Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/20/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
SB144 | |
HB225 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | SB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 148-MARRIAGE WITNESSES 3:03:59 PM CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 148, "An Act relating to solemnization of marriage." 3:04:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, paraphrased from his written statement, which read: Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for hearing House Bill 148 "An Act relating to solemnization of marriage." 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. Afterward, all parties must sign the marriage certificates. House Bill 148 would eliminate the requirements for any additional witnesses at the marriage solemnization and the signatures of these witnesses on marriage certificates. These changes will bring our ceremonial requirements into the modern age and help support Alaska's destination wedding industry while preserving the integrity of marriage solemnization. Alaska is one of only 17 states that require two wedding witnesses in addition to the person officiating the marriage. Twenty five states do not require any wedding witnesses. Wedding witnesses played a more critical role in past centuries when record keeping was less automated. In England, prior to the 18th century, the legal requirements of marriage were governed by the canon law of the Church of England. A marriage was considered valid as long as the union was consented to by both parties and celebrated by an Anglican clergyman. This largely informal process that 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. The problem arose because another woman claimed she was the wife of the Captain. The confusion that ensued from inability to verify marriage claims led Parliament to pass the Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage, known as the Marriage Act of 1753. The Act formalized the marriage process, requiring that marriages be viewed by witnesses who could later be called on to confirm that the marriage did or did not take place- an extra precaution of record-keeping should records of marriage be damaged or go missing. The Marriage Act is the historical basis for the 2 witness requirement. Today, however, the role of a wedding witness is ceremonial. In Alaska, while the person solemnizing the marriage must meet certain criteria, the law does not require any form of witness verification (proof of identification, language comprehension, address validation, etc.). HB 148 would allow Alaska to compete more directly with states like Hawaii and Florida, which require no wedding witnesses and lead the nation in destination weddings. Destination weddings, often on mountain tops and glaciers, are a growing business in Alaska. The requirement of two wedding witnesses makes the state less attractive for many couples who travel from farther away or who do not want the financial burden of a larger wedding. Couples who come to the state without their own witnesses are tasked with finding strangers to witness their wedding. 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. In addition to the awkwardness of having strangers witness the wedding, the additional witness requirement can place an increased financial burden on the couple. For example, in a wedding in a more remote location like a glacier via helicopter, they must pay extra seating costs to transport the witnesses. At present, destination weddings bring in an estimated $1 million in revenue to the state in the form of roughly 500 destination weddings a year. This revenue figure doesn't consider the fact that more than 90% of the out-of-state couples who come to Alaska to get married stay for days and weeks to explore our great state. The resulting benefit to Alaska's tourism industry is substantial. HB 148 would simplify the wedding process by reducing the number of hurdles a couple must address to get married. 3:08:45 PM SOPHIE JONAS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor of HB 148, reviewed the sectional analysis, which read: Section 1 Amends AS 25.05.301: Eliminates requirement of two witnesses at a marriage solemnization. Section 2 Amends AS 25.05.32: Eliminates requirement of the signatures of two witnesses on marriage certificates. Section 3 Amends AS 25.05.361: Deletes language to conform with changes made in section 1 of the bill. Section 4 Repeals AS 25.05.041(a)(3) and AS 25.05.041(a)(5): Repeals subsections to conform with changes made in section 1 of the bill. 3:10:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to page 1, line 7-8, of HB 148, which read in part, "... they take each other to be husband and wife." He asked whether this was the standard language in statute regardless of the allowance for same sex marriages. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his belief that since the federal courts ruled that [Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), 2006] was unconstitutional, changing every reference in the Alaska Statutes to comply with that ruling would just take time away from more important legislative work, and it is possible members would not achieve resolution on the language. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to his own marriage experience and stated that the process was incredibly complicated. He offered his support for the proposed legislation and suggested there may be other statutory changes that would facilitate the process. 3:13:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether any concerns have emerged for states that do not require two witnesses. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reiterated that over 25 states require no witness [for marriage solemnization]; staff research on the issue did not identify any resulting problems. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the states with no required witnesses have seen an increase in the rate of marriages. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he does not know. He added that the issue was brought to his attention by wedding photographers who contacted his office. Hawaii leads the nation in destination weddings; it does not have a witness requirement. The photographers maintained that in their line of work, they would do a much better job of serving their clients if they didn't have to recruit two witnesses. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE maintained that marriage is one of the more respected unions; it is a legal process. She offered that she struggles with the idea of removing the two witnesses for the sake of commerce. She mentioned that she is not aware of the requirement of two witnesses being a burden. She acknowledged the desire to promote Alaska as a destination marriage location but said that she wanted stronger data demonstrating that the requirement for two witnesses is burdensome. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that the interest of commerce brought the proposed legislation to his attention; however, the real issue is the purpose that wedding witnesses serve as a matter of law and procedure. He referred to the Marriage Act of 1753 in England as being the foundation for the requirement of witnesses. The problem of clandestine marriages in England in the 1700s was due to the lack of proof of marriage and central record keeping authority. With Alaska's very detailed current recordkeeping requirement within the Health Analytics & Vital Record Section (HAVRS), the need for witnesses does not exist, and in fact, no one looks for the witnesses to authenticate a marriage. He maintained that he was involved in a case in which a marriage needed to be verified; he relied on the vital statistics records and not the witnesses. He concluded that wedding witnesses originally served the purpose of proving the validity of a marriage; they do not serve that purpose today. 3:18:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked whether an underage legal marriage requires certification from the parents. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his belief that proof of age is required for a marriage license; the witness requirement is not involved. REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked about the procedure for a 15-year- old getting married. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that he assumes the parents would need to give consent at the courthouse. He acknowledged the possibility that an underage person might use a fraudulent identification (ID) to circumvent the requirement. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS maintained that completing the marriage paperwork correctly, mailing it to HAVRS, and needing additional signers made his wedding less romantic with less of a feeling of being sanctified. He said that getting witnesses to sign the forms and all that entailed was not optimal. 3:22:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE SHAW relayed a personal experience with his own wedding, in which the requirement of witnesses was not a burden. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE compared the requirement of witnesses for marriage to the requirement of witnesses for a permanent fund dividend (PFD) application to verify residency and intent to remain in Alaska. She asked, "What's the difference in ... the burden on providing two witnesses?" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that there is a substantial history of fraud in connection with PFD applications. Every year there are prosecutions of people fraudulently filing for PFD applications. He stated that he is not aware of any cases in Alaska of a false marriage claim. He said they are two very different situations; the PFD is an appropriation from the state, and fraudulently getting a PFD constitutes theft from the state, which is why there is a verification requirement. 3:25:37 PM CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened invited testimony on HB 144. 3:26:15 PM CIAN MULHERN, Reverend, Celtic Ministries, testified that he has performed weddings for over 21 years. He said that it is a great burden for ministers to find witnesses and described the inconvenience to himself and to the witnesses. He stated that he does about 150 weddings per year, and over 90 percent are destination weddings in Alaska. Couples come from all over the world; most come for a small intimate elopement; they then "spend lots of time here honeymooning in the state." These couples do not know anyone in Alaska; therefore, the burden is on him or another person in the wedding industry to find witnesses. He maintained that most couples are not thrilled to have two people, whom they have never met, as part of their very special day and find it intrusive. REVEREND MULHERN relayed that he also performs many wedding for military personnel; many are new to Alaska and don't have many acquaintances yet. The witnesses are not being used to verify who the couples are or to check IDs. That is what HAVRS does when a couple applies for a marriage license. Witnesses are not used to verify the wedding or its legitimacy. He mentioned that witnesses for the PFD application are people that the applicant knows. CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Reverend Mulhern solemnizes the destination wedding marriages. REVEREND MULHERN responded affirmatively. 3:29:31 PM ERICA ROSE, Erica Rose Photography, testified that she has been a wedding photographer for 10 years and shoots about 40 wedding each year; many are small elopements for people who come from out of state. Hundreds of people come to Alaska each year to get married. She expressed that one of the best facets of her work is the privilege of being part of a very sacred moment in people's lives; although it is her business, she takes seriously the gravity of the event. She said that she has learned through her business that Alaska is an incredibly desirable destination for weddings, and she believes there is potential for growth in the industry. She relayed that the current trend is weddings in adventure and mountain locations like Alaska, and the benefits are felt by many other businesses. She maintained that when people decide to elope, it is not always to save money, but to spend the money on experiences. MS. ROSE asserted that the two-witness rule presents a large hurdle for the industry. When people choose to elope, they often do it for the privacy; they don't want extra people around; and they go out of their way to find an intimate setting. They often look for a stunningly beautiful location; it can be difficult and expensive to transport two extra people to the location. She relayed an experience of a wedding in a remote area, in which they waited in the parking to ask the next hiker to witness the wedding; it detracted from the event. She said that anyone in the business has similar stories. She concluded by saying that the main goal for her as a wedding professional is to make the important day in her clients' lives as special as possible and provide good service, and these stories [regarding marriage witnesses] feel like small failures in that effort. CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the meaning of the term "elopement" in the wedding industry. MS. ROSE explained that elopement is currently a trend, and it refers to a bride and a groom "going off to do their own private wedding." 3:33:52 PM ERIN VELANDER, Alaska Destination Weddings, testified that the proposed legislation impacts many small businesses and small business owners. She stated that she has been an adventure wedding planner for about 20 years. She assists couples who want to elope in Alaska and be married in extreme places. She relayed that she also operates her business in Hawaii; she has planned hundreds of weddings; and [the requirement of witnesses] deters people from eloping in Alaska. She maintained that data shows the discrepancy between the two states as far as numbers of destination weddings. MS. VELANDER stated that she used to plan very large weddings and from her experience, the number of witnesses at a wedding does not determine "the sacredness of that moment." She maintained that couples should be able to choose how they get married. She offered that the very small wedding with just the couple and the officiant often feels more sacred than the wedding that is a "huge production." She implored the committee to consider that the two witnesses, who are often strangers to the couple eloping in Alaska, do not make the marriage any more sacred, and at times, even less sacred, because they are strangers. She asserted that Alaska does not have the right to deny the wishes of people who choose to get married "just the two of them." 3:37:05 PM JOE CONNOLLY, Chugach Peaks Photography, offered a definition for elopement: Elopement is often used to refer to a marriage conducted in sudden and secretive fashion, usually involving a hurried flight away from one's place of residence together with one's beloved with the intention of getting married. He added that in most cases it is less sudden but equally private and small. MR. CONNOLLY relayed that the economic impact that weddings have on the state is probably more significant than one would expect. He said that requiring the presence of two witnesses is an unfair burden and an awkward intrusion into what the couple intended - a private and personal event. He said that the act of eloping is for the purpose of getting away to have a small wedding with no family and friends present. He maintained that for those who had a big wedding with family and friends, elopement might seem unusual. He offered that there are many people who do not want a big fancy wedding with many guests. Hundreds of couples from the Lower 48 and from all over the world come to Alaska every year to get married in one of the last truly "free and wild" places in the U.S. They come up to Alaska without family and friends; they don't know anyone in Alaska; marketing has attracted them to the state; they all want to get married on a glacier, a rocky beach, next to a waterfall, or in a flowering meadow, with mountains and glaciers behind them; none want random strangers at their wedding. If a couple needs to hire a helicopter to get to the destination, most helicopters can only seat three people plus the pilot; therefore, they must hire another helicopter to fly the witnesses. Often people back off due to the extra expense - all because of an "ancient state law that is probably not relevant anymore." Mr. Connolly relayed that when hiking into a wilderness area, he is tasked with finding witnesses to accompany the hike and "give up a day." He maintained that the economic impact of the weddings far exceeds the direct benefits to the vendors in the wedding industry. The couples typically spend a week to ten days, rent a car, spend money on food, and book tours. He asserted that HB 148 would put Alaska in a more competitive place within the destination wedding market. CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 148 would be held over.