are 18 companies  in Juneau, in addition  to the                                                               
City  & Borough  of Juneau  (CBJ)  and the  University of  Alaska                                                               
Southeast (UAS),  that offer same-sex domestic  partner benefits,                                                               
she relayed,  listing them, and adding  that it is [good]  to see                                                               
how mainstream  offering same-sex  domestic partner  benefits has                                                               
become, particularly  with those companies who  are attempting to                                                               
recruit good employees.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  DAVIS remarked  that  the statewide  advisory  vote held  on                                                               
April  3, 2007,  was close  and clear;  there is  no traction  in                                                               
Alaska for  further discrimination  against gays or  other target                                                               
groups.  Governor Palin, Ms.  Davis noted, agreed that the result                                                               
of that  advisory vote did not  constitute a mandate.   Ms. Davis                                                               
went on to say:                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     So  let's end  this undemocratic  effort to  isolate us                                                                    
     gay  people  in  order  to   keep  us  financially  and                                                                    
     socially  vulnerable.    As [President]  Lincoln  said,                                                                    
     "When you  trample on  the rights  of others,  you lose                                                                    
     your  own genius  for independence."    Let's save  our                                                                    
     genius capacities  for setting  up a gas  pipeline, and                                                                    
     let's get back to the larger  good work that we are all                                                                    
     meant to do.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  DAVIS, in  response to  a  question, agreed  to provide  the                                                               
committee with  further information  regarding the  final results                                                               
of the aforementioned advisory vote.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL,   after  offering   his   understanding                                                               
regarding some  of the results  of the  advisory vote as  well as                                                               
another ballot measure,  suggested that the advisory  vote not be                                                               
discussed further.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
[Following  was a  brief discussion  regarding how  the committee                                                               
would be proceeding.]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   COGHILL,   acknowledging   that   some   private                                                               
employers do  offer same-sex domestic partner  benefits, remarked                                                               
that HJR 9 is intended to address a larger societal question.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:13:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JIM MINNERY,  President, Alaska Family Council,  after indicating                                                               
that he would  be testifying in support of HJR  9, mentioned that                                                               
the Alaska  Family Council is  a state-wide,  pro-family, public-                                                               
policy organization representing a  growing list of Alaskans with                                                               
a  dedicated interest  in  preserving  and defending  traditional                                                               
values  regarding the  family.   Regardless  of where  individual                                                               
legislators stand on this issue,  he opined, the results from the                                                               
aforementioned advisory  vote are indisputable -  the majority of                                                               
Alaskans [who voted] "once again,"  voted to protect marriage and                                                               
state clearly that marriage is  a unique relationship that should                                                               
receive distinct status, privilege, and recognition.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MINNERY relayed  that the  Alaska Family  Council spent  the                                                               
last  several  months  working  very  hard  to  educate  Alaskans                                                               
regarding  this issue.   Characterizing  the  debate that  ensued                                                               
from these  efforts as  a healthy  one, he  said that  "our side"                                                               
simply  didn't  buy  the  argument that  this  was  about  health                                                               
benefits because, if  it were, why weren't  health benefits being                                                               
sought for  all Alaskan's instead  of just for those  involved in                                                               
homosexual  relationships.     Mr.   Minnery  then   offered  his                                                               
understanding  that a  prominent gay  activist and  professor has                                                               
said:                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Our   best   strategy    for   securing   this   social                                                                    
     endorsement, i.e. marriage under  the name marriage, is                                                                    
     first to  secure the legal incidents,  then people will                                                                    
     look  at  our  civil  unions,  realize  that  they  are                                                                    
     virtually   indistinguishable  from   marriages,  start                                                                    
     calling them  marriages, and gradually forget  why they                                                                    
     objected to doing so before;  that's what's happened in                                                                    
     Scandinavia and it's happening elsewhere in Europe.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. MINNERY  surmised from this  quote that the issue  [for same-                                                               
sex couples] is simply one  of public affirmation of a lifestyle,                                                               
a  lifestyle,  he opined,  that  the  majority of  Alaskans  [who                                                               
voted] have said should not be  equated with marriage.  He opined                                                               
that legislators,  even those who  believe that  same-sex couples                                                               
should be treated via public policy  just as if they are married,                                                               
shouldn't strive  to prevent  all other  Alaskans from  voting on                                                               
the issue,  particularly given  that [the  majority of  those who                                                               
cast  their  advisory   vote  in  April]  said   they  wanted  an                                                               
opportunity to vote  on this issue.  The fact  that there was low                                                               
voter turnout  in April and  only a  narrow margin of  victory is                                                               
irrelevant and  shortsighted, he opined, and  spoke briefly about                                                               
the voting margins associated with  some of Alaska's other ballot                                                               
initiatives.   In  conclusion, he  asked the  legislature to  not                                                               
deny the  people the opportunity to  vote on this matter,  and to                                                               
move HJR 9 forward to the floor for a full vote.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:17:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KAREN WELLS first  relayed that she is grateful to  the state and                                                               
to its  fishermen, the people whom  she has served for  more than                                                               
28 years.  She went on to say:                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     As I prepare to retire  next week, I am reflecting back                                                                    
     over 28  years at who  I was, who I  am now, and  who I                                                                    
     take  myself to  be.   I  was young  back then,  eager,                                                                    
     ignorant, scared,  ambitious, wanting to find  a mate -                                                                    
     someone  to  love  and  somebody  I  could  love  -  no                                                                    
     different than  any other person.   Being  public about                                                                    
     being a lesbian was not  something I thought of much as                                                                    
     I  lived  my life,  made  friends,  played sports,  and                                                                    
     followed my heart's desire.   Twenty-eight years later,                                                                    
     a lot  has happened,  a lot has  changed; some  of what                                                                    
     has changed is  my willingness to sit  here, be visible                                                                    
     in the world  as a woman who has courage  ... and seeks                                                                    
     the truth at all costs - for the truth is all we have.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     The truth  as I  see it is  that this  [resolution] ...                                                                    
     has absolutely  nothing to do  with marriage.   Why its                                                                    
     proponents keep saying this is  about marriage seems an                                                                    
     untruth  to me,  a lie,  or something  they just  don't                                                                    
     understand.    The  people  voted   to  deny  gays  and                                                                    
     lesbians the right to marriage.   I have no possibility                                                                    
     of  marrying in  this state.   I  don't question  it, I                                                                    
     take  it as  the  vote.   But what  are  the rights  of                                                                    
     marriage?   Marriages happen in  churches; in  the eyes                                                                    
     of certain  religions marriage  means one  thing, where                                                                    
     in  other  religions  it can  mean  something  entirely                                                                    
     different.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Who  am  I to  judge  what  doctrines various  churches                                                                    
     follow?    However,   when  those  religious  doctrines                                                                    
     become involved  in city and state  personnel policies,                                                                    
     I take  notice.   There is a  reason for  separation of                                                                    
     church  and  state,  as  our  esteemed  governor  noted                                                                    
     during her campaign.   I have enormous  respect for her                                                                    
     integrity in  stating that the  April 3 vote was  not a                                                                    
     mandate  of   the  people.    The   ...  [Alaska  State                                                                    
     Constitution]  guarantees  equal protection  under  the                                                                    
     law;  all  state  employees are  to  receive  the  same                                                                    
     benefits.   This [resolution] ...  is saying that  I am                                                                    
     undeserving  of  the   benefits  my  married  coworkers                                                                    
     receive.  This is discrimination at its best.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. WELLS continued:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     I ask  you why you  are pursuing this  [resolution] ...                                                                    
     after the  vote with such  a slim margin  between "yes"                                                                    
     and "no."   I ask you why you are  not trying your best                                                                    
     to  ensure that  every man,  woman, and  child in  this                                                                    
     great state  has medical coverage.   I ask you  why you                                                                    
     were  willing to  spend $1.2  million  of the  people's                                                                    
     money  to produce  a vote  that had  no real  effect on                                                                    
     anything.   I do not  believe for one minute  that your                                                                    
     opposition to same-sex  partners receiving benefits has                                                                    
     anything  to do  with  dollar amounts,  as the  dollars                                                                    
     spent  are  so small  -  the  saying, "Beating  a  dead                                                                    
     horse" comes  to mind  - the vote  did not  produce the                                                                    
     results you were expecting.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     I am a  state employee and I exist.   Whether you agree                                                                    
     with my  choices or  not does  not mean  that I  can or                                                                    
     should be  treated differently than my  coworkers.  I'm                                                                    
     not going away,  nor am I going to be  silent on issues                                                                    
     that discriminate  against people I love  and people in                                                                    
     minorities.   In fact,  I feel  my strength  rising, my                                                                    
     ability  to speak  up  and  articulate issues  becoming                                                                    
     clearer ... [with] each time  I get a chance to testify                                                                    
     before  you   folks  -  and   I'm  getting  a   lot  of                                                                    
     opportunities.  Do the right  thing and treat all state                                                                    
     employees fairly.  This is  a personnel matter, not one                                                                    
     that  should  be  put  to  [a] vote.    I  ask  you  to                                                                    
     represent  all Alaskans,  not just  ones  you favor  or                                                                    
     ones that go  to your church.  As  the Rutgers' women's                                                                    
     basketball champion said  to Don Imus, "Get  to know us                                                                    
     before you make judgments and criticisms against us."                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MS. WELLS concluded:                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     When  standing on  the corner  holding  a sign,  people                                                                    
     passed and were  mostly friendly, but some  gave me the                                                                    
     finger and some name-called.   Is hate what you want to                                                                    
     promote in  letters to  the editor?   I have  read some                                                                    
     letters to the  editor and wept with utter  joy for the                                                                    
     support that the  people of this state  have given gays                                                                    
     and lesbians.   I have also been about as  angry as [a]                                                                    
     person could  be when people  tell lies about who  I am                                                                    
     and who  I should  love.   One thing  is for  sure, the                                                                    
     issue   is   front  and   center,   and,   as  in   all                                                                    
     discrimination,   it   takes   public   awareness   and                                                                    
     conversation to  see change.   In that regard,  I thank                                                                    
     you  for allowing  me to  testify and  communicate with                                                                    
     the people of this state.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  noted that  two legal issues  have thus                                                               
far  been  presented:   the  question  of whether  the  amendment                                                               
proposed via  HJR 9 is so  broad as to constitute  a revision and                                                               
hence violate  Bess v.  Ulmer; and the  question of  whether [the                                                             
amendment  proposed  via  HJR  9]   violates  the  federal  equal                                                               
protection clause  as outlined  in the  U.S. Supreme  Court case,                                                               
Romer v. Evans, which is referenced  in footnote 20 of the Alaska                                                           
Civil Liberties Union  Alaska Supreme Court opinion.   He said he                                                             
is interested  in receiving further  information about  those two                                                               
issues.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:24:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BILL TUNILLA, Worldwide Marriage Encounter,  said he and his wife                                                               
support  marriage  as  being  between  one  man  and  one  woman.                                                               
Marriage  is a  sacrament between  man, woman,  and god,  and can                                                               
never be  just a legal  contract between  two people of  the same                                                               
sex.    Marriage  is  a  holy covenant,  he  remarked,  with  its                                                               
holiness deriving from  sexuality and man and  woman's ability to                                                               
create children.  He went on to say:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Today  there are  many wars  on  many fronts.   One  of                                                                    
     those  wars  is the  war  on  the traditional  American                                                                    
     family.  Sherry  and I feel like our  beliefs are being                                                                    
     destroyed and  are under attack,  and that  our ability                                                                    
     to  freely  worship  and parent  our  children  may  be                                                                    
     forever changed.   Sherry and  I grew up in  an America                                                                    
     where  most families  had  both a  dad and  a  mom -  a                                                                    
     husband  and a  wife.    We grew  up  in  a time  where                                                                    
     marriage was  still a respected  state between  man and                                                                    
     woman, where couples looked  forward to having children                                                                    
     and continuing  to raise those children  to respect the                                                                    
     law  and to  respect church  teachings.   A time  where                                                                    
     giving  to your  neighbors was  just a  normal part  of                                                                    
     life.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     I was  proud to  serve in the  military, and  served my                                                                    
     country; proud to  be married and to be  given the gift                                                                    
     of five  children and  to volunteer  my time  in church                                                                    
     and the community and often  giving of the gifts I have                                                                    
     been given.   America  still valued the  American dream                                                                    
     when I grew up, and I  still do; we still value modesty                                                                    
     and truthfulness, compassion.   And it was  a time that                                                                    
     no  one  questioned  what   happened  in  the  parents'                                                                    
     bedrooms or  felt a  need to  know about  anyone else's                                                                    
     sexuality.  It was [a] time  of innocence, and it was a                                                                    
     time of matter  left up to our parents  and the creator                                                                    
     of  the  universe.    It  certainly  wasn't  on  public                                                                    
     display as it  is today.  And people did  not use their                                                                    
     sexuality as a  reason for getting special  favors.  In                                                                    
     my  heart,  I believe  that  homosexual  men and  woman                                                                    
     today are  publicly asking for their  sexuality to [be]                                                                    
     viewed as a means to receive special favors.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. TUNILLA concluded:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     In closing, I  also believe that if  allowed, ... these                                                                    
     special  favors will  cost our  society  greatly.   Not                                                                    
     only are  they in direct  violation of god's  laws, and                                                                    
     those of  nature, but for  ... our tax payors  as well.                                                                    
     I can think of better ways  to spend my tax dollars.  I                                                                    
     have read  that in Massachusetts,  ... they have  had a                                                                    
     cutback on  elderly, disabled, and  children's programs                                                                    
     to make  way for ...  a special  group of people.   Our                                                                    
