Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/03/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
1:16:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to marriage solemnization;
and authorizing elected public officials in the state to
solemnize marriages."
Chair Claman advised he is the sponsor of HB 20, and passed the
gavel to Vice-Chair Fansler.
1:17:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt committee substitute to HB 20,
Version 30-LS0242\J as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for discussion.
1:18:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that the House State Affairs Standing
Committee adopted an amendment clarifying the ability for a
public official to decline to solemnize a marriage, and the
adopted committee substitute offers a slight modification of
that language.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the committee had been
reviewing the original draft from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee [Version D], and that amendments were
prepared based upon Version D. He suggested keeping Version D
in front of the committee based upon the previously drafted
amendments. He noted that the language in Version J, [page 2,
line 3] states that "a public official may refuse to solemnize a
marriage for any reason," with additional reasons listed after
that and it was confusing to him. For clarity, he opined it
should simply be left at "for any reason period."
1:20:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP agreed, and said there should be a period
inserted after "for any reason." He said he could see a public
official refusing because the public official may have personal
history with one or other, or be aware of other incompatibility
issues, and such. In the event the provision spells out
specific reasons, as this bill progresses he could see more
people adding more reasons spelled out.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that the committee is not debating what
the bill should look like, this discussion is to whether Version
J should be adopted. He reminded the committee that Version J
had been circulated several days ago to the entire committee,
with the thought that folks seeking an amendment would use
Version J as their requested amendment.
1:21:34 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised that any amendments drawn up on
Version D would be run by Legislative Legal and Research
Services and it has the ability to conform those amendments into
Version D.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew his objection to Version J.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER noted that there being no objection, Version
J was before the committee.
1:22:22 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN offered an opening statement as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Good afternoon. For the record my name is Matt Claman,
Alaska State Representative for House District 21 in
West Anchorage. I would like to thank you all for
hearing House Bill 20 today.
First, in financially challenging times like we face
today, I'm reminded that part of our role as elected
government officials is to reduce red tape and make
government accessible to the public. In introducing
this bill I'd like to make marriage more easily
accessible. This bill will allow couples to have their
marriages solemnized directly by elected officials. It
allows us to be the friendly face of government while
providing a user-friendly service to the public.
Finally, being able to perform a marriage would be a
privilege and we would be fortunate to have the
opportunity.
With that, I will turn it over to my staff member,
Sara Perman, to explain the bill to you further.
1:23:07 PM
SARAH PERMAN, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, offered a sectional analysis as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
For the record, my name is Sara Perman, aide to
Representative Claman. Thank you to the committee for
hearing House Bill 20 today.
As a great 80s classic quotes: "Marriage. Marriage is
what brings us together today…" House Bill 20 amends
the Alaska Marriage Code to add language that allows
for marriages to be solemnized by elective officials
of the state of Alaska.
Section 1 amends Alaska Statute 25.05.261(a) relating
to who may solemnize a marriage. Currently the statute
only allows for marriage solemnization by
• a minister, priest, rabbi, or commissioned
officer of the Salvation Army, or by the principal
officer or elder of recognized churches or
congregations,
• a marriage commissioner or judicial officer,
• or before or in any religious organization or
congregation House Bill 20 adds language to include
"an individual holding an elective public office in
the state; an individual holding an elective public
office in the state may refuse to solemnize a marriage
for any reason, including for reasons of religious
scruple or conscience".
Section 2 (AS 25.05.281) is amended to include
language that reads that marriages solemnized by
elective officials are considered valid.
The purpose of the bill is to make marriage accessible
to all Alaskan's. We recognize that marriage opens
doors for people. There are over 1,100 places in
federal laws and programs where being married makes a
difference, such as providing access to health care
for one's spouse or having eligibility for family
medical leave. Frankly, we believe that this bill is a
family-first bill that allows people to receive
greater benefits that are good for all Alaskans.
Additionally
• HB 20 also allows elected officials to be good
stewards of government. It allows elective officials
to interact on a one-on-one basis with constituents
providing a service that has a lasting impact on
constituents' lives.
• Whereas couples can currently have anyone
solemnize a marriage through a Marriage Commissioner
Appointment, there is a $25 fee and the process can be
time consuming. Having an elected official available
provides a simplified cost-free outlet.
• This amendment may also apply to couples who may
not be affiliated with a particular religious
organization. They would be able to have an elected
official perform their wedding without having to go
through the process of arranging for a marriage
commissioner appointment.
• In smaller towns or rural areas with limited
resources- this change provides one more outlet for
marriage solemnization. For example, if a couple in a
remote Alaskan village are set to be married and the
minister becomes ill, the mayor could step in on short
notice.
With that, I'll note that the Department of Health and
Social Services has assigned a zero fiscal note to
this bill. This bill also may remove a financial cost
to citizens who would otherwise pay $25 for a Marriage
Commissioner Appointment.
With that Mr. Chair, I would be happy to answer any
questions the committee may have.
1:26:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said there does not appear to be a
compelling reason to require Alaskans to pay a $25 charge to be
married by an elected official, and asked whether there would be
a $25 charge under other circumstances. He related that he
cannot see why public officials would "be on a pedestal" or
treated any better or differently than anyone else, and be
exempt from the $25 fee other people are required to pay.
CHAIR CLAMAN responded that the people getting married pay the
$25 fee, and this is an effort to make it easier for those who
prefer to get married in that fashion. There is a long
tradition of having certain individuals authorized to perform
marriages in light of religious figures, and under maritime law,
captains on ships have the authority at sea to perform
marriages. The country has always recognized that everyone is
not authorized to solemnize marriage, and people have made
choices about having some limits. This, he explained, is an
effort to have folks, recognized as public officials, perform
the ceremony.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that the bill is about making
marriage easier to accomplish, and in current statute and this
bill, it doesn't change the fact that any Alaskan can go to a
courthouse and become a marriage commissioner. He related that
he still doesn't see the reason for requiring someone to go
through the extra overhead and expense of becoming a marriage
commissioner if that statute says that anyone can perform the
marriage anyway. He commented that the committee should just
recognize that anyone can perform the marriage and they don't
need the government giving them a piece of paper saying they are
a marriage commissioner because the state is not vetting,
filtering, or requiring training. He said he is not convinced
the state should charge anyone any money.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER asked that he save his comments for the
discussion.
1:30:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he appreciates the spirit of the
amendment in the House State Affairs Standing Committee about
giving permissive language, and certainly it does honor the
conscience of being an elected official. He asked whether the
sponsor would be willing to extend that permissive language to
leaders of recognized churches and their congregations.
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that [AS 25.05.261(a)] paragraphs (1) and
(3) in statute are both areas he would be willing to add
Representative Kopp's suggestion into the group, even though the
constitution already provides those protections.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that she be allowed to dialogue with
Representative Eastman in the spirit of this being the Gruenberg
Room, and stated that Representative Eastman made good points
but, she explained, "you can't do everything in one bill" and
this bill is about allowing elected officials to solemnize a
marriage. She pointed out that Representative Eastman is
welcome to draft another bill wherein his suggestions would be
solved and offered the expression that a legislator can't
"Christmas Tree" everything onto one bill or it would be a big
and long bill.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that the cost of drafting a
bill is approximately $1,000-$2,000 and this is about
streamlining the process. She said it is germane for
Representative Eastman to discuss this in this bill.
1:33:45- PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the process when the average
Alaskan obtains the marriage commissioner certificate besides
the $25 fee.
CHAIR CLAMAN replied the person fills out a form at the
courthouse, pays the fee, and receives a paper certificate valid
for 24-hours, for a particular day to perform a ceremony. He
said he was unsure whether the process could be done online.
1:35:20 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, said she was
available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether an application to
become a marriage commissioner could be done online, and the
logic behind having a marriage commissioner, and having a
limited class of people allowed to solemnize marriages.
1:36:06 PM
MS. MEADE advised that she was unfamiliar with the history as to
why individual Alaskans can become marriage commissioners.
Although, she said she has the sense, from personal history,
that individuals cannot simply go to the court and be
commissioned to be an officiant in someone else's marriage. To
her knowledge that ability is not in every state. As to the
application process, people must go to the courthouse because
the court system does not have the ability to accept online
requests. She continued that people go to the courthouse,
complete the application, pay the $25 filing fee which goes to
the general fund, and the person's commission is limited in
time.
1:37:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the sponsor to explain the
original rationale behind limiting solemnizing solely to
religious and spiritual officials.
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that it was the same as the prior answer,
this country's tradition hasn't gotten to the point where it
wants to say that everyone can solemnize a marriage. Probably,
he opined, in the early days of this country the only people
solemnizing marriages were religious officials, and then someone
probably said they didn't belong to that particular
organization, and in small communities that may have led to
justices of the peace. There has been some interest in having
some limits on the group of people that can solemnize a
marriage. Consistent with Representative LeDoux's comment, he
remarked that this effort was simply to try to make it a little
easier for people to ask a public official they like to
solemnize the marriage, thereby taking one step out of the
process.
1:40:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that Alaska does not let just
anyone solemnize a marriage, although, through the marriage
commissioners isn't the state really letting just anyone
solemnize a marriage. She asked whether there are any
limitations on who can be a marriage commissioner.
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that he doesn't believe so, if anything it
is probably there to keep a record of those performing that
function, in the same sense, the state only allows courts to
perform divorces and the rationale is to know who is actually
doing it.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that while she understands that one
needs to keep a record of the marriage, what is the rationale
for the requirement that individual's must get the government's
permission in order to get married.
1:42:01 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said the best answer he can offer is that the
process of undoing a marriage is one in which the state does
give that authority to courts. The notion that the state would
go to a non-government monitored process of ending marriages
would suggest that the government should at least have some
minor role in being able to certify that the marriage meets all
of the requirements. He recalled that Representative LeDoux and
he were once involved in a case in which one of the questions
was [the date] in which the individuals were actually married.
Since the court is involved in ending that union, at least at
the minimum level, the government needs to be involved in
certifying when the day occurred. He related there is a
different question about how broad to open it up for people to
sign certificates stating that the couple is now married. That
is not the intent of this bill, it is to just slightly expand
the group, he explained.
1:44:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said there has always been concern about who
can solemnize a marriage in the law, and the state hold marriage
in high regard because it attaches a host of benefits to married
couples. He explained that the form a marriage commissioner
fills out is there for the courts to track who it is vesting
authority in, on behalf of the State of Alaska, to solemnize
marriage because the state does see it as profoundly important.
1:46:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD explained that thousands of years ago a
lot of the laws around marriage were established, and many laws
based on biblical principles. She said that the Bible defines
marriage as between one man and one woman of which the
Constitution of the State of Alaska still states, and public
officials swear to uphold that constitution. She expressed that
she refuses to redefine marriage based on some misguided
reinterpretations of American society and she will not yield to
the opinion of a handful of judges. This bill expands the
conversation, and she appreciates the exemption, but if she
receives an exemption, every public official should have that
exemption. She stated that this opens up an important
discussion.
1:47:50 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out that members have taken an
indulgence to have a little cross talk, and asked that the
members focus on questions specifically for the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER opened public testimony on HB 20.
1:48:38 PM
TRISTAN WALSH, Alaskans for Equality, voiced his support for HB
20, because it give many people in Alaska the chance to ask
someone they know [to solemnize a marriage], such as a public
official in rural Alaska. He commented that it is another way
they can celebrate the bond of marriage and not worry about
going through a lot of hoops to have someone perform their
marriage.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 20.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER moved the committee to amendments, and
pointed out that most of the amendments are based on Version D
rather than Version J, the committee's working document. He
noted that Legislative Legal and Research Services has been
given authority to conform the amendments to the appropriate
version of the bill should any amendments be adopted.
1:50:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 30-
LS0242\J.1 which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 1 - 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"(4) by an individual holding an elective
public office in the state.
* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a
duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage
under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section to solemnize
a marriage."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CHAIR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
1:51:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that in the same spirit as the
amendment adopted in the House State Affairs Standing Committee,
this amendment incorporates that amendment and extends the
permissive language. He referred to [AS 25.05.261(a) Version D,
page 1, lines 5-9,] as follows:
(a) Marriages may be solemnized
(1) by a minister, priest, or rabbi of any
church or congregation in the state, or by a
commissioned officer of the Salvation Army, or by the
principal officer or elder of recognized churches or
congregations that traditionally do not have regular
ministers, priests, or rabbis, anywhere within the
state;
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to [AS 25.05.261(a)(3), page 1,
lines 12-14, which read as follows:
(3) before or in any religious organization
or congregation according to the establish ritual or
form commonly practiced in the organization or
congregation; or
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said "and then elected officials." He
referred to "all three of those" and explained that the
authorization in the law to solemnize a marriage would not imply
a duty on those persons to solemnize a marriage. He further
explained that it includes elected officials and it includes the
same "protection of conscience" to the spiritual leaders of the
various faith communities and its congregations.
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection.
1:53:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for purposes of discussion. He
suggested it would be effective to take one amendment at a time
and treat each on its merits.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised that the intention of the committee
is to act on one amendment at a time.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection and invited
other members to "chime in first."
1:53:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that judges were left off of
Amendment 1, and offered a friendly amendment to include judges
because all public officials should be allowed an exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised that he was not open to that
friendly amendment because after meeting with several judges at
each level of the judiciary, the counsel he received was that
Alaska's judges almost never perform marriages and it is really
not an issue. Although, he offered, if it becomes a problem
where they feel their professional conscience was being trampled
on, they could let the legislature know that they would like an
exemption. He acknowledged that it is a friendly amendment, but
his fear was that the bill ultimately would not pass because of
the fight over the judiciary, thereby, not extending the
intended protection to the faith communities and faith leaders.
At this time, he related, his main concern is that Alaska's
churches and religious leaders cannot be compelled to solemnize
marriage outside of their faith tradition.
1:56:18 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, noted that as
Representative Kopp mentioned, adding the language that
"judicial officers could be excused for certain marriages" could
be problematic. The reason being, she explained, their
interpretation of the judicial cannon is that judges must take
anything that comes before them in the course of their duties.
Judges would not, by their ethical guidelines, be able to not
perform marriages for certain people unless the judge opts to
not perform any marriages. Therefore, by including in the
statute that a judicial officer would not be required, would
present a conflict of what has been determined to be the case
for judicial officers, she offered.
1:57:25 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER noted that Representative Reinbold offered a
friendly amendment and asked whether she would like to make it a
formal [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 1
to Amendment 1, [page 1, line 6 of Amendment 1] to include the
Alaska Court System with the religious exemption, which would
include (a)(1) through (4), line 6 of Amendment 1. She
explained that the Alaska Court System is an entire branch of
government and it is sticky matter when a complete branch of
government is excluded. She voiced that the legislature and the
executive branch receive that exemption and the judiciary branch
needs the right to refuse and the right of protection of
conscience as well. She stated there has been mischief at the
court in redefining marriage and not even going through the
people, she remarked, and the courts need to be protected as
well.
CHAIR CLAMAN objected to [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment
1.
1:59:06 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER stated that his understanding of
Representative Reinbold's amendment was that [AS 25.05.61(c),
page 1, lines 5-6 of Amendment 1], [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 would read as follows:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or
implies a duty on a person authorized to solemnize a
marriage under (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this
section to solemnize a marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said "That is correct."
1:59:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated that in dealing with this
amendment the committee is not taking each amendment on its
merits as previously agreed, and explained that he prepared a
separate amendment that does exactly what Representative
Reinbold is attempting to do. In recognizing there are various
degrees by which this issue can be addressed in different
amendments, he requested that Representative Reinbold withdraw
[Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 solely because he
prepared a specific amendment regarding this exact issue.
2:00:49 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:00 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.
2:02:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN identified that he was previously
referring to Amendment 3, and that it is an outgrowth of his
conversation with Representative Kopp in dealing with whether or
not to specifically exclude judicial officers and marriage
commissioners from this protection. Amendment 3 would treat the
judiciary the same as everyone else in subsection (c), he said.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER noted there was a request that Representative
Reinbold withdraw [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 and
asked whether she wishes to continue with [Conceptual] Amendment
1.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated that this is important and that
it is much easier and clearer to do it right here because all it
does is add paragraph (2). She then agreed to withdraw
[Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, but stressed that she
wants to ensure that paragraph (2)'s specific language is
included in Amendment 3.
2:04:10 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER said that [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 has been withdrawn. He asked for further discussion
on Amendment 1, which refers to solely to paragraphs (a)(1),
(3), and (4).
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that Amendment 1 basically changes
the language in Version J, [page 2, lines 1-4] which read as
follows:
(4) by an individual holding an elective
public office in the state; an individual holding an
elective public office in the state may refuse to
solemnize a marriage for any reason, including for
reasons of religious scruple or conscience.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that Amendment 1 scrubbed that
language out, but the language "religious scruple" should be
included to avoid any suggestion that religious scruple wouldn't
be an appropriate reason for deciding not to solemnize a
marriage.
2:06:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered that Amendment 1 appears to be clear
on its face that when talking about religious leaders and their
congregations, that would be a reason that they would refuse.
He said "it's like double speak." He explained that this
amendment simply says they are authorized to solemnize, but
those institutions have no duty to solemnize. Therefore, if you
want to extend for reasons of religious scruple or conscience,
the amendment is clear on its face that that is the reason they
are doing it. As far as elected officials, when it says they
have no duty, they cannot do it for any reason because it is
"any and all reasons." Also, he commented, those specific words
will invite a lot of vigorous and robust discussion as this bill
works its way through the process, and those words are
fundamentally implied in Amendment 1. He opined that that
language will actually harm the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP continued that he believes that Nancy Meade,
Alaska Court System, said that a judge can just decide not to
perform marriages and it is not considered an ethical violation.
He stated that he was unsure whether he was restating Ms. Meade
correctly.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER said his office would contact Ms. Meade to
call in.
2:08:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that she does not want her
suggestion to be an unfriendly [conceptual] amendment, but her
thoughts are that "what this implies is, I think, that you can
refuse to authorize a marriage for any legal reason."
Certainly, she pointed out, this wouldn't give anyone the right
to refuse to [solemnize] a marriage for a reason that was not
legal, and she said she wants to be sure that refusing to
solemnize a marriage based upon religious scruple is considered
a legal reason for refusing to solemnize a marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP opined that when it is clearly put in the
law that there is no duty, which means "you don't have any duty,
nobody can tell you you [sic] have to do this for any reason."
He clarified that that's what is says on its face and maybe
another counsel should weigh in.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised that Nancy Meade was online, and
asked Representative Kopp to restate his question.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether he heard correctly that Ms.
Meade had advised that if a judge has a policy or just makes a
decision not to solemnize marriages, there are no ethical
repercussions as it is strictly up to the judge, personally, to
decide whether to solemnize marriages or not.
2:11:43 PM
MS. MEADE explained that judges and magistrates are bound by the
cannons of judicial conduct and they do have an ethical duty to
resolve any matter brought before them as a judge, and to
perform other duties brought before them as a judge. In
Anchorage, law clerks are delegated a duty through a presiding
judge order to perform marriages. Law clerks are not bound by
the cannons of judicial conduct and they could refuse to
solemnize any marriages during their clerkship. Although, if
they say they are going to perform marriages, they need to
perform all marriages without making judgment calls about the
couple coming before them for any reason.
2:13:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred Linda Bruce, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, to a matter regarding wordsmithing [page 2,
lines 3-4], in Version J, and he paraphrased as follows:
A public -- an elective public office in the state may
refuse to solemnize a marriage for any reason, and
then we -- we add the reason, including for reasons of
religious scruple or conscience.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that the question is whether Amendment
1 [page 1, lines 5-6] fully incorporate that legally into the
law, and he paraphrased as follows:
Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty on a
person authorized to solemnize a marriage under
(a)(1), which is religious leaders, (3) congregations,
and (4) elected officials, of this section to
solemnize a marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP further asked that if it says that those
authorized persons do not have a duty to solemnize, whether that
is the equivalent to what is in Version J, page 2, lines 2-4.
2:14:49 PM
LINDA BRUCE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, responded
that in her opinion, the language of "no duty" would imply that
an individual under one of those subsections may refuse to
solemnize a marriage for any reason because they do not have a
duty to solemnize that marriage.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER noted that Representative Eastman believes
Amendment 2 speaks to this issue.
2:15:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that, clearly, the laws of the
State of Alaska do not allow discrimination based upon race.
Under Amendment 1, if someone refused to solemnize the marriage
of an interracial couple, would that person be open for civil or
criminal liability, she asked.
MS. BRUCE answered that under the state's antidiscrimination
provision, it is likely that a person refusing to solemnize a
marriage for an interracial couple due to a matter of religious
conscience may be violating the antidiscrimination provision
under state statute.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that under Amendment 1, as it now
stands, if someone said they would not solemnize a same sex
marriage, would that open them up to liability. She continued,
that in the event Ms. Bruce's answer was in the affirmative, she
asked whether the language used in Version J would close that
matter.
MS. BRUCE responded that other states have similar provisions in
their state codes with several cases pending on this specific
issue, and it is unclear how the courts will decide the issue
given the competing interest. However, it is likely a court's
decision will depend upon the facts of the case, for example,
she explained, under Alaska State Statute "we currently only
permit these individuals to solemnize marriages, we don't
require them to."
2:18:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that in the event a person felt
uncomfortable solemnizing a same sex marriage, would the person
feel better with a statute as it reads in Version J,
specifically including "no duty for reasons of religious scruple
or conscience," or whether they should feel perfectly
comfortable with Amendment 1.
2:18:54 PM
MS. BRUCE replied that she was unsure which would make a person
more comfortable because she does think that Amendment 1, by
requiring no duty, still encompasses those persons who may
object for religious reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned why wouldn't the horrendous
example of refusing to solemnize an interracial marriage be
covered.
2:20:13 PM
MS. BRUCE answered that in looking at the state's anti-
discrimination statute, it provides that discrimination may not
occur against an inhabitant of the state because of, and one
reason is race. She advised that she did not see sexual
orientation listed. She then referred to AS 18.80.210, Civil
Rights, which read as follows:
AS 18.80.210. Civil Rights.
The opportunity to obtain employment, credit and
financing, public accommodations, housing
accommodations, and other property without
discrimination because of sex, physical or mental
disability, marital status, changes in marital status,
pregnancy, parenthood, race, religion, color, or
national origin is a civil right.
MS. BRUCE said she does not know whether the solemnization of
marriages would actually even fall under the antidiscrimination
provision. She commented that if it was challenged, it may not
be on anti-discrimination grounds through state law, and instead
challenged as these laws are being challenged in other states,
under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
2:21:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered that what he sees with Amendment
1 is an effort in state statute to create the opportunity for
someone who legally has the option of solemnizing a marriage,
not to do so under a number of circumstances. Fundamentally, he
opined, under cases in other states and recent court decisions
that it will be difficult. He referred to a lawsuit that was
directly referenced in a letter to this committee wherein a
judge was sued for discrimination simply for a comment on a
hypothetical situation involving someone who never actually
asked the judge to solemnize her marriage. He offered that he
drafted an amendment because Amendment 1 doesn't deal with
judges, and in creating a separate option where elected
officials do not have to go the route of participating in the
marriage solemnizing process, judges would be protected from
charges of discrimination if they simply refused to do all
marriages. Although, if a legislator decided to solemnize even
one marriage they now come open to the charge of discrimination.
Amendment 1 doesn't distinguish between the ability to
participate in marriage at all versus the ability to participate
in each individual particular marriage decision, he said. He
said this amendment could be construed that a person has the
right not to participate, but they chose to participate and now
that person has to live with whatever implications and
consequences there are further down the line. The United States
Supreme Court decided that discrimination doesn't have to
necessarily be proved to be intentional, it can simply be
(indisc.). Fundamentally, he opined, the tension is the idea
that the legislature is creating this special privilege or right
for elected officials to participate in marriage, and if he is
able to "take part in this kinda cool thing" and someone else
can't participate in this cool thing then there's a question of
discrimination. He related that there needs to be a serious
discussion about just getting rid of the idea that "we want to
create this special cool thing for people to participate in"
because it has implications.
2:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that she cannot support the
amendment because she supports protection for all and not just
two branches of government. Representative Reinbold offered
that the language added in Version J is valuable language and
she then paraphrased the definition of scruple as follows:
It is a feeling or doubt or hesitation with regard to
the morality or proprietary of the action.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that it is important for even
non-religious people to have the ability, based on their belief
system, to be able to refuse. She remarked that she was
confused that in Sec. [2], it read "implies or a duty," and that
possibly someone may interpret it as a responsibility, that word
can be played with. She will be a no vote on Amendment 1, and
she related that she appreciates Version J's language on page 2,
line 1-[4].
2:30:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reminded the committee that Ms. Bruce had
advised that the amendment covers the language that it replaces
in its entirety. He pointed out that Ms. Bruce also advised
that "discrimination claims would not be brought under this
section of the law at all." He remarked that the committee
would never write into the law acts of discrimination and "if we
have religious scruples, that would be very offensive to someone
who maybe just hates people and it has nothing to do with a
religious conviction, they just don't like people for whatever
reason, but they are atheists and they have -- have no -- no and
we would -- they would also want to have their -- their
reasons." He described Amendment 1 as elegantly written in that
it covers all of the committee's concerns, help's expedite the
bill's passage, and it incorporates the bill sponsor's intent.
He stated that "marriage is not a "cool thing," it's a wonderful
blessing for whoever is seeking it, and this amendment helps
make that happen.
2:32:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1.
2:32:47 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:21 p.m. to 2:43 p.m.
2:43:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1.
2:43:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he appreciates the language that
Representative LeDoux proposed in Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1, that it be adopted as a committee substitute, and
related that he is greatly considering Conceptual Amendment 2 to
Amendment 1 as Amendment Zero. He opined that the committee
needs to go through the amendments and whichever amendment is
adopted, have a reconciliation at the end. Otherwise, he
commented, doing it each step along the way puts the cart before
the horse.
2:44:35 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order. He stated that the
committee is dealing with these amendments one amendment at a
time and each time Representative Eastman refers to these other
amendments he is doing exactly what he says he does not want to
do. He then called for the question on Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER recapped that the committee is working
off of Version J, Amendment 1, and there was a call for the
question adopting Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interjected that he did not think his
question was really answered there.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD interjected that she did not get to
comment after Representative LeDoux withdrew her [conceptual]
amendment.
2:45:30 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER said he did not hear a question ...
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN interjected that his question was whether
the committee was working on amendments one at a time, because
if the committee is now replacing the committee substitute with
Amendment 1, that's an entirely different process and he does
not want to do that.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised that Version J would be amended if
Amendment 1 passes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN argued that if the committee does that,
the committee does need to have the whole conversation all at
once and figure out the language. He pointed out that it's one
thing to have the discussions in stair-steps and come back and
figure it out at the end, but if the committee is incorporating
everything as amendments pass, now the committee is replacing
the language that was proposed before the committee substitute.
2:46:30 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER said that he absolutely understands what
Representative Eastman is getting at, and that it is fortunate
this is a short two-page bill and each member will be able to
maintain what the differences are between them and continue to
build off of that.
2:47:14 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised there was an undebatable call for the
question, and requested a roll call.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected because Representative Reinbold
was still in the queue.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD objected.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER requested a roll call vote on the call for
the question on the adoption of Amendment 1.
2:47:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:47 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.
2:48:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his call for the question because he was
confident that with all of the discussion that had taken place,
Representative Reinbold could complete her comments quickly.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the public needs to understand that
the committee is voting on Amendment 1. She referred to page
[1], lines 1-3, of the amendment and paraphrased as follows:
Delete all material, and the material says: by an
individual holding an elective public office in the
state -- an individual holding an elective public
office in the state may refuse to solemnize a marriage
for any reason including reasons based on religious
scruple or conscience.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD described it as good language and she
that she does not support deleting that language. Amendment 1
also excludes an entire branch of government, and it does not
protect all three branches of government. Therefore, she said
she cannot support Amendment 1.
2:49:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to lay Amendment 1 on the table,
and explained that the committee could come back to it because
he doesn't want Version J and Amendment 1 to replace each other
until after the full discussion.
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
2:50:14 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
2:50:46 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER asked for a roll call vote to lay Amendment 1
on the table.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of laying Amendment 1 on the table.
Representatives Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Fansler, and
Claman voted against it. Therefore, the motion failed to pass
by a vote of 5-2.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER requested a roll call vote on the adoption of
Amendment 1.
2:52:08 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Claman, Kopp,
Fansler, LeDoux, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of adopting
Amendment 1. Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she did not appreciate
the fact that several committee members left this room during
committee hours and made decisions behind closed doors.
2:53:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30-
LS0242\D.12, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "elected public officials"
Insert "any person"
Page 1, line 4, through page 2, line 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 25.05.261(a) is amended to read:
(a) Marriages may be solemnized by any person in
the state
[(1) BY A MINISTER, PRIEST, OR RABBI OF ANY
CHURCH OR CONGREGATION IN THE STATE, OR BY A
COMMISSIONED OFFICER OF THE SALVATION ARMY, OR BY THE
PRINCIPAL OFFICER OR ELDER OF RECOGNIZED CHURCHES OR
CONGREGATIONS THAT TRADITIONALLY DO NOT HAVE REGULAR
MINISTERS, PRIESTS, OR RABBIS, ANYWHERE WITHIN THE
STATE;
(2) BY A MARRIAGE COMMISSIONER OR JUDICIAL
OFFICER OF THE STATE ANYWHERE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSIONER OR OFFICER; OR
(3) BEFORE OR IN ANY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
OR CONGREGATION ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED RITUAL OR
FORM COMMONLY PRACTICED IN THE ORGANIZATION OR
CONGREGATION].
* Sec. 2. AS 22.15.100(3); AS 25.05.081, 25.05.281,
and 25.05.371 are repealed."
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
2:53:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that Amendment 2 makes clear that
"no longer would you or I" need to go to the courthouse, waste
time and money, and receive a piece of paper that is valid for
24-hours, to do what is already allowed in statute and perform a
marriage. He stated that he is sympathetic to the inspiration
behind HB 20 regarding removing that requirement from
legislators when performing a marriage ceremony, thereby,
removing the inconvenience, heartache, waste of time and money,
to legislators. He said that when he married, they had to take
that trip, pay the fees, and nothing was gained by it other than
the government collecting money and giving them a piece of paper
they could have done without. The added benefit is simply
recognizing that anyone in Alaska can already perform a
marriage, but for this bureaucratic impediment. This will take
the committee in great strides toward resolving other conflicts
that are coming up because once there is "that special cool
exemption," there are special requirements that go along with
that. He then opined that there are arguments to be made for
discrimination and so forth. What is cool here, is not marriage
itself, but who "gets to do it," he clarified. It is important
for the committee to recognize that Alaska no longer requires a
person solemnizing a marriage to have a theology degree, and
there is nothing against marriage to say that that fee and that
bureaucracy is not needed. A marriage license is required with
a place to sign and there is a process to decide whether the
marriage license is valid. The courts do not add anything to
that marriage license process by requiring a legislator to go to
the courthouse, pay a fee, and receive a piece of paper which is
only valid for a day, he said.
2:57:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed out that with the court issuing a
marriage commissioner license, it can verify the person is over
the age of 18 years, and it also has a full record of who the
state has invested authority in to consecrate a marriage. He
stressed that it cannot be overstated how important a commitment
that is, which is why the law doesn't throw open the door to any
persons, and it is descriptive in who may solemnize a marriage.
While he understands Representative Eastman's desire to possibly
be more inclusive, he opined that the careful thought analysis
would more come along the lines of classes of persons. He
stated that allowing just any person diminishes how important
the marriage commitment is, and the fact that a person must pay
a small fee to get a marriage commissioner license indicates the
pause the state wants everyone to have before entering into a
commitment, or being the one to solemnize that commitment. He
remarked that the faith community has the same view, it wants
people to have pause because the gravity of the decision is
significant.
2:59:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection to Amendment 2, because it
is inconsistent with the limited purpose of the bill itself, and
he completely agrees with the reasons articulated by
Representative Kopp.
2:59:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said that upon contemplation he
agrees there is a certain level of deliberateness or
intentionality that should be associated with the act in solemn
ritual. He added that in a certain sense, possibly for some
people the speed bump makes sense in that, almost for the sake
of the ritual, it adds to the deliberateness of the ceremony by
actually getting a certificate and becoming a marriage
commissioner. He said he would be a no vote.
3:01:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related that each of these concerns could
easily be resolved through Amendment 2. He remarked that there
is nothing about paying a fee on top of the required fee for the
marriage license that creates a solemnity experience for
marriage because the paying of the fee is actually invisible to
the folks getting married. The marriage license is a contract
and people can attach any number of solemn expressions of
sincerity in keeping with it in whatever manner the couple
wishes to solemnize their marriage. This discussion is outside
of that experience and, he argued that marriage is not made
special because there are multiple bureaucratic fees attached to
it.
3:03:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said Amendment 2 gives her pause because
she does not know what Representative Eastman meant by "any
person." Although, she said she does understand Representative
Eastman sentiments as to why should there be a ruling class that
is allowed to perform marriages and excludes other people.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised there is no statutory requirement
that the person be 18 years old, and this doesn't change the way
that that would necessarily attach. It is saying that it is no
longer on the special person, whether a legislator or anyone
else, this is simply on those people signing the marriage
contract. He explained that they are the special people in this
situation, not the fact that someone is an elected official or
anyone else.
3:04:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP noted that the Alaska Court System website
reads that the marriage commissioner shall be 18 years of age,
or older, and he was unaware whether that was a state policy.
He opined that the intent of the state is to have adults as
marriage commissioners.
3:05:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN wrapped up by saying that within any of
the other amendments, the committee will not be able to avoid
the sticking point of discrimination on the one side, it's
having the opportunity to marry versus having a duty or
responsibility. He said he cannot see any way to close the door
to attaching the potential for discrimination lawsuits against
any legislators without taking a step in this direction. As
long as the legislators create themselves as another special
class able to solemnize marriages, there will be issues where
people are concerned that someone in the future will be accused
of being somehow prejudicial against who they marry or don't
marry.
In the past, when it was simply marriage, there was no
expectation that a person could tell a pastor, rabbi, elected
official, judge, or another person, they had to perform the
marriage ceremony. In the event they had a reason not to
perform the marriage ceremony, they just didn't marry the
couple. He doesn't want to create a situation wherein someone
has an expectation that someone will marry them even if that
person doesn't believe it is the right thing to do because the
couple is too young or not thinking straight, and thereby be
subject to a lawsuit. He then related a situation as a military
officer. By opening this up to everyone, it ensures that no
matter who wants to get married, they have someone to go to and
perform the marriage ceremony, he said.
3:10:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD moved to lay Amendment 2 on the table.
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER asked for a roll call vote to lay Amendment 2
on the table.
3:10:37 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of laying Amendment 2 on the table.
Representatives Claman, Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, Ledoux, and
Fansler voted against it. Therefore, the motion failed to pass
by a vote of 5-2.
VICE CHAIR FANSER requested a roll call vote on the adoption of
Amendment 2.
3:11:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Claman, Kreiss-Tomkins,
LeDoux, Fansler, Reinbold, and Kopp voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed to pass by a vote of 6-1.
3:12:24 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:12 p.m. to 3:13 p.m.
3:13:13 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised that the meeting was adjourned.
[HB 20 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Public Offices Commission Appointment-Adam Schwemley Application and Resume 3.1.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Public Offices Commission Appointment-Robert Clift Application 3.1.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Draft Proposed CS ver J 3.1.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Sponsor Statement 2.24.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Explanation of Changes ver J 3.1.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document-Letter ATE 2.15.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document-Letter Joy Lutheran Church 2.16.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Opposing Document-Letter Alaska Family Action 2.16.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Fiscal Note DHSS-BVS 2.13.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Amendments 1-12 3.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Amendment 1 replacement 3.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/3/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |