Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/18/1996 09:02 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 308 PROHIBIT SAME SEX MARRIAGES
Number 001
VICE-CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:02 a.m. and explained that
Chairman Green was ill today. Due to the lack of a quorum, Vice-
Chairman Leman noted that the meeting would be a work session. He
introduced SB 308 as the only order of business. He pointed out
that there is a sponsor statement in the committee packet which
discusses the following three parts of the bill:
* SB 308 clarifies that marriage is a civil contract between
"one man an one woman" which the Department of Law indicates
as being current law;
* SB 308 also has language which states that same-sex
marriages recognized by other states is not recognized in
Alaska;
* SB 308 states that a "same-sex relationship may not be
recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of
marriage."
Since none of the witnesses on teleconference had called in, Vice-
Chairman Leman took a brief at ease.
Number 055
ROBERT KNIGHT, Director of Public Policy for the Family Research
Council, thanked the committee for inviting him to testify. He
explained that one of Family Research Council's functions is to
serve as a clearing house on research about families. Much
research has been accumulated which illustrates that children do
best with a mother and father family and communities with the most
intact families are healthier. Mr. Knight said that much research
says that marriage prolongs life like a recent study produced by
the American Journal of Sociology. Mr. Knight stated that the key
organizing factor behind all civilization is marriage. Marriage
brings the two sexes together in a unique legal, social, economic,
and spiritual union. Marriage has special protection within the
law and the culture because it is indispensable to civilized life.
Mr. Knight said that only marriage transforms young men and women
into productive, less selfish and more mature husbands and wives
and fathers and mothers. No other relationship affords children
the best economic, emotional, and psychological environment. Mr.
Knight emphasized that only since society has drifted from
defensive marriage has society experienced such social problems as
divorce, illegitimacy, sexually transmitted diseases, and crime.
The answer is to restore the primacy of marriage within the law and
the culture.
Number 097
Mr. Knight noted that historically, there have been attempts to
redefine marriage beyond the one man, one woman definition. For
instance, in the mid 1800s there were attempts to legalize multiple
partner unions, but were rejected. In 1885, the Supreme Court
declared that any state wishing to enter the Union had to have a
law regarding the family as being defined by the union of one man
and one woman. Mr. Knight noted that the comparison between the
banning of interracial marriages and same-sex marriages is not
valid. A person is born with a skin color and is benign while
sexual behavior has everything to do with character, behavior,
morality, and society's basic rules of conduct. Marriage reflects
the natural moral and social law all over the world; no society has
opened the sexual morality, beyond a one man and one woman
marriage, and survived. Studies of cultures spanning thousands of
years and many continents by a Harvard Sociologist, found that
practically all political revolutions that brought about societal
collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution that devalued
marriage and the family. Women and children were the most frequent
victims when marriage lost its unique status, as is the case in
America's sexual revolution.
Mr. Knight stated that giving same-sex relationships or out of
wedlock hetrosexual couples the same special status as marriage
would not be the expansion of a right, but the destruction of a
principal. If the one man, one woman definition of marriage is
broken then there would be no stopping point for the continued
assault on marriage. Mr. Knight pointed out that often feelings
are cited as the key requirement in marriage, then why not let
three people marry or two people and a child or consenting blood
relatives of legal age. Marriage based kinship is essential to the
stability and continuity; a man would be more likely to help a son-
in-law than some unrelated man or woman living with his daughter.
Same-sex relations are a negation of the continuation of kinship
through the procreation of children. Even childless married
couples retain the possibility of becoming parents biologically or
through adoption. Marriage benefits the two people involved, their
children as well as children in the area who seek clues to
appropriate sexual behavior. Mr. Knight said that creating
motherless and fatherless families is not in the interest of the
children or the community; it only benefits a particular political
agenda.
Number 157
Mr. Knight discussed the statements of a homosexual activist who
urged for the recognition of same-sex marriages and the benefits in
order to redefine the institution of marriage. Another homosexual
activist saw gay marriage as a way of forcing society to accept
homosexuality. Mr. Knight indicated that gay literature and
studies say that few gay couples are stable, those that are stable
have an understanding allowing outside sexual contact. Mr. Knight
said that the homosexual editor of the New Republic magazine says
it is normal that homosexual relationships are different;
homosexual households understand the need for extramarital outlets
between two men than between a man and a woman. In conclusion, Mr.
Knight said that those who care about children, morality, and the
well-being of society should resist the attempts by a small group
to grab marriage for their own purposes.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that Mr. Knight was welcome to fax his written
testimony to the HESS committee at 907-465-3805.
Number 204
MILDRED BOESSER, a Juneau resident, informed the committee that she
was 70 years old, has been married for 48 years to the same person,
the mother of four, and the grandmother of four. Ms. Boesser
believed that the concept of traditional marriage could be expanded
without harm. Often people are blind to their own hypocracies. On
the one hand, society says that if marriage cannot procreate it is
not viable. While many marriages do not procreate and are not
considered less viable than those that do. It is often said that
families are deteriorating because of the lack of commitment in
unwed relationships, while attempts to pass a law that would
prohibit legal commitment between two persons desiring a stable,
lifelong, loving relationship are present. Ms. Boesser pointed out
that society wants more support for families, while the fact that
many different types of families exist is ignored. All of these
various families, even same-sex families, would benefit from
support. Ms. Boesser emphasized that this nation has worked to
remove discrimination from the laws and our practice, but on the
other hand discrimination on the basis of gender continues. She
also noted that the federal Constitution requires states to uphold
the judicial proceedings of other states, while SB 308 would not
uphold the same-sex marriage contract of any state.
Ms. Boesser discussed the religious paradoxes regarding
homosexuals. Many Christians believe that God loves everyone
equally while others believe that God loves only those created as
they are. She noted that the Lord did not mention homosexuality at
all. Furthermore, St. Paul spoke about unnatural acts between
heterosexuals, without thinking that some people may be homosexual
by nature and not by choice. Ms. Boesser pointed out how many of
the moral absolutes of the past have been be proven otherwise, for
example, equal rights for women. However, Ms. Boesser believed in
the absolute that eventually right will prevail. SB 308 is not on
the side of right and if it passes it will result in a needless,
expensive legal battle.
Number 266
SENATOR LEMAN asked Ms. Boesser where in SB 308 does it say that
childless marriages are not viable. MILDRED BOESSER said that
SB 308 does not say that, but many people use that as a reason for
not allowing same-sex marriages. Ms. Boesser explained that was
one of the inconsistencies in thinking. In response to Senator
Leman, Ms. Boesser clarified that she addressing both the bill and
the inconsistencies in thinking.
SENATOR LEMAN specified that SB 308 does not address the valid of
marriages according to if the marriage procreates or not.
Number 285
MICHAEL JOHNSTON, State Director of the National Campaign to
Protect Marriage, supported SB 308. SB 308 is a common sense
approach dealing with the following two issues:
* the ambiguity in Alaska's current marriage statutes;
* the lack of a strong public policy regarding same-sex
marriages performed in other states and their claim to the
benefits of marriage.
The ambiguity issue arises because of gender neutral language in
the current statutes. Mr. Johnston said that marriage has never
been gender neutral and not clarifying the ambiguous language would
open the door for debate at the legislative and judicial levels
regarding the legislative intent.
Mr. Johnston informed everyone that Utah and South Dakota have
passed legislation similar to that of SB 308 in an attempt to not
recognize same-sex marriages adopted in another jurisdiction.
Currently, 22 states have or are considering similar legislation.
Mr. Johnston noted that the primary force in introducing bills such
as SB 308 is the expected recognition of same-sex marriages in
Hawaii. Many states have faced challenges in their own
jurisdiction by lawsuits from same-sex couples demanding that the
state grant marriage licenses without regard for the one man one
woman requirement; Alaska is one of those states. The Brause and
Dugan case is currently pending in the Alaska Superior Court. Mr.
Johnston was offended by the fact that a Hawaiian court could be
allowed to define marriage for the citizens of Alaska. He informed
the committee of polls done in Anchorage prior to the election of
1993 which illustrated that about 70 percent of registered
Anchorage voters opposed giving homosexuals special legal
protections based on their behavior.
Mr. Johnston supported the right of Alaskans to challenge existing
law through the court or the legislative process; SB 308 merely
clarifies that discussion of issues such as marriage belong within
the state. He informed everyone that polls in Hawaii indicate that
about 80 percent of Hawaiian citizens oppose the recognition of
same-sex marriages. If Hawaii is forced to recognize same-sex
marriages by the court, SB 308 would clarify Alaska's legislative
intent not to recognize same-sex marriages of other states.
Moreover, SB 308 would establish a strong public policy against
same-sex marriages in order to support an exemption from the
constitutional requirement for the state to give full faith and
credit to public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all
other states. Mr. Johnston urged the support of SB 308.
SENATOR LEMAN reiterated that any written statements could be faxed
to the HESS committee.
Number 344
MARSHA BUCK, mother and member of PFLAG, felt that her daughter was
being threatened and discriminated against by those elected to lead
the state. PFLAG Juneau is opposed to SB 308. She informed the
committee that her daughter is in a committed relationship with
another Christian woman and wants to marry and establish a legal,
stable family which SB 308 would not allow. Ms. Buck opposed
SB 308 in any form due its discrimination on the basis of gender.
Current statutes make it practically impossible for gay, lesbian,
and bisexual couples in Alaska to pursue marriage; SB 308 would
create an additional layer of discrimination. SB 308 seems to be
mean-spirited and hurtful.
Number 377
Ms. Buck posed several questions for the committee to consider as
SB 308 is discussed. She disagreed with Mr. Knight's testimony
regarding the discrimination of inter-racial marriages in the
South; Ms. Buck believed that there is much similarity between the
discrimination in SB 308 and the discrimination that existed with
inter-racial marriages. Sexual orientation is as much a part of a
person as is race; it is not a choice or a lifestyle. SB 308 is
reminiscent of Alaska's history of "No Natives Allowed" signs. Ms.
Buck emphasized that at the beginning of this legislative session,
the legislature pledged to remove and reduce government from the
personal lives of Alaskans and yet SB 308 does the opposite. Ms.
Buck requested that SB 308 be removed from consideration.
With regard to Ms. Buck's comments that SB 308 sounds and feels
like discrimination, SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that the Department
of Law believes that SB 308 clarifies what is already law in
Alaska. Senator Leman asked if Ms. Buck had informed Governor
Knowles of her thoughts on SB 308. MARSHA BUCK specified that
these are civil rights issues and if something like SB 308 passes,
it may be necessary to challenge it in court.
SENATOR LEMAN reiterated that the Department of Law believes that
SB 308 merely clarifies existing law. Senator Leman asked Ms. Buck
if she believed the existing law to be discriminatory. MARSHA BUCK
said that there may be an opportunity to deal with that.
Number 427
LINNI ESTHER hoped to open the committee members' minds to the
importance of supporting gay and lesbian marriages, not SB 308.
Not so long ago, parents were matchmakers for their children. Ms.
Esther posed the scenario that gays and lesbians were no different
than anyone else; gays and lesbians are people that have
affectional preferences in gender and personality. She said that
all we, gays and lesbians, ask are to be allowed to form legally
recognized unions with their loved ones. Ms. Esther informed the
committee that her 51 years as a lesbian was as comfortable to her
as being a right handed person. Two and a half years ago in Juneau
Ms. Esther and her partner participated in a commitment ceremony in
order to acknowledge their love for one another. There was no
access to a legal union for the couple. Ms. Esther explained that
she and her partner were devoted to each other, monogamous, and
form a family that is active in the Juneau community. Please allow
the opportunity for couples such as she and her partner to be
legally recognized within Alaska.
SENATOR LEMAN mentioned that his grandmother was matched to her
husband by her mother and because of that Senator Leman is present
today. LINNI ESTHER asked if that was a choice his grandparents
would have made on their own. Perhaps, Senator Leman would not be
here today if they had the choice.
Number 464
SARA BOESSER, board member of the Committee for Equality, explained
that the committee is a statewide organization working for equal
rights and responsibilities for gay, lesbian, and bisexual
Alaskans. The Committee for Equality opposes SB 308. SB 308
illegally discriminates on the basis of gender and illegally
proclaims that Alaska will not recognize or uphold legal contracts
in other states. Ms. Boesser felt it unfortunate that SB 308 is
before the committee without the announcement of teleconference.
As of the weekend, there was no teleconference scheduled for
SB 308. Such a bill should be heard with full public process. Ms.
Boesser believed that SB 308 would eventually be found illegal at
the federal level through court action. Therefore, she recommended
that the legislature not pass a law that would result in expensive
legal action.
With regard to the charge that SB 308 discriminates on the basis of
gender, Ms. Boesser pointed out that forcing a person to
discriminate on the basis of gender in order to receive a state
service or benefit violates current state law. SB 308 breeches
federal law by not recognizing other states' contracts. She
believed SB 308 to be the most anti-gay/lesbian bill in the
legislature and asked the committee to consider the negative impact
the bill will have on public discourse. The Juneau Empire printed
an article noting that when anti-gay/lesbian bills are presented,
there are more hate crimes. As history would teach us, SB 308 is
doomed.
Ms. Boesser also disagreed with Mr. Knight's testimony that gays
and lesbians choose to be so. Most of the current scientific
evidence has found that there are biological features which cause
a person to be gay or lesbian. She informed the committee that she
realized she was a lesbian at age 17 and would not have chosen such
a difficult life, but would not choose to live a lie either. Ms.
Boesser also believed that SB 308 is very analogous to the laws
that were introduced when some states began to recognize inter-
racial marriages. Eventually, the Federal Constitution's full
faith and credit clause did overturn those unconstitutional laws;
would Alaska want other states to disregard contracts made in
Alaska? For example, Alaska allows marriages between younger
people than in other states. Ms. Boesser asked why a bad law,
SB 308, should be passed when it will be proven unconstitutional
and not without a legal battle.
Number 511
Ms. Boesser addressed the following arguments that may not be in
SB 308, but are used to support not allowing same-sex marriages:
* If "marriage is only for procreation," then why wouldn't a
couples' marriage license be held until the couple has
children or why not require couples to sign "procreation
pledges."
* With regard to the argument that "God made Adam and Eve, not
Adam and Steve," Ms. Boesser understood that God made
everyone on the planet some of which she believed God made
gay and lesbian. She pointed out that the apostle Paul
believed that no man should marry at all. Furthermore,
Jesus never spoke against homosexual persons. Ms. Boesser
informed everyone that same-sex marriages were blessed by
the Christian church in the Middle Ages. The concept of
marriage has changed over time and continues to do so.
* The argument that "same-sex marriage destroys the family"
has been used against many groups. For example, when women
wanted to vote many believed that families would be
destroyed if women were allowed to vote. How fortunate that
such beliefs did not suppress the advancement of women
forever.
Ms. Boesser said that there are more such "red herrings" all of
which would fail upon full and reasoned discussion. She believed
that SB 308 should be stopped however, if SB 308 does continue
there should be many other committee referrals and teleconferences.
In conclusion, Ms. Boesser said that decisions regarding who can
receive a state marriage license and its benefits should be for the
courts to decide. Ms. Boesser noted that she would submit Dan
Carter's testimony to the committee.
Number 545
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Ms. Boesser was aware of the apostle Paul's
advise about sexual behavior in Romans I and is that consistent
with her testimony and understanding of Paul's advise. SARA
BOESSER did not remember the exact wording of Romans I, but she
knew that he advised any man that could refrain from marriage to do
so.
SENATOR LEMAN suggested that Ms. Boesser had taken Paul's advise
out of context. Senator Leman explained that Paul meant that if
marriage was an obstruction to having a heart for God, then the
person should not marry and love God. SARA BOESSER said that
Senator Leman's explanation is an interpretation. Ms. Boesser
believed that there are gay and lesbian couples that have a heart
for God and who would like the church to bless their relationships.
Interpretations of the bible too have changed over time.
SENATOR LEMAN recommended that Ms. Boesser read Romans I and then
advise this committee on the application of that to legislation
such as this. With regard to Jesus' teachings, Jesus referred to
the law which at the time was the scripture. Jesus reduced the law
to the following two tenets: love the Lord with all your heart and
soul and love your neighbor as yourself. If someone truly loved
God, then that person would also keep God's commandments. SARA
BOESSER pointed out that this discussion could continue forever.
Fortunately, there are churches that do bless gay and lesbian
relationships. Ms. Boesser emphasized that there are so many
denominations today because people cannot agree on the
interpretation of the Bible. Ms. Boesser recalled that Jesus did
come forward and indicated that much of the Old Testament was not
correct and needed to be clarified. Jesus produced new teachings
such as turn the other check instead of an eye for an eye. Ms.
Boesser did not hear Jesus say anything against gays and lesbians.
Number 573
CHERYL COOK said that she had a letter from Dan Cook that she would
read. On her behalf, Ms. Cook pointed out that the U.S. has a
separation of church and state and discussions of the Bible should
not enter into such arenas. SENATOR LEMAN asked if Ms. Cook was
implying that Sara Boesser was out of order. CHERYL COOK replied
no. The first witness, Mr. Knight, also brought up biblical
references and this seems to be a moot point. Personally, Ms. Cook
believed that the separation of church and state is one of the
foundations of the U.S.
In trying to understand Ms. Cook, SENATOR LEMAN surmised that her
testimony was that it would be inappropriate to use biblical
references to support a position of SB 308, but it would be
appropriate to use biblical references
TAPE 96-20, SIDE B
that oppose SB 308. CHERYL COOK replied no and clarified that she
wanted to point out that there is a separation of church and state.
CHERYL COOK informed the committee that she would be reading a
letter from Dan Carter who had attempted to fax. Mr. Carter was
opposed to SB 308. He hoped that his letter would be read since
there was no teleconference scheduled for SB 308. Mr. Carter has
been an Alaskan resident for almost 20 years and was proud of
Alaska's tradition of being a land of relative tolerance. He
informed the committee that he and his partner will celebrate their
27th year together on March 21, 1996. Mr. Carter reiterated
previous points regarding the history of interracial couples and
the notion that same-sex relationships destroy the family as he
noted that legislators do not have control or responsibility over
love between two adults. His same-sex relationship has not
destroyed his family. Mr. Carter had heard that marriage is a
religious contract that could not be changed by law. If that is so
and a church performs a same-sex marriage, then SB 308 would
discriminate against that religious view. Mr. Carter requested a
reply to his letter. In conclusion, Mr. Carter suggested that the
legislature's time as well as the state's time would be better
spent encouraging committed couples to remain together rather than
on this frivolous bill.
Number 548
SENATOR LEMAN asked Ms. Cook if she considered SB 308 frivolous.
CHERYL COOK, speaking for herself, said that SB 308 may be an
unnecessary bill. The Department of Law believes that SB 308
clarifies existing law and therefore, SB 308 may be a waste of
time. SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that often statutes are revised
when the law has not changed in order to clarify for discord or
litigation over the interpretation of the law. Revising the
statutes can actually reduce litigations. CHERYL COOK did not
believe that to be the case with SB 308.
SENATOR LEMAN asked Ms. Cook if she could provide the
constitutional citation to support her earlier statement regarding
the deeply rooted tradition of the separation of church and state.
CHERYL COOK could not cite the citation and did not know if there
was such. SENATOR LEMAN said that there is no citation in the
Federal Constitution. CHERYL COOK recalled that one of the reasons
people came from England was to get away from the church. SENATOR
LEMAN specified that this country was founded on the idea that
there would be no established religion. There is an establishment
clause which states that there would be no established church in
the U.S. that everyone would be required to belong as in England.
The separation is from the requirement to participate in a
particular religious activity.
Number 506
STEVE FITSCHEN, Executive Director of the National Legal
Foundation, informed the committee that homosexual and lesbian law
professors are publishing articles suggesting that homosexual
couples from states other than Hawaii should have their marriages
recognized in Hawaii, return to their own state and try to have the
marriage recognized. The National Legal Foundation believes that
to be detrimental to the individual states as well as the nation,
therefore, states should act now. States should utilize the strong
public policy exception, as SB 308 does, in order to protect
against the state court forcing the state to recognize a same-sex
marriage of another state. The issue at hand is should this
procedure be followed; why should the traditional recognition of
marriage be protected?
Mr. Fitschen said that often the type of legal challenge brought
forth in these cases is equal protection. The foundation believes
that none of the limits of marriage could stand up to equal
protection if any one falls. Mr. Fitschen said that if one man-one
woman fell to equal protection, then incest would fall to equal
protection and all the traditional parameters would fall. Mr.
Fitschen quoted the U.S. Supreme Court case Murphy v Ramsey which
reviewed a statute that defined marriage as one man and one woman
as saying, "For certainly, no legislation can be supposed more
wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self governing
commonwealth fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of
the Union in that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the
idea of the family as consisting in and springing from the union
for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony."
The foundation agrees with that. Mr. Fitschen encouraged Alaska to
protect itself from challenges in the court.
SENATOR LEMAN asked that the remaining witnesses keep their
testimony brief due to the lack of time left.
Number 457
REVEREND HOWARD BESS, American Baptist Minister and Pastor of the
Church of the Covenant, informed the committee that he was the
author of the book, Pastor, I am Gay. He has officiated at several
holy unions. Reverend Bess opposed SB 308. In his experience,
Reverend Bess has found that same-sex relationships are as
committed, monogamous, and stable as heterosexual marriages.
Reverend Bess explained that a large number of Alaska's gay and
lesbian population would not be testifying today because they are
frightened by the public hatred and rejection. Reverend Bess
believed that whether or not gay and lesbian couples should be
protected and receive the same privileges as heterosexual marriages
will be decided in other arenas. The Brausse v Dugan case in
Alaska will define this in the courts. Reverend Bess hoped that
SB 308 would die before reaching the floor.
SUSAN HARGIS informed the committee that she is a tax-payer, a
property-owner, a community volunteer, and a lesbian. Ms. Hargis
stressed that she did not want special rights, only the same rights
that other Alaskans receive. She noted that she is in a committed
relationship that she plans to have her entire life. By not being
able to marry, Ms. Hargis explained that when her partner was
having surgery for cancer the hospital informed her that if her
partner died they could not talk with her. After the will is
probated, Ms. Hargis would be allowed to be involved. Therefore,
Ms. Hargis is not allowed the same rights and responsibilities to
her partner that she expected; currently, the state prohibits her
from exercising those. Ms. Hargis informed the committee that she
and her partner own a house together and if one of them dies, the
remaining partner is left in a different situation for inheritance
taxes. Currently, their income taxes are different.
Number 399
Ms. Hargis said that there are many children in her life. She
preferred that children see two people that are in a stable
relationship and learn that people in a long-term committed
relationship are in marriages. Ms. Hargis sensed that the fear is
about sex not love. No matter if SB 308 passes, Ms. Hargis said
that she would remain in her current relationship. Therefore, she
requested the same legal protections and responsibilities as other
heterosexual Alaskans. Ms. Hargis believed that marriage is a
contract between two people and it is not for the government to
legislate between whom that contract can be made. With regards to
Mildred Boesser's testimony on the procreation argument in Hawaii,
Hawaii used that as part of the legislative argument. Since SB 308
in part addresses the Hawaiian bill, Mildred Boesser's statements
are appropriate.
Ms. Hargis said that there is research that suggests that being gay
or lesbian is mainly biological possibly with a choice component.
She noted that she would not have chosen to be a lesbian. She
informed the committee that one of the cultures in China does
recognize same-sex marriages as well as in Denmark. As the Chair
of the Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance (SEGLA), Ms.
Hargis opposed SB 308.
Number 365
DANIEL COLLISON, SEGLA Board Member and Big Brothers Volunteer,
discussed his experience with his Little Brother when the two made
dams in order to learn about the coming of the tide. SB 308 is a
weak and feeble obstruction meant to dam equal rights and
opportunities. Civil liberties were first extended to a group of
wealthy and privileged white men. Throughout history such
discrimination with civil liberties has been challenged. These
challenges have led to such laws as the Jim Crow laws which have
been found to be unconstitutional by the courts. Mr. Collison
emphasized that now the gay and lesbian minority's rights should be
recognized. Special rights are not sought, only equal rights. He
pointed out that because he is gay his employer could dismiss him
from his job, he could be refused a table in a restaurant, and even
be evicted from his housing. If SB 308 were enacted, Mr. Collison
felt that the state would be discriminating against him by refusing
the recognition and the associated benefits of his union with a
male partner. The legislature has more important concerns than
creating obstacles against the belief that all persons are created
equal and possess inalienable rights not to be denied by the state.
Mr. Collison urged the defeat of SB 308.
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to what are the rights. DANIEL COLLISON
clarified that he spoke to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SENATOR
LEMAN asked what the constitution said. DANIEL COLLISON reiterated
that he was speaking to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which
guarantees non discrimination in employment, housing, and public
accommodations. SB 308 would deny Mr. Collison in a union with a
male partner, the recognition of that union as well as the
associated benefits. SENATOR LEMAN said that the Federal
Constitution guarantees and protects the right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. That will become more important as
the debate continues. DANIEL COLLISON clarified that the pursuit
of happiness in the manner in which one would choose. SENATOR
LEMAN noted that Mr. Collison was not denied a place at this table.
Number 291
LAUREN CHAMPAGNE, National Association of Social Workers, requested
the opportunity to speak without being interrupted. She explained
that the National Association of Social Workers is a professional
organization representing thousands of social workers at the
doctorate, masters, and bachelor level throughout the U.S. The
Alaska chapter represents about 400 social workers. The NASW met
in 1994, prepared, and published a policy statement which stated
that social workers are committed to ending discrimination based on
sexual orientation. She said that she would provide that
information to the committee. Ms. Champagne believed that
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation promotes other
behavior such as hate crime. The association is focusing on issues
of hate crime this month in order to help young people to work
against violence. The National Association of Social Workers
opposes SB 308 and views the bill as discriminatory.
Speaking as a social worker, Ms. Champagne reminded the two members
present that for citizens to come forward and speak before a
committee requires much courage and effort. When a citizen comes
before a committee with a camera focused on them, that citizen
faces great risks. Interruptions, smirks, rolling of the eyes, or
note writing is very disrespectful to the process. Ms. Champagne
reminded the members of the position of power they are in and the
responsibility they have to their constituents. Ms. Champagne
suggested that the members read Thomas Jefferson if interested in
issue of the separation of church and state.
Number 218
SENATOR LEMAN felt it only fair that he respond. Senator Leman had
not seen any rolling of the eyes or smirking from the committee
today. LAUREN CHAMPAGNE clarified that she was referring to he and
Senator Miller during Pastor Bess' testimony via teleconference.
SENATOR LEMAN was unaware of any smirking or rolling of the eyes
during any testimony other than some by the audience. Senator
Leman considered such actions by the audience as reactions to
strong feelings. LAUREN CHAMPAGNE said that the audience is not in
a position of power. SENATOR LEMAN believed that everyone had
power; one person, one vote. Senator Leman acknowledged the
difficulty for people to come forward which is why written and
teleconferenced testimony is accepted. Senator Leman wished that
all the committee members could have been present today, but their
staff was present.
SENATOR LEMAN held SB 308. He announced that the next committee
hearing would be Wednesday on the agenda scheduled.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|