     children, our parents, and  the disabled deserve better                                                                    
     than  this.   Before my  tax money  is to  be used  for                                                                    
     their special needs, then I  would expect our lawmakers                                                                    
     to  consider far  greater needs  than  the marriage  of                                                                    
     those of the homosexual community.  Thank you.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:27:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARSHA BUCK, Parents,  Families and Friends of  Lesbians and Gays                                                               
(PFLAG) Juneau,  after relaying that  she would also  be speaking                                                               
as a parent, noted that spoke  to this committee just last spring                                                               
asking members to vote "no"  on House joint Resolution 32 because                                                               
of the  negative effect  it would  have had  on her  daughter and                                                               
other wonderful people.  She went on to say:                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     I was  very surprised  and actually incredulous  that I                                                                    
     have  to  be  back  again,   today,  to  testify  on  a                                                                    
     resolution  that   appears  to  propose   even  greater                                                                    
     inequality and  greater discrimination to  even greater                                                                    
     numbers   of    Alaskans   than   ...    [House   Joint                                                                    
     Resolution 32 did].   I'm sure that you  are aware that                                                                    
     HJR  9 before  you  would no  longer  simply affect  my                                                                    
     daughter  and  others  like her  but  would  negatively                                                                    
     affect the  health benefits of  family members  of most                                                                    
     Alaskans.    When  you   consider  family  members  and                                                                    
     friends, most  Alaskans - most  of your  constituents -                                                                    
     are  going  to  be  affected  by  HJR  9  and  affected                                                                    
     negatively.   It would  also affect  Alaskan businesses                                                                    
     and    virtually    all   of    Alaska's    educational                                                                    
     institutions, and would affect them negatively.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     And  HJR 9  isn't going  to  "fix" ...  anything.   I'm                                                                    
     afraid  that supporting  it will  only make  you, as  a                                                                    
     group, look  out of step  with mainstream  Alaskans who                                                                    
     support health  benefits and support families.   I know                                                                    
     Representative Coghill  doesn't want  us to  talk about                                                                    
     the advisory vote,  but I think that gave  us some good                                                                    
     information;  ...  that  showed  us that  there  is  no                                                                    
     mandate  for  removing  employment benefits  or  health                                                                    
     benefits from a portion of  Alaskans.  I think it's bad                                                                    
     public  policy to  pass a  resolution  that would  only                                                                    
     exacerbate [our]  growing health insurance  crises, and                                                                    
     I'm not sure why you'd  want to appear unreasonable and                                                                    
     uncompassionate as a legislature to do so.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     I  think it's  time that  we do  more homework  like we                                                                    
     heard  in  the  legislative  legal  report.    We  need                                                                    
     leaders in  Alaska, ... not decision  makers who waffle                                                                    
     or  ...  flip-flop  from  saying  things  like,  "We're                                                                    
     looking for  an overwhelming  majority" and  then, "No,                                                                    
     we want  to go  ahead no  matter what  we get  from the                                                                    
     vote."   I  think it's  time that  the legislature  get                                                                    
     back in  step with Alaskans  and say "no" and  stop ...                                                                    
     HJR 9 in committee.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. BUCK, in closing, offered  some of the latest statistics from                                                               
the April 3 advisory vote.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:31:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SHAHARRIET HOUCHINS,  Worldwide Marriage Encounter,  relayed that                                                               
she and her husband  would be speaking in support of  HJR 9.  She                                                               
said that  as an Alaska  Worldwide Marriage  Encounter presenting                                                               
team and  as sacramental married  Catholics, she and  her husband                                                               
uphold god's moral law that the  bond of marriage is only between                                                               
a man and a  woman, adding that she and her  husband voted in the                                                               
affirmative during  [the advisory  vote] because they  don't want                                                               
homosexual  relationships to  be  treated the  same as  marriages                                                               
between  men and  women.   Neither do  she and  her husband,  she                                                               
remarked,  want   any  homosexual  union  to   be  recognized  or                                                               
validated  in  Alaska,  nor  extended  or  assigned  the  rights,                                                               
benefits, obligations,  qualities, or  effects of marriage.   Ms.                                                               
Houchins went on to say:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     We  are  the  parents  of nine  children,  and  by  our                                                                    
     example and  their exposure to the  examples of couples                                                                    
     who feel as  strongly as we do, we have  fought hard to                                                                    
     be the  moral compass and  example of what  marriage is                                                                    
     truly about.   We want  you, our elected  officials, to                                                                    
     help us  cement this example by  100 percent protection                                                                    
     of the only  marriage that can really be -  a man and a                                                                    
     woman.   We  invest in  our marriage  daily and  always                                                                    
     want to  exemplify what god  wanted when he  raised the                                                                    
     level of  marriage at the  wedding of Cana.   A husband                                                                    
     and wife  procreate with god, and  the world continues.                                                                    
     It  is imperative  you uphold  this most  sacred union.                                                                    
     We must  stand up  for the family,  the family  unit is                                                                    
     the most precious  unit we have.  Our  children need to                                                                    
     see  us  as  committed  married  parents  that  weather                                                                    
     storms  and celebrate  triumphs, so  they can  see what                                                                    
     they will  grow up  to parallel.   Our  nation's future                                                                    
     depends on  the future  ... [and]  we are  raising that                                                                    
     future now.  We, when our  four-year old ask us to kiss                                                                    
     and revel in the pure innocent  joy that we do, we know                                                                    
     she is understanding  our positions in her  life and in                                                                    
     god's world.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     I'm  a  nurse by  trade  but  I'm a  domestic  engineer                                                                    
     daily;  I'm  in charge  of  nurturing  futures.   Every                                                                    
     mother  shows her  daughter how  to be  the bride,  the                                                                    
     wife, and  the mother of  the family, and  every father                                                                    
     shows his  son how  to be the  groom, the  husband, and                                                                    
     the  father  of  the  family.   Together  we  show  our                                                                    
     children, when  we sit  as a family  at mass  and other                                                                    
     public  events, how  to be  a  family -  mom, dad,  and                                                                    
     children.    As  we   present  our  Worldwide  Marriage                                                                    
     Encounter weekends  to couples,  they see how  our deep                                                                    
     commitment is to preserve marriage  between one man and                                                                    
     one woman.   As a mother they saw me  united with their                                                                    
     dad,  even  when  he was  serving  our  country  during                                                                    
     Desert  Storm  and Desert  Shield  in  his active  duty                                                                    
     career.  They themselves  understood our bond and their                                                                    
     place in the family unit  as they sacrificed their time                                                                    
     with him  while he  served our country.   They  see our                                                                    
     bond  as marriage  commitment as  we  work together  at                                                                    
     their schools -  their dad on the board  of Holy Rosary                                                                    
     Academy, and  myself as vice  president of  the parents                                                                    
     organization.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
JAMES HOUCHINS,  Worldwide Marriage  Encounter, said  he believes                                                               
the issue is  not about benefits.  Noting that  he has served his                                                               
country in  the military for  20 years, he  said that one  of the                                                               
principles  he held  dear was  the sanctity  of a  healthy family                                                               
between a man  and a woman and  children if god saw  fit to grant                                                               
them.  He  added:  "We want you, our  elected officials, to truly                                                               
hear us and  be our voice.  Don't bow  to pressure to compromise,                                                               
and  say what  needs  to be  said  for the  good  of the  family.                                                               
Please listen  to the voters  and bring this  to a vote  ... [of]                                                               
the people in 2008."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:34:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
VICTORIA DANCE said she would  be speaking to the committee about                                                               
equal rights, but  opined that she oughtn't have  to, because she                                                               
didn't  understand the  [Alaska State  Constitution] to  say that                                                               
she would have to in order to defend  her rights.  She went on to                                                               
say that she [was]  married to a man for 10 years,  has been in a                                                               
partnership with  a woman  for 23  years, and  has raised  a son.                                                               
Therefore, she  knows that  what happens in  a marriage  has very                                                               
little to do  with sex but a lot to  do with holding, nourishing,                                                               
and supporting the other person.   Remarking that the legislature                                                               
has much  more important issues to  take care of, she  asked that                                                               
the legislature  not destroy further  the rights that are  in the                                                               
[Alaska  State  Constitution]  by proposing  amendments  such  as                                                               
HJR 9.   Whether someone who  works and contributes to  the gross                                                               
national product (GNP)  is married is not a  problem, she opined,                                                               
pointing out that the Alaska Supreme  Court didn't think it was a                                                               
problem either.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  DANCE opined  that  Alaska  Supreme Court  ruled  as it  did                                                               
because  its job  is  to  protect the  people,  and recalled  the                                                               
similar  struggle prevalent  during the  1960s; banning  domestic                                                               
partner  benefits raises  issues similar  to those  raised during                                                               
the  civil  rights  movement.    There  is  the  same  effort  to                                                               
undermine the  ability of groups  to achieve civil  equality and,                                                               
with  it,   fulfilling  their  lives   and  families   and  their                                                               
communities.   Yet  banning benefits  [for same-sex  partners] is                                                               
different because, unlike during  the civil rights movement, gays                                                               
and lesbians  are not just relegated  to the back of  the bus but                                                               
are not allowed on  the bus at all.  What  would have happened to                                                               
this country  if, rather  than following  the U.S.  Supreme Court                                                               
ruling to  desegregate schools, Alabama  had put the  question on                                                               
the  ballot:   "Should blacks  have equal  rights?"   Does anyone                                                               
doubt  how  that vote  would  have  gone?    Would it  have  been                                                               
shameful?   Yes.  Can  people be counted  on to remember  or vote                                                               
the right thing?  Not always.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS. DANCE  pointed out that  even with laws, equality  remains an                                                               
issue  for blacks,  as illustrated  by the  comments made  by Don                                                               
Imus.  Everybody needs  all the help they can get  for a place in                                                               
the  sun, she  remarked,  opining that  the  court overruled  the                                                               
State  because the  court's job  is to  defend the  Constitution.                                                               
Noting that even Thomas Jefferson  was culturally blinded in that                                                               
when helping to  write the Constitution and  speaking about equal                                                               
rights  he still  kept slaves,  she questioned  how much  society                                                               
today is  culturally blinded when  discussing the issue  of equal                                                               
rights/benefits  for gays  and lesbians.   The  efforts spent  on                                                               
making  equal  pay  for  equal   work  a  problem  or  writing  a                                                               
constitutional amendment  for this  imagined problem is  time and                                                               
money taken away from solving truly difficult issues.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  DANCE said  she  simply feels  very  passionately that  [the                                                               
legislature] has  better things  to do  than attack  a particular                                                               
group of people.   With regard to the comment  that extra support                                                               
was given  to nuclear families after  World War II, she  said she                                                               
questioned whether that was actually  constitutional - why should                                                               
only families get benefits.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:40:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE LARIVIERE said  that for him, the issue is  the sacredness of                                                               
marriage;  to him,  marriage is  the  nucleus of  the family  and                                                               
"our" society.   He  opined that  what is  occurring is  that the                                                               
family is  being attacked  on all different  sides, and  he feels                                                               
that if these attacks continue, it  will result in a breakdown of                                                               
the nucleus of society, and  therefore he feels that the proposed                                                               
constitutional amendment should  be put to the  people because it                                                               
addresses a  societal matter  and thus the  people should  be the                                                               
ones to decide what to do.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:41:25 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  ALCANTRA, Director,  Government  Relations, Alaska  Branch,                                                               
National  Education  Association  (NEA-Alaska), relayed  that  he                                                               
would be speaking in opposition  to HJR 9, adding that NEA-Alaska                                                               
opposes  any  legislation  that discriminates  against  Alaskans.                                                               
House Joint  Resolution 9 is  about denying benefits  to Alaskans                                                               
that currently have  them, and would prevent equal  pay for equal                                                               
work and  deny equal  rights and opportunities  to Alaskans.   On                                                               
February 2, 400 NEA-Alaska delegates met at the 51st annual NEA-                                                                
Alaska  Delegate  Assembly and  set  the  policy that  NEA-Alaska                                                               
would adamantly  oppose this type of  discriminatory legislation.                                                               
With 25  pieces of  legislation currently  assigned to  the House                                                               
Judiciary  Standing Committee,  he remarked,  and with  less than                                                               
one  month  remaining  in  the  session,  he  is  perplexed  that                                                               
valuable time  is being spent  on this issue,  particularly given                                                               
that over the  next 29 days the legislature has  real business to                                                               
conclude - the gas line,  retirement funding, and the budget must                                                               
all still be addressed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. ALCANTRA,  referring to  the April  3 advisory  vote, pointed                                                               
out  that  it   cost  the  State  [over]  $1   million  and  only                                                               
illustrated that the Alaskans [who  voted] are basically split on                                                               
the issue.   He said  that NEA-Alaska agrees with  Governor Palin                                                               
when she said  that it's hard to characterize the  results of the                                                               
advisory vote  as a mandate.   In  conclusion, he said  that NEA-                                                               
Alaska respectfully  requests that  the House  Judiciary Standing                                                               
Committee  hold HJR  9 and  make this  the last  hearing on  this                                                               
divisive issue.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:45:02 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LES SYREN  relayed that he would  be speaking in favor  of HJR 9.                                                               
He offered  the following quotes from  a book written in  1970 by                                                               
Carl  Wittman called  Refugees  from Amerika:    A Gay  Manifesto                                                             
[original  punctuation   provided  along  with   some  formatting                                                               
changes, and edited for content]:                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
     Marriage:   Marriage is a  prime example of  a straight                                                                    
     institution  fraught with  role  playing.   Traditional                                                                    
     marriage is  a rotten,  oppressive institution.   Those                                                                    
     of  us  who have  been  in  heterosexual marriages  too                                                                    
     often have  blamed our  gayness on  the breakup  of the                                                                    
     marriage.   No.   They broke up  because marriage  is a                                                                    
     contract which smothers both  people, denies needs, and                                                                    
     places impossible demands  on both people.   And we had                                                                    
     the  strength, again,  to refuse  to capitulate  to the                                                                    
     roles which were demanded of us.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Heterosexuality:  Exclusive  heterosexuality is ... up.                                                                    
     It  reflects a  fear of  people of  the same  sex, it's                                                                    
     anti-homosexual,  and it  is fraught  with frustration.                                                                    
     Heterosexual sex is ... up  too; ask women's liberation                                                                    
     about  what straight  guys are  like  in bed.   Sex  is                                                                    
     aggression for  the male chauvinist; sex  is obligation                                                                    
     for the  traditional woman.   And among the  young, the                                                                    
     modern,  the hip,  it's only  a subtle  version of  the                                                                    
     same.  For us to  become heterosexual in the sense that                                                                    
     our straight  brothers and sisters  are is not  a cure,                                                                    
     it is a disease.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.   SYREN  characterized   those   passages   as  hateful   and                                                               
intolerant, and  opined that today,  37 years later,  marriage in                                                               
Alaska  is  still under  attack  despite  two votes  wherein  the                                                               
majority of  those voting voted to  protect it.  He  posited that                                                               
HJR  9 is  really about  whether the  people will  be allowed  to                                                               
decide the future  of marriage itself, and asked  that the public                                                               
be given the chance to vote on it.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:49:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JAMES  STEVEN  REESE,  Member, Juneau  Human  Rights  Commission,                                                               
after  relaying that  he has  two children  in the  public school                                                               
system, said  that he and his  wife are members of  the Church of                                                               
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,  which, he opined, is the same                                                               
church that financed the 1998 marriage  amendment.  He went on to                                                               
say:                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     A  simple democracy,  where  decisions  are made  based                                                                    
     solely  on  majority  opinion without  regard  for  the                                                                    
     basic  rights of  each citizen,  has been  described as                                                                    
     three wolves and  two sheep voting on what  to have for                                                                    
     dinner.  Just because a  majority may feel it's okay to                                                                    
     give certain  groups less  rights, less  protection, or                                                                    
     less compensation  for the same  work, doesn't  make it                                                                    
     okay.  In fact, our  government was established in part                                                                    
     to  protect  the  minority  from  the  tyranny  of  the                                                                    
     masses.   Even  if  you write  discrimination into  the                                                                    
     [Alaska   State  Constitution],   it   will  still   be                                                                    
     discrimination.  To state in  one place that we are all                                                                    
     equal, and  then amend that  to say that some  are more                                                                    
     equal than  others, only makes  this document  as self-                                                                    
     contradicting   as  the   scriptures  from   which  you                                                                    
     selectively choose  your values.   This  legislation is                                                                    
     another embarrassing  waste of our time  and money that                                                                    
     protects no  one and  rather victimizes  ... many  at a                                                                    
     great cost  to us all.   It  hurts families.   It hurts                                                                    
     children.  It hurts our healthcare system.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     If  our Christian  heterosexual marriages  need special                                                                    
     protection,   why   should   we  stop   at   gays   and                                                                    
     fornicators?  Isn't  adultery a much greater  sin and a                                                                    
     far greater threat to the  sanctity of marriage?  Jesus                                                                    
     Christ  said,  "Whoever shall  put  away  his wife  and                                                                    
     shall marry  another, committeth  adultery, and  who so                                                                    
     marrieth her  that is put  away doth  commit adultery."                                                                    
     Why not,  then, take away benefits  from adulterers and                                                                    
     married  couples  in which  either  partner  has had  a                                                                    
     previous  marriage?   Doesn't  our  tolerance of  their                                                                    
     adultery  pose  a  greater  threat  to  our  monogamous                                                                    
     marriages?   As  a part  of  the United  States and  as                                                                    
     Christians we're  obliged to  protect the  human rights                                                                    
     of every  person which include freedom  of religion and                                                                    
     equal treatment,  even for those  who don't sit  on the                                                                    
     same pew with us on Sunday.  Thank you.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  asked   Mr.  Reese   whether  he   is                                                               
suggesting  that there  may also  be establishment  clause issues                                                               
raised  by  HJR 9;  the  U.S.  Constitution prohibits  the  State                                                               
establishment of a religion.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. REESE said yes, opining that HJR 9 is pushing a religious                                                                   
belief on families, on people, saying that if a person doesn't                                                                  
conform to heterosexual marriage, then  he/she will be treated as                                                               
a second-class citizen.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  suggested that  this issue  should also                                                               
be explored further.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:52:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM  said that  she too is  a member  of the                                                               
Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter Day Saints,  which, she opined,                                                               
absolutely believes  that marriage  consists of  one man  and one                                                               
woman.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that it  is a stretch to argue that                                                               
HJR 9 raises  establishment clause issues.  "To  have moral views                                                               
in  America   does  not  establish  a   religion,"  he  remarked,                                                               
reiterating his  belief that the  goal of HJR  9 is to  bring the                                                               
public to the  debate.  He added, "We've  established marriage as                                                               
a civil law."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG countered,  "I think  we've established                                                               
that it's an issue."                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:54:18 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROBERT BIRD said  that although he agrees with  those speaking in                                                               
favor of HJR 9, he would be  speaking in opposition to it.  After                                                               
mentioning  that he's  been a  teacher for  33 years  and teaches                                                               
constitutional law at both college and high school, he said:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Things  that are  no longer  recognized, it  seems, are                                                                    
     concepts that  are in  the Declaration  of Independence                                                                    
     such as natural law and common  law.  And for those who                                                                    
     ... want a  wide open definition of  marriage, they are                                                                    
     ignoring  the fact  that natural  law can  and will  be                                                                    
     recognized by  court systems  and it's  translated into                                                                    
     common law.  Common law  is unwritten law recognized by                                                                    
     the   courts,  and   common  law,   certainly,  if   it                                                                    
     recognizes homosexual activities at  all, does not look                                                                    
     upon it very favorably.   And natural law is easily ...                                                                    
     understood;  in   fact,  the   natural  outcome   of  a                                                                    
     heterosexual union  is in fact  children and  there has                                                                    
     never been a  child, to my knowledge,  that's ever come                                                                    
     about out of a homosexual union.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The  idea   that  a  state  cannot   interfere  with  a                                                                    
     definition of  marriage really puts the  lie to history                                                                    
     because  Utah was  not permitted  into the  Union until                                                                    
     1890 when  it ended polygamous  marriage.  And  so we'd                                                                    
     have  to make  an awful  lot  of apologies  to the  LDS                                                                    
     Church for not permitting Utah  into the Union - [Utah]                                                                    
     certainly would have been admitted  far earlier but for                                                                    
     polygamous  marriage,   which  was  their   attempt  to                                                                    
     redefine  marriage outside  of common  law and  natural                                                                    
     law.  But  I am going to just tell  you that this whole                                                                    
     idea  of having  to  amend the  constitution ...  every                                                                    
     time the supreme court goes  cross-eyed, as it were, is                                                                    
     to  me self-defeating  because we  all know  how ...  a                                                                    
     constitution  is to  be amended,  and that  is, in  our                                                                    
     state,  we have  a  process and  it has  to  go to  the                                                                    
     people after,  I believe, it  passes the House  and the                                                                    
     Senate. ...                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     It  is  saying,  then,  that the  legislature  and  the                                                                    
     people  have  to  go through  a  torturous  process  to                                                                    
     redefine the  state constitution.  But  all the supreme                                                                    
     court has  to do is to  just pass an opinion,  and then                                                                    
     all  of  a  sudden  the  state  constitution  has  been                                                                    
     changed.  Now if you look  at Article IV, Section 1, it                                                                    
     says the jurisdiction of courts  shall be prescribed by                                                                    
     law.  That means that  the courts are under the control                                                                    
     of   the  legislature,   and  to   my  knowledge,   the                                                                    
     legislature has  never given  the courts  permission to                                                                    
     redefine the  constitution any way  any time  they want                                                                    
     to feel  like it, even  when outside common  or natural                                                                    
     law or  even, arguably, the recently  passed definition                                                                    
     of marriage ... amendment ... from 1998.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Secondly,  the   whole  problem  is  saying   that  the                                                                    
     legislature cannot  reign in  the courts, when  in fact                                                                    
     the  impeachment of  a justice  for malfeasance,  which                                                                    
     would  probably mean  bribe-taking,  or misfeasance  in                                                                    
     the   performance   of   his   official   duties,   and                                                                    
     misfeasance  would   mean  they're   misconstruing  and                                                                    
     reaching  for   powers  that  don't  exist   --  so  to                                                                    
     constantly  go  to  the democratic  or  public  opinion                                                                    
     process to have confirmed  what is really a legislative                                                                    
     responsibility, to me, is, in  the end, self defeating.                                                                    
     Natural  law  and common  law  are  not susceptible  to                                                                    
     public  opinion polls;  they  are  susceptible only  to                                                                    
     god.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     And,  finally,  the  governor   has  the  authority  to                                                                    
     restrain   violation    of   any    constitutional   or                                                                    
     legislative  power,  duty,  or right  by  any  officer,                                                                    
     department,  or agency.   This  authority shall  not be                                                                    
     construed  to   authorize  any  action   or  proceeding                                                                    
     against the  legislature.  So  when the  courts ordered                                                                    
     the legislature  to somehow  amend the  constitution to                                                                    
     give  these benefits,  there  is no  ...  power of  the                                                                    
     courts  to  demand this  of  the  legislature, and  the                                                                    
     governor  need  not  enforce  it.    The  courts  don't                                                                    
     control  the governor  or the  legislature, and  yet by                                                                    
     holding  these hearings,  you  are  admitting they  can                                                                    
     change the  constitution any time where  they feel like                                                                    
     it,  while  we  have  to  go  through  this  incredibly                                                                    
     torturous process.   And  so I  would ...  vote against                                                                    
     this  amendment because  the  responsibility lies  with                                                                    
     the ...  executive and the  legislature in  reigning in                                                                    
     the judiciary, not with the people.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:59:28 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  noted  that  in  order  for  a  proposed                                                               
constitutional  amendment  to be  placed  on  the ballot  by  the                                                               
legislature, a joint resolution must  first pass both bodies by a                                                               
two-thirds vote.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. BIRD  said that makes  it even more  difficult to get  such a                                                               
proposed amendment to the people.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said that  although Mr. Bird  is probably                                                               
right in that  the administration didn't have to  respond [to the                                                               
court's decision], it chose to anyway.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. BIRD  remarked, "And I  would say that the  legislature ought                                                               
to pass  a resolution to  [this] effect rather than  diddling and                                                               
dithering  with  the  people,  here,  to  try  and  pass  through                                                               
something that probably had ... an 18 percent voter turnout."                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:00:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, after  relaying that he is a  local pastor, a                                                               
husband, and a father of five,  said it is concerning to him that                                                               
Alaskans have  now voted twice  to protect marriage yet  it seems                                                               
that that decision  is not being respected.  He  urged passage of                                                               
HJR 9 out of committee for a full  vote on the floor.  He said he                                                               
agrees with many of the comments  in support of moving HJR 9 from                                                               
committee, and  referred to Proverbs 22:28,  wherein, he offered,                                                               
King Solomon says, "Do not move  an ancient boundary stone set up                                                               
by  your forefathers."    He opined  that  written human  history                                                               
declares marriage between one man and  one woman to be an ancient                                                               
boundary stone.   He  again urged  passage of HJR  9 so  that the                                                               
people  of  Alaska  can  vote   on  the  proposed  constitutional                                                               
amendment, thereby  preventing the moving of  an ancient boundary                                                               
stone.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
3:02:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MICHAEL  "WES"  MACLEOD-BALL,  Executive Director,  Alaska  Civil                                                               
Liberties  Union   (AkCLU),  relayed  that  the   AkCLU  was  the                                                               
proponent  of  the  suit  that resulted  in  the  Alaska  Supreme                                                               
Court's October  2005 decision which  in turn has  generated much                                                               
of the  discussion over  the last year  and a half.   He  said he                                                               
would like  to respond to  earlier comments such as  the comments                                                               
pertaining to the role of the judiciary.  He said:                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     The  comments  of  those who  advance  this  [proposed]                                                                    
     amendment would seem to suggest  that the judiciary can                                                                    
     only  decide  cases  based upon  how  the  majority  of                                                                    
     Alaskans  would decide  an issue  which means  that the                                                                    
     judiciary  has  no  role  whatsoever.     What  is  the                                                                    
     judiciary to do?  The  judiciary has the responsibility                                                                    
     of interpreting  our constitution,  at a  bare minimum.                                                                    
     I  should  also  remind  you  that  this  was  not  one                                                                    
     person's  decision; it  was a  unanimous decision  of a                                                                    
     five  person court  written  by  the most  conservative                                                                    
     justice  on  that  court.     This  is  not  just  some                                                                    
     offhanded decision that was made.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     I'll also say that the  issues that were put before you                                                                    
     by   Representative  Coghill   and  by   [Ms.  Mischel]                                                                    
     essentially mimic  what we have  been saying  all along                                                                    
     about this  particular proposal,  that the  language of                                                                    
     this  measure   is  quite  ambiguous.     It  could  be                                                                    
     interpreted  very,  very  broadly, in  which  case,  it                                                                    
     might  run afoul  of the  federal  Constitution, or  it                                                                    
     could  be interpreted  very,  very  narrowly, in  which                                                                    
     case  I   think  it  would  not   accomplish  what  the                                                                    
     proponents intend  it to  accomplish.   And so  I think                                                                    
     there are some real problems  just with the language of                                                                    
     the ... [resolution].                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MACLEOD-BALL  said he  would  be  happy  to comment  on  the                                                               
[opinion] issued  by Ms. Mischel  another time.   Indicating that                                                               
he  wished to  correct a  couple of  comments made  previously by                                                               
others, he said:                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Representative  Coghill talked  about  the decision  of                                                                    
     the court  creating a special  class.  In fact,  it did                                                                    
     not  create a  special  class; the  court decided  that                                                                    
     same-sex couples  were not  in a  special class  - they                                                                    
     did  not have  to reach  that decision  - rather,  they                                                                    
     said   there   was   no    rational   basis   for   the                                                                    
     classification system  that had  been in place  at that                                                                    
     time.  So, there was no special class created.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Also, I  think Representative  Coghill, in  his opening                                                                    
     comments, said  that the  court created  a duty  to pay                                                                    
     these employment benefits.  In  fact, the court said no                                                                    
     such  thing.  ...  The  court said  that  you  have  to                                                                    
     provide this same set of  employment benefits.  Whether                                                                    
     you  choose  to  pay  the employment  benefits  to  all                                                                    
     people equally, why, that would  be fine; if you choose                                                                    
     to  pay none  of the  benefits to  none of  the people,                                                                    
     that would  also be fine.   The point is that  you have                                                                    
     to  treat people  equally:    equal protections,  equal                                                                    
     rights, equal  opportunities.  That's what  the [Alaska                                                                    
     State Constitution] ... says in Article I.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     And  then also  there have  been a  number of  comments                                                                    
     about  exceeding  to  the  will of  the  majority.    A                                                                    
     majority can  be as  little as  50.001 percent  or even                                                                    
     less.   Does this  mean that  50.1 percent  will decide                                                                    
     all rights that are held by  the other 49.9 percent?  I                                                                    
     don't thinks  so, and  the reason that  ... there  is a                                                                    
     more complicated process  for amending our constitution                                                                    
     is  to say  that  under the  kind  of democracies  that                                                                    
     work, the  majority does not  always rule -  the rights                                                                    
     of the minority  are sacrosanct - and it is  up to you,                                                                    
     the  legislature, to  help protect  the  rights of  the                                                                    
     minority.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     So the majority  doesn't rule in all cases,  and to use                                                                    
     this catch phrase - the  will of the majority - somehow                                                                    
     is intended to give an  aura of special-ness to what is                                                                    
     trying  to  be  achieved  through  this  constitutional                                                                    
     amendment.   And what this constitutional  amendment is                                                                    
     trying to  do is  to restrict the  impact of  the equal                                                                    
     protection clause  of the [Alaska  State Constitution].                                                                    
     Although it's  amending the  marriage provision  of the                                                                    
     [Alaska  State Constitution],  its  effect  will be  to                                                                    
     make it  so that some  people, in the state  of Alaska,                                                                    
     will  not  have  the  full   protection  of  the  equal                                                                    
     protection clause.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. MACLEOD-BALL concluded by urging  the committee to stop HJR 9                                                               
now, and for  members to do their duty as  legislators to protect                                                               
the rights of the minority in  Alaska.  In response to a request,                                                               
he  agreed to  furnish  the committee  with  the AkCLU's  written                                                               
legal opinion  on all the  points discussed  thus far.   Then, in                                                               
response to  comments, he  explained that  when the  Alaska Civil                                                             
Liberties Union case was sent  from the Alaska Supreme Court back                                                             
to  the  Alaska  Superior  court,  the  first  thing  the  Alaska                                                               
Superior  Court  did  was issue  instruction  to  the  defendants                                                               
asking  them   to  submit   their  own   plan  for   coming  into                                                               
implementation, and  it was  the choice of  the State  of Alaska,                                                               
through the executive branch, to say  that it was going to "draft                                                               
and go  through the  rule-making process"  to implement  the plan                                                               
that has been  in effect since 1/1/07; the  Alaska Superior Court                                                               
had issued  an affirmative  order that that  plan had  to include                                                               
certain criteria,  and this was  overruled by the  Alaska Supreme                                                               
Court in  December of 2006.   Again, it was  the administration's                                                               
choice to  implement the October  2005 decision by  going through                                                               
the rule-making process.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:12:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTOPHER KURKA  said he disagrees with  [Mr. Macleod-Ball] and                                                               
questions the statement that  homosexuals are being discriminated                                                               
against,  adding  that  homosexuals   have  the  same  rights  as                                                               
heterosexuals and can  simply marry someone of  the opposite sex.                                                               
He offered his  understanding that all committee  members but one                                                               
are  from districts  that  voted in  the  affirmative during  the                                                               
April 3 advisory vote.  In  conclusion, he adjured the members to                                                               
vote for HJR 9.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
3:13:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
THERESA  SYREN  surmised  that  anyone who  wants  to  limit  the                                                               
benefits  of marriage  to only  those people  who are  married is                                                               
then portrayed as a homophobe or  a bigot, offering her mother as                                                               
an example of  someone who's written articles  stating that same-                                                               
sex  unions  are not  the  same  as marriages.    In  one of  her                                                               
mother's article,  Ms. Syren  relayed, her  mother said  that the                                                               
courts are not  only wrong on this issue,  they are demonstrating                                                               
an  arrogance  that  is  truly  frightening,  and  therefore  the                                                               
legislature  needs to  protect  the  [Alaska State  Constitution]                                                               
from  judicial activism.   Referring  to the  comment that  HJR 9                                                               
might be  establishing a religion, she  offered her understanding                                                               
that  Thomas  Jefferson,  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,                                                               
referenced the laws of nature and nature's god.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. SYREN  offered her  belief that  the 1998  marriage amendment                                                               
did  not  forbid homosexuals  from  marrying  but instead  simply                                                               
recognized that  marriage is between a  man and a woman  and is a                                                               
procreative union.  Even if  the majority of [those who've voted]                                                               
had not,  twice, indicated that  they wish to recognize  the laws                                                               
of nature  and live  by them, she  remarked, the  legislature has                                                               
the obligation  to protect the  rights of everyone to  live under                                                               
the laws of  nature.  The "gay lobby," she  opined, has indicated                                                               
that it wishes  to overturn marriage completely,  and offered the                                                               
following partial quote  from an article in  Out magazine written                                                             
by Michelangelo Signorile in 1994:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     ...  to fight  for same-sex  marriage and  its benefits                                                                    
     and  then, once  granted, redefine  the institution  of                                                                    
     marriage completely,  to demand the right  to marry not                                                                    
     as  a way  of  adhering to  society's  moral codes  but                                                                    
     rather to debunk a myth  and radically alter an archaic                                                                    
     institution  ... the  most  subversive action  lesbians                                                                    
     and  gay men  can  undertake ...  is  to transform  the                                                                    
     notion of "family" entirely.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MS.  SYREN   concluded  by  characterizing   that  quote   as  an                                                               
establishment of religion.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:18:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PAUL ADASIAK  relayed that  he would be  speaking against  HJR 9.                                                               
He  said he  has been  pondering what  he could  possibly say  to                                                               
convince members  to vote  "no" on  HJR 9.   Five members  of the                                                               
House  Judiciary  Standing Committee  voted  "yes"  last year  on                                                               
House Bill  4002 - approving the  April 3 advisory vote  - and in                                                               
the districts  of each of those  members, at least half  of those                                                               
who  voted,   voted  "yes";   therefore,  "your   integrity,"  he                                                               
remarked, "would seem to demand your  'yes' vote."  He went on to                                                               
say:                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     Short of  persuading you that authorizing  the advisory                                                                    
     vote  was  a  mistake,  I can  probably  do  little  to                                                                    
     encourage you  now to vote  "no."  However, I  can take                                                                    
     away one cowardly excuse for  a "yes" vote, and ask you                                                                    
     to   face  up   to  what   you  may   be  voting   for.                                                                    
     Representative  Mike  Kelly  has gone  on  the  record,                                                                    
     saying, "I don't  see how any legislator  could vote to                                                                    
     deny the people their vote  on this issue."  Earlier in                                                                    
     this  session, Representative  Coghill  said, "I  would                                                                    
     like the  people of  Alaska to have  a chance  to chime                                                                    
     in."  In expressing these  sentiments, they show a poor                                                                    
     understanding    of   the    legislature's   role    in                                                                    
     constitutional  amendments.   They seem  to think  that                                                                    
     the  legislature's  job  is   to  allow  any  amendment                                                                    
     proposed to  be approved by  a majority of  the popular                                                                    
     vote.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     But that  is not our  process.  Our  constitution shows                                                                    
     more  wisdom  than that.    First,  amendments must  be                                                                    
     passed by  the legislature.   This body is  presumed to                                                                    
     have  greater  knowledge  of   state  need,  a  broader                                                                    
     perspective,  and  the  longer view  than  the  average                                                                    
     voter.   Second, amendments  to the  state constitution                                                                    
     require a two-thirds vote -  not a simple majority - of                                                                    
     each house  of the  legislature.  It  was made  thus to                                                                    
     allow  only persistent,  pressing  needs  to be  placed                                                                    
     into the constitution.   If you place any  stock in the                                                                    
     results  of  the  April  3  advisory  vote,  with  52.8                                                                    
     percent voting  "yes," you cannot believe  that Alaskan                                                                    
     citizens are clamoring  for a constitutional amendment.                                                                    
     And  if  you compare  that  number  to the  68  percent                                                                    
     majority who voted for the  marriage amendment in 1998,                                                                    
     you cannot believe  that this concern is  pressing.  If                                                                    
     anything, this concern is fading.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Do not argue that you're  voting for HJR 9 because "the                                                                    
     voters  should get  to  decide."   With  constitutional                                                                    
     amendments,  you're job  is to  use your  best judgment                                                                    
     for long term  interests of the state, not to  act as a                                                                    
     rubber stamp.   There  is only one  reason to  vote for                                                                    
     this  amendment:    because   you  think  that  denying                                                                    
     constitutionally  mandated  healthcare  and  retirement                                                                    
     benefits  to the  unmarried partners  and step-children                                                                    
     of public employees  is a good thing.   Are you willing                                                                    
     to say that?  Please do  not let an increased burden on                                                                    
     families be your legacy.  It  is not too late to change                                                                    
     course.   For  Alaskan  families, I  urge  you to  vote                                                                    
     "no."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:22:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOY  DAVIDSON, after  relaying  that  she is  a  mother of  three                                                               
children,  said she  doesn't  believe that  the  issue raised  by                                                               
HJR 9 is about equal rights, nor  that [the efforts to oppose it]                                                               
have any  similarity to  the [suffragist]  movement or  the civil                                                               
rights movement.   Instead of discriminating  against people, she                                                               
remarked,  [proponents  of  HJR  9]  are  simply  saying  that  a                                                               
marriage  is between  a  man and  a woman,  and  that a  same-sex                                                               
relationship is  not a  marriage.   She opined that  it is  a red                                                               
herring to  say that the issue  is one of equal  rights or health                                                               
benefits.  She offered:                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
     If  we  move  in  this direction  of  saying  that  our                                                                    
     criteria   for   giving   health   benefits   is   that                                                                    
     essentially  you  have  an intimate  relationship  with                                                                    
     someone for a long time,  instead of it being between a                                                                    
     man and  a woman,  I see no  reason for  denying health                                                                    
     benefits  to  people  who have  intimate  relationships                                                                    
     between two men and a woman  or between a brother and a                                                                    
     sister.   I see ...  no logical or  philosophical basis                                                                    
     for that not ... being the  case ... 30 years from now,                                                                    
     us  arguing,  "Well  why are  we  being  discriminatory                                                                    
     against this ... intimate  relationship between two men                                                                    
     and a woman."  ... I have seen cases in  Germany and in                                                                    
     Sweden going on right now -  in Germany a brother and a                                                                    
     sister  want  to be  acknowledged  as  married, and  in                                                                    
     Sweden  two women  and a  man.   So I  just want  us to                                                                    
     really look at what we're doing  here.  And ... when we                                                                    
     take  away  the  "man  and  woman"  definition,  do  we                                                                    
     realize what could  very well happen?  Even  if we have                                                                    
     no  problem morally  with homosexual  relationships, do                                                                    
     we see  what could,  philosophically, easily  happen in                                                                    
     20-30 years in our state? ... Thank you.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
3:25:04 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHERYL HUMME relayed  that she would be  testifying in opposition                                                               
to HJR  9.   It's the  court's job  to look  at what  the [Alaska                                                               
State  Constitution] says,  and  although [a  two-thirds vote  in                                                               
each body  of the  legislature] is required  to get  an amendment                                                               
[to  the   Alaska  State  Constitution   on  the   ballot,]  this                                                               
information was not provided in  the voter pamphlet pertaining to                                                               
the April 3  advisory vote.  She said she  wishes the legislature                                                               
would  stop wasting  time in  continued conversations  about this                                                               
issue.    She  then  expressed   disfavor  with  the  committee's                                                               
choosing to  alternate testimony between  those opposed to  HJR 9                                                               
and  those in  favor  of  it because  it  then  appears that  the                                                               
testimony is  balanced, and this  is misleading.   In conclusion,                                                               
she said  she opposes  HJR 9  and hopes  the committee  will vote                                                               
"no" on  the question  of moving  the resolution  from committee,                                                               
particularly given  that it won't garner  the required two-thirds                                                               
majority  vote  needed  to  put the  proposed  amendment  on  the                                                               
ballot.   In response  to a  question, she  opined that  it would                                                               
have  been better  for the  committee  to take  testimony in  the                                                               
order  that people  signed  up to  testify,  regardless of  their                                                               
position on the resolution.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:28:11 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOHN  FLEMING  said  that  for  him, marriage  is  a  union  that                                                               
historically  goes beyond  the bond  of a  relationship based  on                                                               
personal pleasure.   Marriage in  most every culture,  he opined,                                                               
involves a commitment  that usually includes giving  birth to and                                                               
subsequently  raising  a  family.    He  also  opined  that  this                                                               
"unique" aspect  of marriage guarantees the  civil- and socially-                                                               
ordered  continuance of  the  human  race.   If  one accepts  the                                                               
premise  that  marriage  between  man  and  woman  fulfills  this                                                               
"special"  role,  he  remarked,  then the  benefits  designed  to                                                               
support the married  should only be available to  the married man                                                               
and woman,  and not shared  with those who are  physically unable                                                               
to practice procreation.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:29:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MARY BISHOP said that as  a registered Republican and a Catholic,                                                               
she opposes  HJR 9 in  good conscience.   She explained  that her                                                               
marriage of 46  years is not threatened by  her friends' same-sex                                                               
union, nor is any other marriage.   Imitation is the most sincere                                                               
form of flattery, she remarked,  adding that she is thankful when                                                               
gay couples  value the same  sort of commitments found  in [some]                                                               
heterosexual marriages.  House Joint  Resolution 9 would disallow                                                               
all spousal rights for all  non-married couples - gay or straight                                                               
- regardless of how long-standing  their commitment to each other                                                               
is; they would be denied  rights to visit a hospitalized partner,                                                               
end-of-life healthcare,  child custody, and  other state-provided                                                               
spousal   rights.     Equal  rights   under  the   [Alaska  State                                                               
Constitution] would  take a big hit  in all kinds of  ways yet to                                                               
be litigated.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  BISHOP  pointed  out  that  the  New  Jersey  Supreme  Court                                                               
recently ruled that New Jersey  must provide benefits to same-sex                                                               
domestic   partners;  instead   of  proposing   a  discriminatory                                                               
amendment to  its state constitution, the  New Jersey legislature                                                               
simply  created a  civil-union  law  allowing committed  domestic                                                               
partners to  receive the same  benefits as married couples.   She                                                               
said:                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     I urge  our legislators to  do likewise.   Our societal                                                                    
     norm should  spell out  standards for  similar benefits                                                                    
     and responsibilities for both  gay and straight couples                                                                    
     who make serious commitments to  one another.  Alaska's                                                                    
     gay youth  should not have  to look forward  to dealing                                                                    
     with a  hostile society as  they mature.  We've  got to                                                                    
     get past  the fear, the disinformation,  the myths, and                                                                    
     [the]  discrimination  that  understandably  result  in                                                                    
     anger and retaliation,  drugs, alcohol, family despair,                                                                    
     and even suicide. ... I've  been trying to wrap my head                                                                    
     around this issue for 60 of  my 69 years.  For 30 years                                                                    
     or  so I  mostly hid  my head  in the  sand, and  I can                                                                    
     appreciate anyone's desire to do so.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     But it won't  work anymore.  Gay  and lesbian "happens"                                                                    
     to the best of families, to  the best of kids.  Today's                                                                    
     kids know  it, and  they won't go  back in  the closet,                                                                    
     and  they will  act  responsibility,  especially if  we                                                                    
     straight people  show them respect and  equal treatment                                                                    
     for  doing so.    Most gays  recognize  the social  and                                                                    
     cultural  value of  a  stable,  loving, and  monogamous                                                                    
     relationship.    I  want Alaska's  gay  youth  to  look                                                                    
     forward to  that kind  of stable,  loving relationship,                                                                    
     and  to  have those  unions  accepted  in our  society.                                                                    
     Thank you for your attention, and please oppose HJR 9.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:33:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KATHY COTTON relayed that she had voted "'yes' for marriage" on                                                                 
April 3, 2007, and surmised that the majority of those voting                                                                   
did so as well.  She went on to say:                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     I   want   the   [legislature]   to   bring   up   this                                                                    
     constitutional amendment  to the vote of  the people of                                                                    
     Alaska.  I  believe the advisory vote  showed that, and                                                                    
     that the  majority of  Alaskans want  that.   I thought                                                                    
     our state constitution seems clear  enough, and I voted                                                                    
     in 1998  to clarify that  marriage was between  one man                                                                    
     and  one woman;  I  believe it  does  now need  further                                                                    
     clarification  like what  is written  in this  proposed                                                                    
     amendment.  I  believe that marriage is  the basic unit                                                                    
     of society  in that it's designed  not by narrow-minded                                                                    
     men or  women, but  by god our  creator and  designer -                                                                    
     like  several  people   mentioned,  the  natural  laws.                                                                    
     Therefore,  I think  that we  should protect  and honor                                                                    
     and encourage  marriage between one man  and one woman.                                                                    
     I think the voters of  this state ... [have] shown that                                                                    
     they want the right to vote.   And I just encourage you                                                                    
     guys  in the  committee to  keep this  thing going.   I                                                                    
     also would  say to ...  the committee that  you letting                                                                    
     us vote  does not  take away  benefits from  anyone, it                                                                    
       just allows us to vote.  And I just thank you for                                                                        
     hearing me ....                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:35:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JEANNE LAURENCELLE  relayed that  she is  a mother,  a university                                                               
employee, and a former naval  officer.  Remarking that the United                                                               
States was conceived in liberty  and dedicated to the notion that                                                               
all men are  created equal, she opined that HJR  9 is designed to                                                               
take away  rights and benefits  from unmarried  Alaskan citizens;                                                               
that  it  proposes to  take  healthcare  away from  children  and                                                               
retirees;  that   it  corrupts  the  constitution's   promise  of                                                               
equality  for  all  Alaskans;  that   it  undermines  the  public                                                               
employer's ability to recruit and  retain talented employees; and                                                               
that  it  undermines  the private  employer's  ability  to  offer                                                               
competitive  benefits.   Furthermore,  the  sweeping language  in                                                               
HJR 9 will invite costly lawsuits.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MS. LAURENCELLE  said of HJR 9:   it's a bad  business from start                                                               
to  finish,  embarrassing  and   detrimental  to  the  state,  in                                                               
opposition to  the founding  principles of  the nation,  and flat                                                               
bad for  businesses operating in  Alaska.  The  justification for                                                               
presenting  this amendment  is  the protection  of marriage,  and                                                               
while some  evangelical Christians believe this,  many mainstream                                                               
Christians believe  the opposite,  she remarked, and  offered the                                                               
following quote from  Michael Keys, now serving as  the Bishop of                                                               
the Alaska Synod  of the Evangelical Lutheran  Church in America:                                                               
"God does  not need us to  protect our definition of  marriage; I                                                               
believe  Jesus calls  us  to  ask, 'How  are  we  called to  heal                                                               
others,'  not wound  them."    She pointed  out  that the  Alaska                                                               
Supreme Court  has said:   "Denying benefits has  no demonstrated                                                               
relationship to the interest of promoting marriage."                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  LAURENCELLE observed  that  the marriage  issue has  already                                                               
been decided, and that the  definition of marriage is locked into                                                               
the Alaska State Constitution.   A new amendment that proposes to                                                               
take  rights and  benefits is  just  that, an  amendment to  take                                                               
rights and benefits; it wastes  the state's time and money, gives                                                               
no protection  to marriage,  and harms  Alaskans.   In conclusion                                                               
she asked, "Please vote against the proposed amendment."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
3:38:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JUSTIN COTTON  said he  supports HJR 9.   Acknowledging  that the                                                               
April 3 advisory vote did not  result in two-thirds of the voters                                                               
voting "yes,"  he pointed out  that such  is not necessary  - all                                                               
that is  required to approve a  ballot item is a  simple majority                                                               
vote.  Having  garnered such a vote,  the proposed constitutional                                                               
amendment  should go  on  to a  vote of  the  people, he  opined,                                                               
regardless that the  vote was close - it was  still a victory for                                                               
proponents  of this  proposed amendment  pertaining to  marriage.                                                               
He said  he feels that HJR  9 should go  on and be placed  on the                                                               
ballot,  adding that  it  seems reasonable,  once  advice via  an                                                               
advisory  vote  has  been  given,  to follow  that  advice.    In                                                               
conclusion, he said he appreciated  the references prior speakers                                                               
made to "natural rights" and "natural law."                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:40:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STEVEN JACQUIER  relayed that he  would be speaking on  behalf of                                                               
himself, his partner, and their children.  He said:                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     I am  one of the  62 people  in the state  whose health                                                                    
     insurance benefits  HJR 9 seeks  to withdraw  and deny.                                                                    
     This  divisive effort  has  been the  root  of so  much                                                                    
     radical  rancor.    For   example,  here  in  Anchorage                                                                    
     supporters   of   the   recent   advisory   vote   were                                                                    
     trespassing without permission  onto public schools and                                                                    
     posting  their campaign  signs on  school grounds  even                                                                    
     when  asked not  to  engage in  this illegal  activity.                                                                    
     For the record, by the way  - since there seems to be a                                                                    
     misunderstanding  on  some  people's  part  -  gay  and                                                                    
     lesbian  people  can  and  do  procreate,  as  well  as                                                                    
     [provide] excellent parenting to orphaned children.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     I join Chairman Ramras in  wishing there were no hatred                                                                    
     in Alaska,  but my  friend Gene's  experience indicates                                                                    
     otherwise:   Gene was  murdered by  a zealot  who burst                                                                    
     into  his  home and  smashed  in  Gene's skull  with  a                                                                    
     hammer for  being, quote, "an abomination  in the sight                                                                    
     of the lord."  [House  Joint Resolution 9] is inflaming                                                                    
     these flames  of hatred  in Alaska.   This  issue being                                                                    
     addressed  today is  entirely about  fundamental issues                                                                    
     of fairness as regard [to] equal pay for equal work.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Just  as  both our  leaders  and  average people  alike                                                                    
     eventually  came to  realize the  fundamental malignant                                                                    
     wrongness of prejudicial  discrimination in slavery, in                                                                    
     preventing women  from voting, and in  denying partners                                                                    
     of different colors  the right to marry,  we trust time                                                                    
     is on  the side of  reason and justice with  this issue                                                                    
     as  well.    [House  Joint  Resolution  9]  is  like  a                                                                    
     throwback to  territorial days,  when some  people felt                                                                    
     quite  righteously  justified   in  posting  signs  ...                                                                    
     [saying], "No dogs or Natives  allowed."  My family and                                                                    
     I have  faith this, too,  shall pass.  Sooner  or later                                                                    
     justice will prevail and equal  work for equal pay will                                                                    
     stand  uncontested  as the  law  of  the land  for  all                                                                    
     people, as it  is now, today, here in  Alaska thanks to                                                                    
     the  wisdom  of our  founding  fathers  and the  Alaska                                                                    
     State Constitution.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     As  time  moves  forward  and  younger,  more  diverse,                                                                    
     better    educated   voters    replace   those    whose                                                                    
     [irrational] fears  would block equal justice  for all,                                                                    
     the  question will  change from,  "Should the  same-sex                                                                    
     partners  of  state  employees  be  barred  from  equal                                                                    
     access  to  benefits?" to,  "How,  in  2007, could  the                                                                    
     legislators and  people of this  great state  ever have                                                                    
     sullied themselves with attempting  to change the state                                                                    
     constitution   so    as   to   implement    such   ugly                                                                    
     discrimination?"    If   this  [resolution]  ...  moves                                                                    
     forward  today, then  history will  recall this  moment                                                                    
     with  distaste, just  as we  recall with  embarrassment                                                                    
     and shame the irrational prejudices of decades past.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     The question remains of just  how much cost and harm to                                                                    
     families  unlike   their  own,   as  well  as   to  the                                                                    
     taxpayers, institutions, and reputation  of Alaska as a                                                                    
     whole,  some  legislators  are willing  to  inflict  on                                                                    
     others  based upon  their  personal religious  beliefs.                                                                    
     Evidence  in   abundance  shows  there  is   no  fiscal                                                                    
     justification  for this  prejudicial [resolution.]   To                                                                    
     quote the  great scholar and statesman,  President John                                                                    
     Adams, "Facts are stubborn things,  and whatever may be                                                                    
     our wishes,  our inclinations, or  the dictates  of our                                                                    
     passion,  they  cannot alter  the  state  of facts  and                                                                    
     evidence."                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     Indeed, the  more the evidence  of reason  is willfully                                                                    
     ignored  and  the   more  extremist,  reactionary,  and                                                                    
     intolerant  the  Republican   Party  allows  itself  to                                                                    
     become  of the  actual  diversity in  our society,  the                                                                    
     more irrelevant  it will be and,  accordingly, the less                                                                    
     influence  it  will have  in  future.   Please  make  a                                                                    
     better choice today and table HJR 9.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. JACQUIER, in conclusion, relayed that he would be faxing the                                                                
balance of his testimony to the committee and would remain                                                                      
available to answer questions.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
3:44:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  expressed  disagreement   with  the  concept  that                                                               
discussion of this issue will trigger violence.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. JACQUIER, in  response to questions, spoke  briefly about his                                                               
experience in adopting  a child, and offered his  belief that had                                                               
language such as  is being proposed via HJR 9  been in the Alaska                                                               
State  Constitution  at  that time,  he  would  have  experienced                                                               
prejudice  in the  adoption process  because it  would have  been                                                               
demonstrable that he and his partner  would not have been able to                                                               
provide  the  same quality  of  care  as  they  can now  via  his                                                               
partner's state health insurance benefits.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
3:47:16 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEBBIE JOSLIN,  President, Eagle Forum Alaska,  after saying that                                                               
she  is representing  over 1,000  families and  all of  those who                                                               
voted "yes" on April 3, posited that  they all want HJR 9 to pass                                                               
the legislature.  She went on to say:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Since  the  "yes"  vote  won on  April  3,  we've  been                                                                    
     marginalized  and  told  that our  vote  doesn't  count                                                                    
     because  we  didn't  win  by  a  large  enough  margin.                                                                    
     Guarantee you that  if [those voting "no"]  had won, we                                                                    
