Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/04/2020 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 | |
| HB148 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 148-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
1:10:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 148, "An Act relating to solemnization of
marriage."
1:10:49 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Representative Drummond.
1:11:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 148. He stated
that at present, during the solemnization of marriage, couples
must assent to the marriage in the presence of each other, the
person solemnizing the marriage, and at least two additional
witnesses, and afterwards all parties must sign the marriage
certificates. He explained that HB 148 would eliminate the
marriage witness requirement for the two additional witnesses at
marriage solemnization and the signatures of those two witnesses
on marriage certificates. He said that these changes would
bring Alaska's ceremonial requirements into the modern age and
help support Alaska's destination wedding industry, while
preserving the integrity of marriage solemnization.
1:11:49 PM
[REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND passed the gavel to Representative
Kopp.]
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that Alaska is one of 20 states that require
two wedding witnesses in addition to the person officiating the
marriage, and there are 25 states that do not require any
wedding witnesses. He said that wedding witnesses played a
critical role in past centuries when record keeping was less
automated and less accurate. He said that in England prior to
the 18th century, legal requirements of marriage were governed
by the canon law of the Church of England, and a marriage was
considered valid as long as the union was consented to by both
parties and celebrated by an Anglican clergyman. He said that
this largely informal process, which dictated the validity of
marriage, allowed for the proliferation of clandestine
marriages. In 1746 a woman laid claim to the recently deceased
Captain John Campbell's pension on the basis that she married
him in a clandestine ceremony, but a problem arose because
another woman claimed that she too was the wife of the captain.
CHAIR CLAMAN said that the confusion that ensued from an
inability to verify marriage claims led parliament to pass An
Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage, know as
the Marriage Act of 1753. He explained that the Act formalized
the marriage process, requiring that marriages be viewed by
witnesses who could later be called on to confirm that the
marriage took place; an extra precaution should marriage records
be damaged or go missing. He said that the Marriage Act of 1753
is the historical basis for the two-witness requirement.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that the role of wedding witnesses is
ceremonial in modern times. In Alaska, the person solemnizing
the ceremony must meet certain criteria; however, the law does
not require any form of witness verification, proof of
identification, language comprehension, and no address
validation. He said that HB 148 would allow Alaska to compete
more directly with states such as Hawaii and Florida, which
require no wedding witnesses, and lead the nation in destination
weddings. He expressed that destination weddings, often on
mountaintops and glaciers, are a growing business in Alaska. He
said that the requirement of two wedding witnesses makes the
state less attractive for many couples who travel from further
away and do not want the financial burden of a larger wedding.
He explained that couples who come to Alaska without their own
witnesses are tasked with finding strangers to witness their
wedding, and the burden of supplying these witnesses often falls
to those who work in Alaska's wedding industry; who ask friends
and family to witness the weddings of their out-of-town clients.
He expressed that the additional witness requirement can place
an increased financial burden on the couple, in addition to the
awkwardness of having strangers witness the wedding. He said
that for a wedding in a remote location, such as a glacier
accessed by helicopter, a couple must pay extra seating costs to
transport the witnesses.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that at present, destination weddings bring
in an estimated $1 million in revenue to Alaska, in the form of
roughly 500 destination weddings a year; this revenue figure
does not consider the fact that more than 90 percent of the out-
of-state couples who come to Alaska to get married stay for days
and weeks to explore the state. He expressed that the resulting
benefit to Alaska's tourism industry is substantial, and HB 148
would simplify the wedding process by reducing the number of
hurdles a couple must address to get married.
1:15:24 PM
SOPHIE JONES, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, offered an explanation on the Sectional Analysis of
HB 148 [hard copy included in the committee packet], on behalf
of Representative Matt Claman, prime sponsor. She explained
that Section 1 of HB 148 would amend AS 25.05.301, by
eliminating the requirement of two witnesses at a marriage
solemnization. She stated that Section 2 of HB 148 would amend
AS 25.05.32, by eliminating the requirement of the signatures of
two witnesses on marriage certificates. She said that Section 3
of HB 148 would amend AS 25.05.361, by deleting language to
conform with changes made in Section 1 of the proposed
legislation. She added that Section 4 of HB 148 would repeal AS
25.05.041(a)(3), and AS 25.05.041(a)(5), to conform with changes
made in Section 1 of the proposed legislation.
1:16:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification on clandestine
marriage.
1:16:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that his understanding is that a
clandestine marriage is one which takes place in a private
place, with a couple and a priest.
1:17:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he thinks there is a
modern equivalent to clandestine marriage in some jurisdictions;
there are secret marriage licenses that are not available for
public record requests. He said that if there was a probate
issue someone could go to vital records and find out if someone
was married. He expressed that this was an option in California
when he and his wife were looking to get married.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the proposed legislation
would require the person solemnizing the marriage to take the
place of the witnesses, and what the current requirements are
for the person solemnizing a marriage.
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that the proposed legislation would not ask
the person solemnizing the marriage to take the place of the
witnesses, as he/she already must sign the marriage certificate
to indicate his/her qualifications to solemnize. He said that
those qualifications are set forth in statute. In response to a
follow up question from Representative Eastman, he explained
that members of the clergy from any denomination, judges, and
elected representatives from the State of Alaska are listed in
statute as capable of solemnizing a marriage. He added that
there are also provisions allowing any individual not listed to
attain a three-day permit through the courthouse, or the Vital
Statistics Department, that allows him/her to solemnize a
marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how far ahead a marriage must be
planned, and the paperwork filed, to receive a marriage license
in Alaska.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that his understanding is that the typical
couple who comes to Alaska for a destination wedding, of which
there are hundreds every year, usually plan the wedding several
months in advance. He said that there is a three-day waiting
period after applying to acquire a marriage license, which is
unrelated to the person solemnizing the marriage. He said that
there would be invited testimony from a minister who performs
destination weddings and someone like him wouldn't need a
special license to perform the ceremony; other times a couple
might have a helicopter pilot perform a ceremony, in which case
the pilot would have to go to the courthouse within three days
of the ceremony to get the certificate allowing him/her to
perform the ceremony.
1:20:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that AS 25.05.261 lists the
individuals who may solemnize a marriage. He added that he
thinks the law was recently amended to include individuals
holding an elected office in the state. He said that AS
25.05.271 describes the "duty of officiating person before
ceremony," and he noted that if the officiating person knows of
a legal impediment to the marriage, he/she may not perform the
ceremony.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that the historical significance of
having two witnesses, whether it be from the Hammurabi code, the
Magna Carta, or common law marriage in England, has lent
credibility to the solemnity of marriage, and asked whether the
proposed legislation would be minimizing the seriousness of
marriage.
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that he does not think it would minimize
the seriousness of marriage at all. He remarked that the two
witness requirement dates from the Marriage Act of 1753, which
post dates the Magna Carta by "some centuries," and he explained
that England had left matters of controlling marriage to the
church, which was performing the ceremonies without keeping
records of them. He reiterated that the discrepancy he had
mentioned before, regarding Captain John Campbell and his two
wives, prompted the parliament to pass laws allowing it to
regulate marriage, because leaving it to the church had not
worked as well as it had hoped. He said that the two-witness
requirement was more community based in those days, as the
marriages were typically taking place in small communities, and
the witness requirement was a way to ensure that members of the
community, who knew the couple, could vouch for the fact that
the wedding had occurred.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that in Alaska there is a rigorous record
keeping requirement maintained by the Vital Statistics
Department. He explained that the witness requirement is
different from older days, as the witnesses do not have to
provide information such as their name or address, and many
times the witnesses wouldn't even know where to begin to find
the couple getting married, because they are just signing the
document without knowing who the couple are. As an example, he
said that there are marriages performed in hotels in which hotel
housecleaning staff are brought in to attend the marriage as
witnesses. He summarized that the marriage witness requirement
has changed with the times, because good record keeping can show
what occurred, and the requirements for witnesses does not help
to find them in the event that you needed to verify the validity
of a marriage.
1:25:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that he thinks every state has
"unlawful marriage" rules, meaning that an individual can only
be legally married to one person. He asked whether getting rid
of the witness requirement for marriage, and not having those
people to call for verification, would make it harder to uphold
marriage laws in criminal or divorce cases. He added that the
person solemnizing the marriage could die, and it would be nice
to still have people to talk to confirm the marriage had
happened.
CHAIR CLAMAN answered that he had experience with an issue like
that mentioned by Representative Kopp in his legal career, but
not as a criminal matter. He added that he has never seen or
heard of any criminal prosecution for "improper marriage," but
it was probably an issue in the 1800s when there was concern
about Utah entering the union, and the polygamy issues in Utah;
although, the church in Utah eventually changed its view on
polygamy before entering the union. He said that an issue that
he has seen come up more often, is whether there is evidence of
divorce. He stated that he was working on a case that involved
a death, and a question was raised as to whether the decedent
had been lawfully divorced prior to the marriage to the widow
who was claiming to be entitled to the estate of the decedent.
He said marriage certificates were found for both marriages, and
no one started looking for witnesses, just the marriage
certificates. He explained that they did not look for the judge
presiding over the divorce case, as judges come and go, but
rather looked for the records reflecting the actual divorce. He
said that they knew where the divorce had occurred, went to the
Vital Records Department in that location, and were able to
obtain a copy of the divorce certificate which showed that the
first marriage had lawfully ended.
1:29:03 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:29 p.m.
1:29:38 PM
[REPRESENTATIVE KOPP passed the gavel to Representative Stutes.]
1:29:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there was something special
about marriage witness requirements specifically, or whether
witness requirements in general should be looked at in statute.
1:30:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that he became interested in the proposed
legislation because he was contacted by wedding photographers
explaining the impact that the wedding witness requirement was
having on them to help people celebrate their marriage. He said
that he thinks the wedding photographers would be better able to
explain the impact. He said that he thinks there may be other
instances in the law that Representative Eastman might want to
look into, in which the witness requirements might not be
essential, but this was the only issue he had looked at for
purposes of HB 148.
1:31:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES returned the gavel to Chair Claman.
1:31:28 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:31 p.m.
1:31:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 148.
1:32:27 PM
JOE CONNOLLY, Photographer, Chugach Peaks Photography, offered
testimony in support of HB 148. He said that the proposed
legislation is not an attack on marriage or designed to
undermine it in any way. He expressed that it would encourage
more people to get married and make it an easier process for
people coming from out-of-state. He stated that there are 30
states that do not require marriage witnesses, including
Democrat and Republican dominated states. He expressed that the
economic impact of weddings in Alaska is more significant than
might be expected. He said that requiring two witnesses to be
present is an unfair burden, and awkward intrusion, into what
these people intended as a private and personal event. He said
that the very act of eloping is to "get away from it all," and
have no family present at a small, simple, and affordable
wedding. He stated that when people come to Alaska for a
destination wedding, they are looking for solitude and something
more intimate and personal, not a large wedding.
MR. CONNOLLY stated that as mentioned by Representative Claman
previously, hundreds of people come from around the world every
year to get married in Alaska. He said he had just photographed
a wedding the week before for a couple from Australia, and they
had to deal with the witness issue at that time, which was
problematic. He said that these couples come to Alaska by
themselves with no friends or family, they do not live in Alaska
or know anyone in Alaska, but they still must find two
witnesses. He said that social media, an increase in tourism
infrastructure, and marketing by the state have all increased
the number of people wanting to come to Alaska to get married on
glaciers, rocky beaches next to the ocean, waterfalls in
rainforests, flowery meadows, and other peaceful settings within
Alaska's scenery; all without strangers intruding. He expressed
that at no point has he had anyone say to him, "We'd really like
it if you could bring a couple of strangers to our wedding, we'd
really like it if you guys could go find two random people on
the side of the road and have them come watch us get married."
MR. CONNOLLY stated that there are often times where he does
have to bring strangers to weddings to be witnesses, and there
is no requirement by the state to provide a driver's license or
verification, all the witness has to do is write a name on a
piece of paper, which is not a reliable system. He said that a
lot of people want to get married on a glacier, but they often
have to pay extra money to bring the two witnesses, which makes
couples less inclined to have the marriage performed on a
glacier, so helicopter companies make less money. He said that
some couples might be turned away and go to other states that do
not require witnesses, such as Montana, to have a destination
wedding performed. He emphasized that the economic impact these
destinations bring to Alaska is substantial; the couples are not
only getting married, they are staying in hotels, renting cars,
eating at restaurants, buying food at the grocery stores, going
on whale watching tours, going bear viewing at remote wilderness
lodges, and many other activities. He expressed that attracting
more people to Alaska is great for the economy, businesses, and
people who rely on tourism. He said that a lot of the cruise
ship passengers visiting Alaska spend most of their money with
the cruise ship companies, such as Princess, Carnival, and
Holland America, and if smaller locally owned businesses were
better able to benefit from travel, he thinks it would be a good
thing for everyone living in Alaska.
1:37:06 PM
MR. CONNOLLY summarized that HB 148 would put Alaska into a more
competitive place within the destination wedding market, which
is dominated by states like Hawaii, Nevada, and Florida that do
not have witness requirements. He said that the proposed
legislation would attract more people to Alaska by removing
regulatory burdens, like requiring two strangers to be present
at a private event and would create economic growth all over the
state in the tourism industry. He reiterated that the proposed
legislation is not a partisan issue, as both Republican and
Democrat states do not have witness requirements, and those
states do not have increased rates of divorce or issues
verifying the validity of marriages.
1:38:36 PM
CIAN MULHERN, Reverend, Celtic Ministries, offered testimony in
support of HB 148. He stated that he has been an ordained
minister performing weddings for approximately 21 years, and has
traveled to many other states, including Montana and Texas, to
perform weddings where no witnesses are required. He said that
Alaska's destination wedding numbers are growing every year, and
he thinks that HB 148 would help to grow the destination wedding
industry considerably. He said that he performs approximately
150 weddings a year, and around 90 percent of those are
destination weddings for couples traveling from all over the
world.
REV. MULHERN said that he was the officiant for the Australian
couple's wedding mentioned earlier by Mr. Connolly, and he had
to bring a witness for them. He expressed that the result of
that was a stranger standing there, while the couple had an
intimate ceremony and spoke their vows. He expressed that most
couples do not know anyone when they come to Alaska, and it can
be difficult to find witnesses. He explained that he has had
couples who have had to go to a parking lot and ask random
travelers if they would be their witnesses, and most couples are
not thrilled with having strangers watching their wedding, as it
is somewhat intrusive. He said that he performs weddings for
the service men and women of Fort Wainwright and Joint Base
Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), and many of these couples are new
to Alaska and have not had a chance to make friends or get to
know neighbors, which puts the burden back on the wedding
officiant. He said that witnesses are not being used to verify
the identities of couples or the validity of marriages and, in
fact, that is what the Vital Statistics Department does when the
couple applies for the marriage license.
1:41:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed that she was "curious as to what
Celtic Ministry is."
1:41:19 PM
REV. MULHERN replied that it means he is a wedding officiant and
is ordained as clergy by the Baptist church.
1:41:41 PM
ERIN VELANDER, Wedding Planner, Blomma Designs, offered
testimony in support of HB 148. She stated that all her
business in the summer is from couples coming to Alaska to elope
in an adventurous manner. She said that she plans a lot of
helicopter excursions and hikes. She expressed that she thinks
the proposed legislation would be great for the tourism economy
in Alaska, would benefit small business owners in Alaska, open
the industry up, and make it easier for couples to have
destination weddings. She stated that most couples who book
with her spend anywhere from 10 days to several months in
Alaska, and they are engage in many fun activities that feed the
economy and small businesses.
MS. VELANDER expressed that she has been a part of hundreds of
wedding ceremonies, and there is a difference between a wedding
ceremony with hundreds of people in a church, and a wedding
ceremony on the side of a mountain with "just two people, and
the person marrying you." She said that she doesn't think that
an argument can be made as to which type of ceremony is more
valid. She stated that if two people want to get married in
Alaska currently, they can walk to the Vital Statistics
Department or the courthouse, say three sentences, sign some
paperwork, and be legally married. She said that she does not
think that having two witnesses validates, or invalidates, the
process in any way, and she thinks it makes for a less personal
experience for couples choosing to get married in an intimate
setting.
1:44:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 148.
1:44:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed that he would be curious to
find out if there was any evidence available on whether
witnesses have been used in a positive informal capacity in the
past for "error checking."
1:45:59 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN replied that he had heard no stories pertaining to
that while looking into the proposed legislation; the most
frequent scenario he had encountered was from couples getting
married in large group settings, who had not figured out
witnesses ahead of time and had to look for two people to sign
the marriage certificate at the reception after the ceremony.
1:46:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 148 would be held over for
further review.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 148 v. M 4.29.2019.PDF |
HJUD 3/2/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Sponsor Statement 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/2/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Sectional Analysis 2.11.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/2/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM HSTA 2/20/2020 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/27/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Supporting Document - Holland America Princess Letter 2.18.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/2/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |
| HB 148 Fiscal Note DHSS-BVS 2.28.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/2/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/4/2020 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/6/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 148 |