     would have  said that "no"  won.  After  being outspent                                                                    
     more than three to one  and having the people of Alaska                                                                    
     told that  this vote had  nothing to do  with marriage,                                                                    
     people of Alaska  went out anyway on an  April day with                                                                    
     no other reason  to vote, and they said  ... with their                                                                    
     vote  that they  want  marriage to  be  set apart  from                                                                    
     other relationships  and they  do not want  partners of                                                                    
     same-sex relationships to be given marriage benefits.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     I  think we'll  agree that  our society  is in  a moral                                                                    
     decline and  that the  state of  the family  in America                                                                    
     and in Alaska  is weak today.  And I'm  here to ask you                                                                    
     to not deal  another blow to family  by suppressing the                                                                    
     people's   right  to   vote   on  this   constitutional                                                                    
     amendment.   Yes, there are blended  families and there                                                                    
     are  homes with  children living  with two  lesbians or                                                                    
     two male  [homosexuals], but  that's not  the preferred                                                                    
     way  bringing up  [children].   Studies  show that  the                                                                    
     best, healthiest  possible environment for  children is                                                                    
     to  grow up  [with]  their  mom and  dad.   That's  not                                                                    
     always  possible,  however,  it   is  what's  best  for                                                                    
     children.   If we treat same-sex  partnerships the same                                                                    
     as marriage,  [we] are  saying that one  is as  good as                                                                    
     another, [and] that simply is not true.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     [Our]  children  are  faced   with  so  many  confusing                                                                    
     messages today, and  we need to be sure  that we're not                                                                    
     adding  to  their   confusion  by  validating  same-sex                                                                    
     relationships as  being equal  to marriage.   Now we're                                                                    
     being told  that HJR  9 is possibly  a revision  to the                                                                    
     constitution  and  not an  amendment.    In the  truest                                                                    
     sense of the word, HJR  9 isn't even an amendment; it's                                                                    
     simply a clarification of the  original [intent] of the                                                                    
     founding  fathers  of  the Alaska  State  Constitution.                                                                    
     There are some [still] alive  today and we can ask them                                                                    
     -  I have.    Never  in their  wildest  dreams did  our                                                                    
     founding fathers  envision the need  for HJR 9  or, for                                                                    
     that matter, the '98 amendment. ...                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MS. JOSLIN continued:                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     The   thought   [that]  HJR   9   is   a  revision   is                                                                    
     disingenuous; HJR  9 merely returns us  to the original                                                                    
     intent of  the constitution.  During  the weeks leading                                                                    
     up to  the advisory vote  that was put together  by the                                                                    
     legislature, we heard over and  over again about what a                                                                    
     waste  [of money]  it  was to  hold  an advisory  vote.                                                                    
     This is  a very important  matter, and the  [people] of                                                                    
     Alaska  deserve  an  opportunity  to weigh  in  on  it.                                                                    
     However, if  after going to  the expense  [and trouble]                                                                    
     of holding an advisory  vote the legislature intends to                                                                    
     ignore the will of the people, then it was a waste.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     If our  legislators have no  intention of  honoring the                                                                    
     will of  the people of  Alaska, then the  advisory vote                                                                    
     was  nothing  more  than  political  trickery  and  the                                                                    
     legislature has  (indisc. - teleconference  audio faded                                                                    
     out)  to the  voters of  Alaska.   Surely  this is  not                                                                    
     true.   Surely  the  members of  our state  legislature                                                                    
     have a deep held  (indisc. - teleconference audio faded                                                                    
     out) respect  for the people  of Alaska.   Your passage                                                                    
     of HJR 9 will show that to be true.  Thank you.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:50:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
RICHARD COLLINS relayed that he has been partnered with a man                                                                   
for over 10 years.  He elaborated:                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
     In  1996   we  celebrated  our  partnership   with  our                                                                    
     families  in  a church  service,  and  on that  day  we                                                                    
     signed our  wills and powers  of attorney and  had them                                                                    
     witnessed by members of the  congregation.  Since then,                                                                    
     we  have established  our lives  in Fairbanks,  we have                                                                    
     bought a  home together,  and accumulated  probably too                                                                    
     much joint  property.  I  am very concerned that  HJR 9                                                                    
     will undermine the joint property  and powers of health                                                                    
     and financial attorney that we have established.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     [House  Joint   Resolution  9]  will  not   change  the                                                                    
     definition   of    marriage   in    the   constitution.                                                                    
     Recognizing that  we will not  have the  opportunity to                                                                    
     legally marry,  Patrick and  I have  used the  tools of                                                                    
     everyday  law to  create a  framework that  makes sense                                                                    
     for our lives.   I fear that HJR 9 is  a blunt tool and                                                                    
     a  broad brush  that  will revise  common property  and                                                                    
     personal  law.    It establishes  a  special  class  of                                                                    
     second-class  Alaskans.   Thank you  for your  time and                                                                    
     please vote "no" on this in committee.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. COLLINS,  in response to a  question, relayed that he  is not                                                               
qualified to speak on issues related  to estate planning law.  He                                                               
said  his  concern  is  that  since  marriage  has  already  been                                                               
defined,  HJR 9  instead seems  to be  doing something  that will                                                               
affect many  aspects of  health, power  of attorney,  and custody                                                               
issues; again, HJR 9 seems to be a very broad brush.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
3:53:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
LONNIET KURKA  said she would  be speaking  in favor [of  HJR 9].                                                               
She  opined that  the  issue of  health  and retirement  benefits                                                               
could  have been  dealt  with  in a  different  way, and  perhaps                                                               
should have been,  rather than giving the  courts the opportunity                                                               
to  say  that  same-sex  relationships  are  similarly  situated.                                                               
That's one reason why she likes  the language currently in HJR 9,                                                               
she  relayed, because  it does  say that  marriage is  different.                                                               
She went  on to say  that although her marriage  isn't threatened                                                               
by  giving  benefits  [to  same-sex   partners],  doing  so  does                                                               
threaten marriage as  an institution.  She added:   "I think it's                                                               
very important  that we  protect and value  that for  our culture                                                               
and for  the continuation  of values  and ...  decency, and  so I                                                               
would really like to  be able to vote on this  issue, and I think                                                               
we need this added to the amendment.  Thank you."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:55:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
ROLANDO RIVAS  remarked that  HJR 9 is  being pushed  through the                                                               
legislature  by a  few highly-conservative  legislators who  feel                                                               
the  need  to  press  their  agenda  on  a  segment  of  Alaska's                                                               
population.  The resolution has  nothing to do with marriage, but                                                               
has everything  to do  with equal rights  under the  Alaska State                                                               
Constitution.  He  said he cannot understand how it  was that the                                                               
legislature  felt  the need  to  spend  over  $1 million  of  the                                                               
state's tax  dollars to [have an  advisory vote] to find  out how                                                               
some of Alaska's citizens felt,  particularly given that it would                                                               
have been  just as easy  and a lot cheaper  to hire an  agency to                                                               
run a  poll.   Given that  less than 18  percent of  the populace                                                               
voted on  the advisory vote,  he said he  can't see the  value of                                                               
[having  had the  vote] or  in calling  those who  voted "yes"  a                                                               
majority of Alaskans.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. RIVAS asked the committee to  do the right thing.  The Alaska                                                               
State Constitution  was written in  order to afford  equal rights                                                               
to all Alaskans, not just those  that some feel are worthy of its                                                               
protection.  He added:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     Yet  here we  are  again, testifying  against what  has                                                                    
     become yet another hot button  issue for those who feel                                                                    
     that  they  are  potentially  better  than  the  person                                                                    
     sitting  next to  them in  the workplace.   What  is it                                                                    
     that makes  you feel  that you have  the right  to deny                                                                    
     medical  benefits  to  a   segment  of  the  population                                                                    
     because they  do not  fit the mold  that you  have laid                                                                    
     out?  [House  Joint Resolution 9] will  not just affect                                                                    
     those who  have been  waiting for medical  benefits but                                                                    
     potentially denying those  rights already afforded them                                                                    
     by their employers.  Where  is the justification, I ask                                                                    
     you?                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     If  you,   our  legislature,  continue  to   pass  this                                                                    
     [resolution] up  the ladder, it  will be a sad  day for                                                                    
     all Alaskans.   What will  come next? ... Will  we some                                                                    
     day again start  to deny rights to  our Alaskan Natives                                                                    
     or other segments of our  population, as we did, not so                                                                    
     very long  ago, by an  all white legislature?   Because                                                                    
     perhaps  we might  feel that  they just  are not  quite                                                                    
     fitting the  mold that we  have come  to expect?   So I                                                                    
     ask  you again  to  do  ... the  right  thing, not  ...                                                                    
     something [that] some  of you might feel  ... would get                                                                    
     you more  votes at some point,  but to do what  is just                                                                    
     and  equal  for all  Alaskans,  and  that is  to  table                                                                    
     HJR 9.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
3:58:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHRISTINE  KURKA said  that as  a  young unmarried  woman and  an                                                               
Alaskan  voter, she  urges the  committee to  pass HJR  9 out  of                                                               
committee.   The majority of those  who voted during the  April 3                                                               
advisory vote want  the opportunity to vote in  the 2008 election                                                               
to  amend  the  Alaska  State Constitution  to  keep  the  unique                                                               
benefits  of  marriage  to  those  who  are  married.    Although                                                               
legislators  may ignore  what these  voters  want, she  remarked,                                                               
members will be  held accountable by both  their constituents and                                                               
by  "your creator."   She  offered that  she is  not saying  that                                                               
homosexual people are  less valuable, merely that it  is the duty                                                               
of government to say what it will allow and promote.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MS.  CHRISTINE KURKA  expressed agreement  with the  testimony of                                                               
Mr. Bird  that the legislature  was responsible for  dealing with                                                               
this issue  and should have had  the courage to do  so, to firmly                                                               
say  that  the benefits  of  marriage  remain  to those  who  are                                                               
married.   If  this discussion  was  really about  equal pay  for                                                               
equal  work  or  equal  rights,   she  opined,  people  would  be                                                               
discussing why  a state employee  who lives with  his/her father,                                                               
for example, shouldn't be able  to [extend state medical benefits                                                               
to  his/her  father].   Instead  the  discussion revolves  around                                                               
people  who  are  sexually  active  with  one  another  and  live                                                               
together - not really a good  reason for giving the same benefits                                                               
as are given to those that are married, she concluded.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
4:01:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SHIRLEY  RIVAS relayed  that she  has been  staying awake  nights                                                               
trying to  figure out how  denying her son health  insurance from                                                               
his partner's employer is going  to defend or protect either hers                                                               
or anyone else's marriage.  She went on to say:                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
     This  makes no  practical sense  to  me.   We are  just                                                                    
     fine.   My  son and  his  partner do  not threaten  our                                                                    
     marriage or  that of  anyone else.   If  anything, they                                                                    
     enrich our lives.  They  have been together three years                                                                    
     and are  just as  devoted and loving  to each  other as                                                                    
     are our  heterosexual children and  their spouses.   We                                                                    
     feel greatly  blessed by  all of  our children  and all                                                                    
     their families.   I do,  however, see a threat  on [my]                                                                    
     personal horizon  if HJR  9 should  pass into  law; for                                                                    
     instance, if,  because of  HJR 9,  our son  should lose                                                                    
     his  health insurance  and suffer  a major  accident or                                                                    
     illness, the  financial obligation of  this catastrophe                                                                    
     will fall  on the  shoulders of  his partner  and their                                                                    
     extended family  - that  would be  us, his  parents and                                                                    
     his brother and sisters.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Please know, without any  doubt, this [resolution] will                                                                    
     definitely  not just  affect the  people you  so easily                                                                    
     hate  and  dismiss,  but  also  those  you  profess  to                                                                    
     protect.  [House Joint Resolution  9] is a hideous hate                                                                    
     crime based  on homophobia, which  is based on  fear or                                                                    
     worse; HJR  9 is a political  ploy to get out  the vote                                                                    
     of  those people  who are  eaten alive  with homophobia                                                                    
     and fear.   The crafters  of this [resolution]  will do                                                                    
     anything  for  a vote,  right  down  on to  amending  a                                                                    
     perfectly  good constitution,  wasting  time and  money                                                                    
     for political gain.  The  crafters of this [resolution]                                                                    
     should  be ashamed.   Go  back to  your office,  put on                                                                    
     your  thinking  cap,  open   your  hearts,  and  create                                                                    
     legislation that will be useful to our society.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
     While  you  are  wasting  taxpayer time  and  money  on                                                                    
     amending   the   constitution   to  deny   a   minority                                                                    
     population  healthcare, you  could  be doing  something                                                                    
     really  useful.   What  are you  doing  to improve  the                                                                    
     education  of our  children?   What  are  you doing  to                                                                    
     improve the  healthcare system for all  Alaskans?  What                                                                    
     are you  doing to end the  plague of drug abuse?   What                                                                    
     are  you doing  to help  the  homeless?   What are  you                                                                    
     doing to  help end spousal  and child abuse?   What are                                                                    
     you  doing trying  to pass  legislation to  deny people                                                                    
     rights  they have  earned  and are  entitled  to.   The                                                                    
     courts are correct.   Vote "no" and  stop this nonsense                                                                    
     in this committee.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized Ms. Rivas's testimony as intolerant.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that not everybody who supports                                                                    
HJR 9 is a homophobe.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  surmised  that   the  people  who  are                                                               
testifying  on  this issue,  regardless  of  their position,  are                                                               
simply  speaking  from the  heart,  adding  his belief  that  the                                                               
members appreciate everyone who's come forward to speak.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred, but opined that tolerance should be                                                                     
practiced by all regardless of which side of an issue they are                                                                  
on.                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
4:06:34 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
STEPHEN  GINGRICH opined  that  a benefit  ban  benefits no  one,                                                               
adding that it  is disappointing that some  legislators are still                                                               
pandering  to  bigotry  in proposing  what  he  characterized  as                                                               
another  embarrassment  to the  Alaska  State  Constitution.   It                                                               
would be more decent of  legislators to be spending time, effort,                                                               
and the  people's money  coming up  with ways  to ensure  that as                                                               
many  Alaskans as  possible have  medical coverage;  the lack  of                                                               
medical coverage is a major problem  in the U.S., and HJR 9 would                                                               
make that  problem worse.   He pointed  out that lesbian  and gay                                                               
people have children at a rate  close to that of straight people,                                                               
and that  HJR 9 would take  away those children's coverage.   The                                                               
proposed amendment  to the Alaska State  Constitution is contrary                                                               
to the  principles of good  government and democracy,  he opined,                                                               
adding that  all citizens are constitutionally  entitled to equal                                                               
treatment by the government.   And government would be failing in                                                               
its responsibility if it allows  the prejudice of the majority to                                                               
deny equal rights to an unpopular minority.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.   GINGRICH   opined   that  legislators   should   have   the                                                               
professionalism to  rise above personal  prejudice and  simply do                                                               
what  is right,  just  as the  Alaska Supreme  Court  did.   This                                                               
resolution  would require  discrimination  by private  employers,                                                               
and the $1.25 million of  the people's money that the legislature                                                               
wasted on  the advisory vote,  which was effectively a  tie vote,                                                               
would more  than likely have  paid the  first year's cost  of the                                                               
[same-sex  partner   benefit]  program.     He  noted   that  the                                                               
University of Alaska  and the CBJ have had a  policy of equal pay                                                               
for  equal work  for  a very  long time,  without  doing harm  to                                                               
anyone.    Prejudice  is  diminishing;   what  was  a  two-thirds                                                               
majority in  1998 is  now down  to 52.8 percent,  and thus  it is                                                               
likely that  not even a simple  majority of voters would  vote to                                                               
pass this proposed amendment, should  it pass the legislature, by                                                               
the  time  it  came  before   the  voters.    The  1998  marriage                                                               
amendment,    he   predicted,    will    eventually   be    ruled                                                               
unconstitutional.    In  conclusion,  he  noted  that  reasonable                                                               
conservatives,  via  editorials  in the  newspaper,  have  spoken                                                               
against [HJR  9], and opined that  HJR 9 could not  be more anti-                                                               
family.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:09:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEVIN  G.  CLARKSON,  Esq.,  Attorney   at  Law,  Brena,  Bell  &                                                               
Clarkson, PC,  confirmed that he  had written  the aforementioned                                                               
memorandum dated 4/17/07.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS,  after ascertaining  that no  other members  of the                                                               
public wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 9.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 4:10 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
[Following  was a  brief discussion  regarding how  the committee                                                               
would be proceeding.]                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  relayed that he's  received information                                                               
from  the  administration  regarding  those  who've  applied  for                                                               
[same-sex  partner] benefits:   there  are a  total of  70 people                                                               
enrolled  - 53  retirees and  17 current  employees -  [less than                                                               
one-fourth  of   1  percent]  of   the  State's   current  29,732                                                               
employees/retirees.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN,  responding to prior testimony,  opined that                                                               
the legislature  can't take away  benefits that never  existed to                                                               
begin with; that those who favor  HJR 9 are incredulous that some                                                               
homosexual  couples  are demanding  the  same  rights as  legally                                                               
married people;  that the  break down  of traditional  family and                                                               
traditional marriage  creates all  manner of social  and economic                                                               
problems; that one's race is  beyond one's control, whereas one's                                                               
sexual behavior is always under  one's control; that the focus of                                                               
the National  Education Association (NEA) should  be on teachers'                                                               
salaries, wages, and  working conditions; and that  the fact that                                                               
some  marriages  are  not  perfect  is  a  function  of  personal                                                               
behavior not a function of the institution of marriage itself.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN  said  that   he  agrees  with  the  comment                                                               
regarding  not moving  ancient boundary  stones  - especially  as                                                               
they  pertain to  marriage  -  and that  he  questions whether  a                                                               
father and son  or mother and daughter or brother  and brother or                                                               
sister  and sister  living together  could constitute  a same-sex                                                               
couple.  He said he also  agrees with the comment that [marriage]                                                               
is a  defining issue of society;  as such, it is  appropriate for                                                               
the legislature to spend time  discussing it.  Furthermore, there                                                               
can be no such thing as a  spousal right unless one has a spouse,                                                               
and [homosexual  people] aren't  allowed to  be spouses.   Anyone                                                               
can designate who may visit him/her  in the hospital, and who can                                                               
get his/her  property upon  death.  Allowing  the people  to vote                                                               
won't take  away the rights  of anybody, and all  unmarried state                                                               
employees already receive  benefits.  If advice has  been given -                                                               
as  with the  April  3 advisory  vote -  he  opined, that  advice                                                               
should be listened to.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  LYNN expressed  disbelief with  the concept  that                                                               
gay and lesbian people can  procreate, and with the argument that                                                               
equal  pay for  equal work  applies to  this issue.   He  said he                                                               
agrees with  the comment that  HJR 9  is more of  a clarification                                                               
than  an  amendment,  and  opined  that it  is  certainly  not  a                                                               
revision.  He also said he  agrees with the comment that it would                                                               
be a waste  of the advisory vote if people  are not then afforded                                                               
the   opportunity  to   vote  on   the  proposed   constitutional                                                               
amendment.  In conclusion, he  opined that everyone on the planet                                                               
has  value and  needs  to  be treated  with  respect and  dignity                                                               
regardless of his/her personal situation or sexual orientation.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS turned  the committee's attention to  the words, "in                                                               
this State", found on page 1, line 9.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
4:43:24 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said he is  wondering whether it  is that                                                               
wording  that  creates  the  possibility  that  HJR  9  would  be                                                               
considered a revision.  He also raised the issue of reciprocity.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MISCHEL said  that the  difficulty  with the  aforementioned                                                               
language  is that  it creates  an ambiguity,  is perhaps  broader                                                               
than  intended, could  be interpreted  to apply  beyond State  or                                                               
public  actions, and  might be  the subject  of litigation.   She                                                               
said she is not sure,  however, whether changing or deleting that                                                               
language would resolve the question  of whether HJR 9 proposes an                                                               
amendment  or a  revision, adding  that  she is  troubled by  the                                                               
breadth of  that language from  a legal perspective unless  it is                                                               
the  intent of  the committee  to apply  the prohibitions  in the                                                               
proposed  amendment to  private  employers or  anyone outside  of                                                               
public  organizations.   Even if  that language  is removed,  she                                                               
warned,  the  proposed amendment  will  still  have fairly  broad                                                               
applications and could therefore  still be considered a revision,                                                               
though  deleting   the  language   will  limit   the  amendment's                                                               
potential applicability  beyond public  entities.   She suggested                                                               
changing the language  from "in this State" to "by  the State" or                                                               
to  "by the  State  and political  subdivisions"; again,  another                                                               
option would be to delete the words, "in this State" altogether.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
4:46:45 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON  opined that  members should  not be  concerned that                                                               
Article I, Section 25, of  the Alaska State Constitution - either                                                               
as it is currently  or as HJR 9 is proposing to  amend it - would                                                               
impact  private entities/individuals;  constitutions only  define                                                               
relationships between government  and citizens, not relationships                                                               
between private citizens and private  citizens.  Also, regardless                                                               
of  whether the  aforementioned language  is deleted,  the change                                                               
proposed by HJR 9 won't  require private employers to do anything                                                               
differently with  regard to  how they  "divvy out"  their private                                                               
employment benefits  to their private  employees.  He  also noted                                                               
that  the phrase,  "in this  State" is  already used  in existing                                                               
Article I, Section  25, and offered his belief that  the point of                                                               
using that  phrase is that it  "defines what a marriage  would be                                                               
that  might  be created  within  Alaska,"  and it  "defines  what                                                               
relationships that might  be created outside of  Alaska that once                                                               
they come to Alaska would be recognized as a marriage."                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON said  he agrees  a bit  with Ms.  Mischel that  the                                                               
words, "shall be valid or recognized  in this State and to which"                                                               
are not  necessary.  He  surmised that the proposed  new language                                                               
should simply  say, "No  other union is  similarly situated  to a                                                               
marriage  between a  man  and woman  and,  therefore, a  marriage                                                               
between a  man and  a woman  is the only  union that  the rights,                                                               
benefits, obligations,  qualities, or  effects of  marriage shall                                                               
be extended or assigned."                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  offered instead  that the  words, "that                                                               
shall  be  valid or  recognized  in  this  State and"  should  be                                                               
deleted, thus  leaving the proposed  language to read,  "No other                                                               
union  is similarly  situated to  a  marriage between  a man  and                                                               
woman and,  therefore, a marriage  between a  man and a  woman is                                                               
the  only  union  to which  the  rights,  benefits,  obligations,                                                               
qualities,  or   effects  of  marriage   shall  be   extended  or                                                               
assigned."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON concurred.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
4:51:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, referring  to  Mr. Clarkson's  initial                                                               
comments,   opined  that   there   actually  are   a  number   of                                                               
constitutional rights  that do apply  in private  situations; for                                                               
example, the  right of  free speech and  the limitation  of libel                                                               
lawsuits apply in disputes between  private individuals.  He said                                                               
he wouldn't oppose  an amendment deleting the  words, "that shall                                                               
be valid or recognized in this State and".                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL  said he  will give consideration  to that                                                               
suggested change.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON, turning  to the issue of whether  HJR 9 constitutes                                                               
a  revision to  the Alaska  State Constitution  or an  amendment,                                                               
opined  that  HJR 9  is  simply  proposing  an amendment,  not  a                                                               
revision,  regardless  of  whether the  aforementioned  suggested                                                               
change is  adopted.  He  then noted  that he'd served  as counsel                                                               
for the  State in the  Bess case, and  that he'd argued  in favor                                                             
viewing the 1998  marriage amendment as an  amendment rather than                                                               
a revision.   After reading portions of Article  XIII, Sections 1                                                               
and 4, of  the Alaska State Constitution, he relayed  that in the                                                               
Bess  case, the  Alaska Supreme  Court said  that there  are both                                                             
qualitative  and quantitative  distinctions between  an amendment                                                               
to the constitution  and a revision to the constitution.   From a                                                               
quantitative perspective,  a proposed constitutional change  is a                                                               
revision  if  it  directly effects  a  modification  to  numerous                                                               
existing provisions  of the  constitution so  as to  constitute a                                                               
change to the substantial entirety  of the constitution, and from                                                               
a qualitative perspective, a proposed  constitutional change is a                                                               
revision if it  has the effect of creating  a far-reaching change                                                               
in the nature of Alaska's basic governmental plan.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON  offered  his  understanding  that  in  determining                                                               
whether  a proposed  constitutional change  is a  revision or  an                                                               
amendment, the core question becomes  whether the proposed change                                                               
is  so  significant   as  to  create  a  need   to  consider  the                                                               
constitution  as   an  organic  whole.     In  other   words,  in                                                               
considering  a  proposed  constitutional   change,  is  one  also                                                               
required to reconsider the entire  structure of the constitution?                                                               
He  opined  that since  the  court  already determined  that  the                                                               
language  that became  the 1998  marriage amendment  was just  an                                                               
amendment, then HJR 9 can be nothing other than an amendment.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
5:01:09 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON concurred  with Ms.  Mischel's  statement that  the                                                               
second sentence of Senate Joint  Resolution 42 was dropped by the                                                               
court  from  the  proposed  1998 ballot  measure  as  being  mere                                                               
surplusage.   He then  offered his  belief that  HJR 9  would not                                                               
affect Alaska's  statutory divorce laws because  a divorce decree                                                               
creates obligations on  and grants rights to only  those who were                                                               
once were married.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG offered  his  understanding that  there                                                               
was  a case  [Swanner v.  Anchorage Equal  Rights Commission]  in                                                             
which the courts  held it was unconstitutional for  a landlord to                                                               
refuse  to rent  an apartment  to a  couple that  wasn't married;                                                               
HJR 9 would reverse that opinion and  have an effect on the equal                                                               
protection clause in that regard.   Also, HJR 9 could potentially                                                               
reverse  the  court's  decision  in  a  case  involving  workers'                                                               
compensation  benefits  -  SLW  v.  State;  an  unmarried  couple                                                             
conceived a  child, the father was  then killed at work,  and the                                                               
question was whether the child  was entitled to recover under the                                                               
state's  workers' compensation  laws,  which, at  the time,  only                                                               
allowed  "legitimate" children  to receive  workers' compensation                                                               
benefits.   In  that case,  the  Alaska Supreme  Court held  that                                                               
there were  no illegitimate children, only  illegitimate parents,                                                               
and extended  the benefits to that  child.  He opined  that under                                                               
HJR 9, that case would be reversed.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said that there  is also a  question in                                                               
his  mind  whether,  under  Alaska  Civil  Liberties  Union,  the                                                             
statute  that  allows  married   couples  to  escape  probate  by                                                               
creating a deed  for tenancy by the entirety wouldn't  apply to a                                                               
same-sex couple  who can't marry.   If such is the  case, [HJR 9]                                                               
would have a  profound effect and require same-sex  couples to go                                                               
through the expensive and  oftentimes difficult probate procedure                                                               
just to  pass the family  residence on to the  surviving partner.                                                               
Noting  that the  issue  before the  committee  also pertains  to                                                               
retirement benefits,  he pointed out  that there are a  number of                                                               
people  working  for the  University  of  Alaska and  the  Alaska                                                               
Railroad  Corporation (ARRC)  whose  rights may  have vested  and                                                               
thus they  may be entitled  to those benefits under  Article XII,                                                               
Section 7.  He remarked:                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     All   of  those   constitutional  provisions   -  equal                                                                    
     protection, the  right to contract with  respect to the                                                                    
     issue  of  tenancy  by the  entirety  ...,  the  vested                                                                    
     retirement  benefits  -  ... are  only  three  distinct                                                                    
     constitutional  protections  that   are  implicated  by                                                                    
     this, and argue in my  mind strongly for the conclusion                                                                    
     that this is a revision, not just an amendment.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
5:08:15 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON opined  that  HJR  9 will  have  no  impact on  the                                                               
Swanner decision because that case  dealt with statutory language                                                             
[AS 18.80.240],  not a constitutional provision,  regarding who a                                                               
private landlord  may prohibit as a  tenant.  With regard  to the                                                               
SLW case,  he opined that HJR  9 won't impact that  case since it                                                             
dealt with  parenthood rather than  marital status.   With regard                                                               
to the  issue of  deeds for  tenancy by  the entirety,  he opined                                                               
that  neither the  Alaska Civil  Liberties Union  case nor  HJR 9                                                             
will  have  an impact  because  current  law stipulates  that  an                                                               
unmarried  couple   cannot  hold  property  as   tenants  by  the                                                               
entirety, and same-sex  couples cannot get married.   With regard                                                               
to the  issue of  retirement benefits  for certain  employees, he                                                               
relayed that he has not yet looked  at the issue of whether HJR 9                                                               
will take away vested rights.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG,  on  the   issue  of  tenancy  by  the                                                               
entirety, clarified that his point is  that in view of the Alaska                                                             
Civil Liberties  Union case, a good  argument could be made  by a                                                             
same-sex  couple that  they are  denied equal  protection [under]                                                               
the  law   with  respect  to   "that  statute"  because   only  a                                                               
heterosexual  married couple  can take  advantage of  it and  the                                                               
same-sex couple is prohibited from  marrying; "that's" subject to                                                               
constitutional challenge now, but wouldn't be under HJR 9.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON agreed.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG opined  that  HJR 9  doesn't deal  with                                                               
same-sex couples only; it also  deals with unmarried heterosexual                                                               
couples and would deny them equal  protection under the law as it                                                               
is extended to married couples, both now and in the future.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON  posited  that although  currently  Alaska  doesn't                                                               
recognize common law  marriage, he doesn't think  that either the                                                               
1998 marriage  amendment or  HJR 9  would prohibit  Alaska courts                                                               
from recognizing those  relationships as being between  a man and                                                               
a woman only  and as marriages albeit sans ceremony.   He said he                                                               
agrees, however,  that HJR 9  would prohibit the  government from                                                               
attaching the privileges of marriage to any other relationships.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
5:15:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  posited that if  a couple were  to meet                                                               
the requirements  of common law  marriage in another  state, then                                                               
the courts  in Alaska  would recognize  that marriage  because it                                                               
was valid in  that other state.  He questioned  whether that view                                                               
would be changed by the passage of HJR 9.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON  reiterated his  belief that  it wouldn't  because a                                                               
common law marriage  is still a relationship between a  man and a                                                               
woman only.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS - surmising that  Representative Gruenberg is of the                                                               
opinion  that  the change  proposed  by  HJR  9 would  require  a                                                               
constitutional convention because it is  a revision, and that Mr.                                                               
Clarkson is  of the opinion that  HJR 9 is merely  an amendment -                                                               
asked Ms. Mischel for her view.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MISCHEL said  she doesn't  share  Mr. Clarkson's  confidence                                                               
that HJR 9 is not a  revision.  The legislature, however, has the                                                               
authority to  pass the resolution,  and the Alaska  Supreme Court                                                               
can  then sort  out  the  question of  whether  it constitutes  a                                                               
revision.   In terms  of property  interests and  divorce decrees                                                               
and other issues  that have been raised, she  observed that there                                                               
are constitutional implications in  modifying or interfering with                                                               
"those  kinds of  relationships"; HJR  9 is  proposing to  insert                                                               
very  broad  language,  she reiterated,  much  broader  than  the                                                               
language of  the aforementioned  second sentence of  Senate Joint                                                               
Resolution 42.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  RAMRAS  asked when  a  citizen  would  assert that  HJR  9                                                               
warrants a constitutional convention.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MISCHEL said  that in  the  past such  assertions were  made                                                               
after the  passage of the  resolutions and before  their language                                                               
was presented to the voters.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLARKSON concurred  and offered  some historical  background                                                               
regarding   the    challenges   pertaining   to    Senate   Joint                                                               
Resolution 42  and other  ballot measures  addressed during  that                                                               
same election.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that should  HJR 9 pass the legislature and                                                               
a  challenge be  raised, it  would be  up to  the Alaska  Supreme                                                               
Court to determine  whether it is an amendment  and thus suitable                                                               
for placement on the ballot.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON concurred.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MS.  MISCHEL, in  response  to a  question,  reiterated that  she                                                               
can't speak  with certainty  that the  Alaska Supreme  Court will                                                               
view HJR 9 as an amendment.   She herself, she offered, would not                                                               
want to  defend it as  a mere amendment because  the implications                                                               
of its  proposed language are  very broad; therefore,  unless the                                                               
court modifies its  analysis, the Bess case  supports her opinion                                                             
that HJR  9 appears to  be a  revision.  She  again acknowledged,                                                               
however, that she could be wrong.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON disagreed.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
5:26:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  referred again  to Romer  as referenced                                                             
in footnote 20  of the Alaska Civil Liberties  Union opinion, and                                                             
asked Ms.  Mischel to elaborate  on her comments as  presented in                                                               
her 4/2/07 written opinion.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MS. MISCHEL offered  that in Romer, the U.S.  Supreme Court found                                                             
that  a proposed  amendment to  the  Colorado State  Constitution                                                               
violated  the federal  equal protection  provision; although  not                                                               
directly related to  the question of whether HJR  9 constitutes a                                                               
revision, when  a court is  analyzing the substantive  effects of                                                               
HJR  9, the  court may  find  that the  federal equal  protection                                                               
provision is also implicated.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG posited  that  because  [HJR 9]  denies                                                               
equal protection  of the  law to  public employees  with same-sex                                                               
domestic  partners, it  violates the  equal protection  clause in                                                               
the U.S.  Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment.   He said  he also                                                               
believes that  there is some  serious question  regarding whether                                                               
it   will  similarly   cause  problems   in   the  Alaska   State                                                               
Constitution.   Regardless of whether  the latter point  is true,                                                               
if  HJR   9  violates  the  federal   Constitution,  the  federal                                                               
supremacy clause takes  precedence.  He then read  footnote 20 of                                                               
the Alaska  Civil Liberties  Union opinion  [original punctuation                                                             
provided although with some formatting changes]:                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Explicitly  denying benefits  to public  employees with                                                                    
     same-sex  domestic partners  would arguably  offend the                                                                    
     Federal Constitution.  In Romer  v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620                                                                    
     (1996), the United States Supreme  Court struck down on                                                                    
     federal equal  protection grounds  an amendment  to the                                                                    
     Colorado  Constitution  that  repealed  all  local  and                                                                    
     statewide  laws  prohibiting  discrimination  based  on                                                                    
     sexual  orientation.    The  Court  explained  that  in                                                                    
     addition to merely repealing state  and local laws, the                                                                    
     amendment  "prohibits  all legislative,  executive,  or                                                                    
     judicial  action  at  any  level   of  state  or  local                                                                    
     government  designed to  protect  the named  class...."                                                                    
     Id. at 624.  The  Court invalidated the amendment under                                                                    
     the  rational   basis  standard  of   judicial  review,                                                                    
     reasoning  that the  amendment could  not satisfy  even                                                                    
     the  minimal  level of  scrutiny.    Id.  at 632.    It                                                                    
     explained that  the amendment's "disqualification  of a                                                                    
     class  of  persons  from the  right  to  seek  specific                                                                    
     protection  from  the  law   is  unprecedented  in  our                                                                    
     jurisprudence....   A law declaring that  in general it                                                                    
     shall be more difficult for  one group of citizens than                                                                    
     for  all others  to  seek aid  from  the government  is                                                                    
     itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the                                                                     
     most literal sense."  Id. at 633.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
5:33:56 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that a  third challenge to HJR 9                                                               
could be that it could  not be constitutionally applied to people                                                               
who've  acquired any  rights to  pensions,  including those  that                                                               
have acquired  them as a result  of the decision in  Alaska Civil                                                             
Liberties Union  and previous retirement  laws pertaining  to the                                                             
University  of Alaska,  the ARRC,  and  other entities  protected                                                               
under Article XII, Section 7, of the Alaska State Constitution.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MS. MISCHEL  offered her belief  that it  is possible that  HJR 9                                                               
would  violate  Article  XII,  Section 7,  of  the  Alaska  State                                                               
Constitution.  Should  HJR 9 pass and survive  a court challenge,                                                               
the question of vested retirement  rights must be reconciled with                                                               
Article  XII,  Section  7,  which   prohibits  the  reduction  of                                                               
retirement  benefits.    Furthermore,  there  are  people  who've                                                               
already qualified  [for benefits]  under the  regulations adopted                                                               
in response  to Alaska Civil  Liberties Union.   She said  she is                                                             
not sure how a conflict between  two sections of the Alaska State                                                               
Constitution would  be dealt with;  normally the  narrower, later                                                               
amendment  would supersede  a broader,  prior amendment.   Again,                                                               
though,  this raises  the issue  of whether  HJR 9  would have  a                                                               
substantive effect  on "other legal  rights" in the  Alaska State                                                               
Constitution.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  COGHILL  disagreed.   Referring  to  the  State's                                                               
different tiers of  retirement benefits, he pointed  out that the                                                               
benefits provided  in one  tier have been  allowed to  stand even                                                               
when  other tiers  have been  instituted.   He surmised  that the                                                               
same  would be  true should  HJR 9  pass the  legislature and  be                                                               
approved by  a majority  of the  voters.   He offered  his belief                                                               
that HJR 9  would not affect Article XII, Section  7, and pointed                                                               
out  that the  legislature  is the  policy-making  body, not  the                                                               
courts.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG, in  response  to  a question,  posited                                                               
that  it  would be  up  to  the  courts  to determine  whether  a                                                               
challenge  asserting that  HJR  9 causes  two  provisions of  the                                                               
Alaska State  Constitution to conflict  with each other  would be                                                               
sustainable.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON, in  response to a question, reiterated  that he has                                                               
not yet looked  at the issue of whether HJR  9 will affect vested                                                               
rights.   With  regard to  the equal  protection issue  raised in                                                               
Romer,  he noted  that since  the  time that  the Alaska  Supreme                                                             
court in Alaska Civil Liberties  Union referenced Romer, the 10th                                                           
Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  considered   a  legal  challenge  to                                                               
Nebraska's  marriage amendment  and upheld  a sentence  virtually                                                               
identical to  language in HJR  9.  He  also pointed out  that the                                                               
constitutional  amendment that  was  dealt with  in Romer  didn't                                                             
just  address   marriage  or   marriage  benefits,   but  instead                                                               
identified  a class  of people  by a  single trait  - that  being                                                               
sexual  orientation -  and denied  them societal  benefits across                                                               
the board; for  example, one question that arose  was whether the                                                               
proposed Colorado  amendment would  have resulted  in homosexuals                                                               
being denied  police protection.   The court  in Romer  found the                                                             
language  of the  Colorado  amendment to  be so  broad  as to  be                                                               
completely  irrational.   To compare  the  Colorado amendment  to                                                               
HJR 9 is  not possible,  he opined, given  the difference  in the                                                               
impact of each.                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG   pointed  out  that   the  legislature                                                               
shouldn't be looking only at how  the courts would view HJR 9 but                                                               
at  how they  as legislators  would  view it.   A  constitutional                                                               
provision   is   unlike   any  other   statute   because   if   a                                                               
constitutional  amendment such  as is  being proposed  via HJR  9                                                               
passes, it will  authorize future legislatures to  the ability to                                                               
pass laws that  are currently prohibited.  Therefore,  HJR 9 must                                                               
be  viewed through  the lens  of time,  he remarked,  and how  it                                                               
might  be interpreted  by future  legislators and  future courts.                                                               
He asked Mr. Clarkson whether he  believes that HJR 9 could allow                                                               
a   future  legislature   to   deny   unmarried  couples   police                                                               
protection, for example.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLARKSON opined that [HJR 9]  won't because it relates to the                                                               
benefits,   attributes,  rights,   obligations,  qualities,   and                                                               
effects of  marriage, and  police protection  is not  divvied out                                                               
based on one's marital status.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRUENBERG  said  he   would  leave  it  to  other                                                               
committee members and  members of the public to  put the proposed                                                               
language in the context of other laws that may be allowed.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
5:45:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion  to adopt Amendment 1, which                                                               
read [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, lines 8-9                                                                                                          
     Delete:                                                                                                                    
     "that shall be valid or recognized in this State and"                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS objected.                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
The committee took an at-ease from 5:46 p.m. to 5:49 p.m.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR RAMRAS removed  his objection to Amendment 1.   There being                                                               
no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
5:49:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report  HJR 9, as amended, out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal note.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
A roll  call vote  was taken.   Representatives  Lynn, Dahlstrom,                                                               
Coghill, Samuels, and  Ramras voted in favor of  reporting HJR 9,                                                               
as  amended,   from  committee.     Representatives   Holmes  and                                                               
Gruenberg  voted  against  it.     Therefore,  CSHJR  9(JUD)  was                                                               
reported out of the House  Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote                                                               
of 5-2.                                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects