Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/04/1998 08:40 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 4, 1998
8:40 A.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 146, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 146, Side 2
TAPE HFC 98 - 147, Side 1
TAPE HFC 98 - 147, Side 2
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kohring
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Grussendorf Representative Mulder
Representative Kelly
Representatives Foster and Davies were absent from the
meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Tom Brice; Guy Bell, Director, Division of
Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration; Bill
Church, Retirement Systems Manager, Department of
Administration; Michael Pauley, Staff, Senator Leman;
Charles Northrip, Juneau; Pamela Northrip, Juneau; Marianne
Mills, Vice President, League of Women Voters; Lauren
Champagne, National Association of Social Workers; Fabienne
Peter-Contesse, Juneau; Phillip Gray, Juneau; Kim Poole,
Juneau; Mary Graham, Juneau; Darla Madden, Juneau; Beverly
Haywood, Unitarian Universalist Association; Karen Wood,
Juneau; Mildred Boesser, Juneau; Mark Boesser, Juneau;
Angela Munoz, City and Borough of Juneau Human, Rights
Commission; Lawrence Woodall, Juneau; Marsha Buck, Juneau;
Jason Nelson, Douglas; Beth Kerttula, Juneau; Ann Northrip,
Student, Juneau; Kirsten Bomengen, Juneau; Tom Gordy,
Christian Coalition, Juneau; Sarah Boesser, Juneau; Maureen
Longworth, Physician, Juneau; David Rogers, Juneau; Caren
Robinson, Alaska Women's Lobby, Juneau; Carol Anderson,
Juneau; Wilson Valentine, Minister, Episcopal Church,
Juneau; Willie Anderson, Juneau; Linda Hemphill, Juneau;
Marissa Williams, Douglas; Leanne Griffin, Juneau; Darien
Wahl, Juneau; Lin Davis, Juneau.
The following testified via the teleconference network: Tom
Rachal, Anchorage; Elliott Dennis, Anchorage; Al Incontro,
Anchorage; Patricia Mark, Anchorage; Nancy Kailing,
President, Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays,
Fairbanks; Janet Roberts, Fairbanks; Mari Galereave,
Fairbanks; Patrick Marlow, Fairbanks; Howard Bess, Minister,
Mat-su; Richard Collins, Fairbanks; Willa Frey, Minister,
Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, Fairbanks; Richard
Kemnitz, Social Action Committee, Unitarian Universal
Fellowship of Fairbanks, Fairbanks; Christine McGarvin,
President, Social Action Committee, Unitarian Universal
Fellowship of Fairbanks, Fairbanks; Patty Kearson,
Fairbanks; Rowena Gross, Fairbanks; Elaine Williamson,
Fairbanks; Marina Day, Fairbanks; Jennifer Rudinger,
Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties, Union,
Anchorage; Allison Mendel, Attorney, Anchorage; Frederick
Hillman, Anchorage; Norman Schlittler, Co-Chair, Parents and
Friends of Lesbian and Gays (PFLAG), Anchorage; Connie
Faipeas, Anchorage; Mari Jamieson, Anchorage; Dan Carter,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 323 "An Act relating to the calculation of credited
service in the public employees' retirement system
for noncertificated employees of school districts,
regional educational attendance areas, and state
boarding schools; and providing for an effective
date."
CSHB 323 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
impact note by the Department of Administration,
5/01/98.
SB 235 "An Act extending the termination date of the
Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers."
CSSB 235 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal
note by the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development.
SJR 42 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
CSSJR 42 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal
impact note by the Office of the Governor,
3/10/98.
HOUSE BILL NO. 323
"An Act relating to the calculation of credited service
in the public employees' retirement system for
noncertificated employees of school districts, regional
educational attendance areas, and state boarding
schools; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, SPONSOR, testified in support of
SB 235. He explained that the legislation addresses an
inequity that exists within state schools. Currently,
certificated school district employees receive a full year
retirement credit for each school year worked. The school
year is generally 170 - 180 days. Noncertificated school
employees receive day-per-day credit toward retirement. The
legislation would allow noncertificated employees to receive
a full year credit for each school year they work. Employee
participation would be optional. Employees who opt-in would
pay for the additional credit. There would be no additional
cost to the employer.
Representative Brice reviewed the legislation. Section 1
delineates the calculation for employee payments. Sections
2 and 3 allow employees to opt-in to the program. New
employees have a three-month window of opportunity to opt
in. Current employees have six months to opt-in. Employees
that are currently inactive have three months to opt-in to
the program.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that employees cannot buy back
past year's service. Individual employees are given the
option of participating. The option to participate is
irrevocable.
GUY BELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION provided information on HB 323.
He clarified that employees will pay the full cost of the
program. He explained that the surcharge is paid entirely
by the employee who elects to go with the higher rate and
the 12-month retirement credit.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if payments would be prorated
or taken out at the end of the school year. Representative
Brice stated that payments would be taken out monthly during
their period of employment.
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 on behalf of
Representative Brice (copy on file). Amendment 1 would
delete "on or after the date that the administrator accepts
it" on page 2, line 17 and page 3, line 4 and insert "for
the school year in which the election is accepted by the
administrator." There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 on behalf of
Representative Brice (copy on file). Amendment 2 would add
the Alaska Vocational Technical Center. Representative
Brice explained that the amendment was recommended by the
Administration. He observed that the Kotzebue Vocational
Center is operated by the school district. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Therriault referred to the fiscal note. The fiscal
note would fund $116.5 thousand dollars for contractors to
update the Division's computer system.
BILL CHURCH, RETIREMENT SYSTEMS MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION provided information on the Department's
fiscal note. The fiscal note is needed to update the
present system. A separate code identifier must be
developed for their old and new systems.
Representative Kelly MOVED to report CSHB 323 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 323 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Administration, 5/01/98.
SENATE BILL NO. 235
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers."
MICHAEL PAULEY, LEGISLATIVE STAFF, SENATOR LEMAN testified
in support of the legislation on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Leman. He explained that SB 235 extends the
termination date of the Board of Certified Real Estate
Appraisers to June 30, 2004. The Board's primary functions
are reviewing and approving applications for initial
certification of residential, general and training
appraisers; approving courses for initial certification and
continuing education; and directing investigations and
resolutions of complaints against real estate appraisers.
Representative Kelly MOVED to report CSSB 235 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 235 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to marriage.
MICHAEL PAULEY, LEGISLATIVE STAFF, SENATOR LEMAN testified
in support of the legislation on behalf of Senate Health and
Social Services Committee, sponsor of SJR 42. He explained
that the Senate Joint Resolution 42 would give Alaskan
voters the opportunity to decide if same sex marriages
should be recognized in the state of Alaska. Superior Court
Judge Peter Michalski, on Feb. 27 discovered in the state
Constitution's Right To Privacy, the right to choice a life
partner. He went on to say that the state's "failure to
provide public recognition" of a person's private choice,
violates the state Constitution's right to privacy. He
pointed out that this decision could result in Alaska's
becoming the first and only political jurisdiction in the
world to recognize homosexual marriage. The federal
government recognizes marriage as a union that can exist
only between one man and one woman. He observed that the
federal law was supported by Alaska's congressional
delegation and signed into law by President Clinton. He
maintained that marriage is a culture institution with
profound importance. He asserted that redefining the
institution of marriage raises hundreds of cultural and
legal questions. He maintained that the people of Alaska
should decide a decision of this magnitude.
TOM RACHAL, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. He observed the benefits of a
marriage contract. Only marriage assures social security,
Medicare and veteran's benefits to spouses. Only marriage
grants the right to make emergency medical decisions for a
spouse.
ELLIOTT DENNIS, PARENTS, FRIENDS AND FAMILIES OF LESBIANS
AND GAYS, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. He asserted that passage of the
legislation would increase violent acts against gays and
lesbians. He stressed that the Constitution should not be
changed to legitimate discrimination. He spoke in support
of equal and fair treatment.
AL INCONTRO, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. He noted that the Alaska Supreme
Court is in the process of considering the issue.
PATRICIA MARK, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She maintained that it is not
government's place to tell adults that they can or cannot
marry.
NANCY KAILING, PRESIDENT, PARENTS AND FRIENDS OF LESBIAN AND
GAYS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition
to SJR 42. She expressed concern that passage of the
legislation would increase hate crimes. She has received
death threats and hateful messages in relation to her stance
on homosexuals.
JANET ROBERTS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She asserted that the court is doing
its job to balance the will of the majority in a society
with many traditions.
MARI GALEREAVE, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She stressed the importance of equal
protection. She maintained that it is unconstitutional to
deny equal protection to any group of people. She thought
that SJR 42 would be declared unconstitutional.
PATRICK MARLOW, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. He emphasized that passage of SJR 42
would increase hate crimes. He stressed that the issue
should be considered after the court sets down its final
ruling.
HOWARD BESS, MINISTER, MAT-SU testified via teleconference
in opposition to SJR 42. He expressed concerns regarding
justice and equality. He pointed out that he is an
evangelical Christian. He stressed that it is a legal not
religious matter.
CHARLES NORTHRIP, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42.
He is a born again Christian, ordain Deacon and an elder.
He compared attitudes on segregation and homosexuality. He
noted the state of Alaska's strong protection of individual
rights. He maintained that the courts can be right even
when an apparent majority believe they are wrong. He
observed that his son's homosexual marriage does not
diminish his own.
PAMELA NORTHRIP, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42.
She recounted her experience in the church and as a
schoolteacher. She pointed out that our society still
laughs at "gay" jokes the way it once laughed at ethnic
minorities, Natives and women.
LAUREN CHAMPAGNE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
testified in opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that the
Association believes in social and legal acceptance and
recognition of gay and lesbian people. She maintained that
the legislation would be dangerous and damaging to Alaskan
children. Gay and lesbian youths are more vulnerable to
depression, substance abuse and suicide. They are 2-3 times
at greater risk for suicide than other youth. Gay and
lesbian youths face a hostile environment and social
isolation as they develop a sense of self. She noted that
there is a study that shows that schools with gay and
lesbian alliances have an increase of other students
bringing issues of difference to the adults in the schools.
MARIANNE MILLS, VICE PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
testified in opposition to SJR 42. The League passed a
resolution opposing SJR 42 at its April 17, 1998 convention
in Kenai (copy on file).
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 146, Side 2)
Co-Chair Therriault noted that there is a copy of the
national Association of Social Workers Alaska Chapter's
policy statement in members' files (copy on file).
JENNIFER RUDINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA CIVIL
LIBERTIES, UNION, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. Due to difficulties with the
teleconference committee Ms. Rudinger gave her testimony
later in the meeting.
RICHARD COLLINS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. He asserted that the passage of the
legislation would result in an increase of crimes against
gays and lesbians.
WILLA FREY, MINISTER, JESUS CHRIST OF LATER DAY SAINTS,
FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in opposition to SJR
42. She asserted that the legislation would discriminate
against a significant portion of the state's population.
RICHARD KEMNITZ, SOCIAL ACTION COMMITTEE, UNITARIAN
UNIVERSAL FELLOWSHIP OF FAIRBANKS, FAIRBANKS testified via
teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. Their Assembly
passed a resolution in 1984 and 1996 affirming ceremonies of
union between people of the same sex.
CHRISTINE MCGARVIN, PRESIDENT, UNITARIAN UNIVERSAL
FELLOWSHIP OF FAIRBANKS, FAIRBANKS testified via
teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She stated that the
Fellowship supports marriage between any two committed
persons regardless of gender.
PATTY KEARSON, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She observed that as a social worker
working with emotionally disturbed molested youth that she
has never come across an occasion where a homosexual abused
a child. Gay and lesbian teenagers comprise up to 30
percent of completed youth suicides. Twenty-eight percent
of gay and lesbian youths dropout of school because of
harassment at school. Gay and lesbian youths make up 25
percent of youths living on the street. She asserted that
passage of SJR 42 would increase these statistics because it
would reinforce misinformation and fear.
ROWENA GROSS, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She stressed that the legislation
should protect the rights of minorities.
ELAINE WILLIAMSON, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She observed that hate crimes and
violence have increased in other states that have instituted
gay and lesbian legislation. She urged the Committee to
allow the court to settle the issue.
MARINA DAY, FAIRBANKS testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She questioned if gays and lesbians
that marry would be put in prison if the legislation passes.
She noted that the constitutional amendment would allow the
legislature to enact additional requirements related to
marriage.
JENNIFER RUDINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA CIVIL
LIBERTIES, UNION, ANCHORAGE continued her testified via
teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She asserted that
the legislation subjects a right of personal choice to
majority vote. She maintained that allowing personal
autonomy and individual liberty would not hurt or
disadvantage the right of the majority. She stated that
there is no public interest for the legislature to protect.
She maintained that morality is being legislated. She
observed that founding father, James Madison wrote, "matters
are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice
and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force
of an interested and overbearing majority." She observed
that the United States Supreme Court declared in 1967, that
interracial marriages could not be lawfully banned under the
Equal Protection Clause.
ALLISON MENDEL, ATTORNEY, ANCHORAGE testified via
teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. She observed that
the legal process in the Brown versus state case is not
over. She stressed that the final decision will not be
issued in less than two years. She thought that the federal
law defining marriage would be challenged in court and
struck down. She emphasized that the state of Alaska does
not allow the federal government to decide its laws on other
issues. There is an implication that constitutional
litigation is not appropriate. Constitutional litigation is
a mainstay of the system of separation of powers. The issue
has yet to be reviewed by the Alaska Supreme Court. She
expressed her surprise at the implication "that the state
can't hold its own in this litigation and that if it goes to
decision that the state won't have a fair opportunity to
present its position on compelling state interest. If there
is nothing really important about banning same sex
marriages, I would think the state would be able to state
its case in court and expect a fair outcome." She
maintained that in proposing a ban on same sex marriage the
legislature is essentially treating one class of citizens as
convicted felons or as a class of individuals that present a
public danger that has yet to be explained. She stressed
the adverse affects on families of gays and lesbians.
FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42.
She questioned if homosexuals are any less deserving of
rights than heterosexuals are.
PHILLIP GRAY, JUNEAU testified in support of SJR 42. He did
not think that a judge should be allowed to decide the
issue. He estimated that 70 percent of Alaskans support a
definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. He
maintained that the legislation is in the best financial
interest of the state of Alaska. He noted that the state of
Alaska and businesses would not have to pay insurance and
retirement benefits to homosexual and lesbian partners. He
felt that homosexuals did not need the right of insurance or
retirement benefits for their partners because "a national
study has found that homosexuals have a considerably higher
income level than most Americans".
KIM POOLE, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She
has been an ordained minister for 20 years. During those 20
years she has conducted numerous weddings. Most of the
weddings have been traditional church weddings and some have
been as unconventional as a horseback wedding in the Texas
Panhandle and a ceremony on top of one of the Juneau
glaciers. "Some of these couples have endured the trials
and tribulations that come with a committed relationship and
some have not. The ones that have endured have several
qualities in their pre-marriage and post marriage lives.
Qualities such as the ability to communicate with each other
their needs and their dreams, the desire to make things work
rather than to walk away, and the commitment that only the
bond of love brings between two people. Those are qualities
that cannot be legislated."
"There are many of my friends sitting behind me today who
would like to have their long term relationships of love
recognized by the church and the state. Some have been
together longer than the 20 years I have been ordained. I
would love to be able to conduct their ceremonies of
marriage and commitment."
"It has been said that recognizing same-sex marriage will
lead next to recognizing a marriage relationship between a
father and a mother, or a brother and sister. We are not
talking about incestuous relationships. There is no love in
incest. We are talking about two consenting adults who
desire to spend the rest of their lives together, something
we should value for the stability of society".
Ms. Poole expressed concern that the legislation would
increase violence against homosexuals. "Since last Monday's
testimony before the House Judiciary committee I have
started receiving anonymous phone calls, untraceable by
caller-K). I have been called a "fag lover" and even a
"queer". At 2:00 in the morning they are rather disturbing
calls. I do not have the option, professionally of "turning
off my telephone to avoid the calls."
Representative Kelly emphasized that threats can come from
both sides. He stated that he had received threats from
individuals in opposition to legislation that he introduced
regarding domestic partnerships.
MARY GRAHAM, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She
read an essay by Roger Winters, "Freedom to Marry and the
Pursuit of Happiness."
"Marriage is the paramount adult relationship in our
world. It is considered so fundamental and intimate it
has primacy over citizenship. For example, in most
states, you cannot be compelled to testify against your
spouse. Thus, the relationship between mates is more
important than the relationship of a citizen to
government or society.
Hardly anyone argues that people must be married. Few
today support compelled or arranged marriages. Marriage
is nevertheless encouraged by every means of persuasion
society has.
It is easy to enter legal marriage. Marriage has no
substantial qualifications. There is no test of
competence as partner or parent, no requirement that
there be sex, no penalty for failing to have children,
no proof that love be present. Marrying persons must be
of opposite sexes, able to complete the applications,
take required blood tests, competent to make a
contract, and not too closely related by blood.
Criminals, prisoners, child molesters, serial
batterers, the infertile, and asexual are able to get
legally married. Even gay and lesbian people are
allowed to marry legally ... provided they marry the
opposite sex.
Marriage is the ticket of admission to true adulthood.
There are many responsibilities and protections of law
in marriage. To be free to choose to marry gives you
material access too much that is important in life,
especially at life's most difficult moments: the crisis
of divorce, illness, or death.
Resistance to legal same-sex marriage is at root an
effort, conscious or not, to keep lesbians and gay men
a fringe, less-than-grownup class, not allowed to be
full partners in adult society. One simply cannot be an
adult without freedom to marry (legally). Another key
example: same-sex couples do not get to choose their
next of kin. Their kinship is determined solely by
blood, whether relatives are supportive and loving or
hostile and punitive.
That many same-sex couples are involved in long-term
relationships indicates people are able to be really
married, though considered legal strangers. That many
churches hold ceremonies and since friends and
neighbors attend these "weddings" shows same-sex
"marriages" today often are socially and religiously
affirmed and supported. Many same-sex couples wear
traditional signs of marriage, such as rings on the
wedding ring finger, and have the same surnames (by
hyphen or by law).
Freedom to marry is a huge part of the pursuit of
happiness. It is wrong to deprive people of this
fundamental American value based solely on their sex."
Ms. Graham stated that a decision regarding civil rights
should not be left to a vote by the majority of people in
Alaska.
DARLA MADDEN, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She
stressed that she is not a political activist. She
emphasized that SJR would divide the people of the state of
Alaska.
BEVERLY HAYWOOD, UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION
testified in opposition to SJR 42. She observed that
society has treated gays as second class citizens.
KAREN WOOD, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She
observed ballot initiative number 9 was a measure to amend
the Oregon State Constitution, declaring homosexuality
abnormal and perverse. She recalled heated debates and hate
crimes that occurred at that time in Oregon. Hate crimes
against gays, lesbians, people of color, religious
minorities and women doubled during the period before and
after the election. She expressed concern that gays,
lesbians and other Alaskan minorities would be put at risk
if SJR 42 is passed.
FREDERICK HILLMAN, PHYSICIAN, ANCHORAGE testified via
teleconference in opposition to SJR 42. He maintained that
SJR 42 is an attempt to control the lives of private
citizens in how they form personal relationships.
NORMAN SCHLITTLER, CO-CHAIR, PARENTS AND FRIENDS OF LESBIAN
AND GAYS (PFLAG), ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. He stressed that marriage is a
personal matter and how marriage is recognized is a legal
not legislative matter.
CONNIE FAIPEAS, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She asked how her relationship would
"destroy the free world."
MARI JAMIESON, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. She maintained that the fear that
same sex marriage would erode the fabric of family values is
unfounded.
MILDRED BOESSER, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42.
She noted that she and husband celebrated their 50th year of
marriage. She is a mother and grandmother who came to Alaska
with her husband as missionaries for the Episcopal Church.
She stressed that "whatever you feel about gay and lesbian
persons is not the issue here. The issue is about changing
the Constitution to make sure that some of our citizens are
forever denied equal treatment. It's about writing into our
Constitution that it's all right to discriminate.
MARK BOESSER, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. He
observed that the Episcopal has expressed the opinion that
homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the
laws with all other citizens and has called upon our society
to see that such protection is provided in actuality. He
maintained that the legislation would plainly deny equal
rights and equal protection to a number of the citizens of
this State.
Mr. Boesser referred to the section giving the legislature
permission to enact additional requirements related to
marriage. "Where, I ask you, might this start or end? Any
number of persons in this room could come up with a
downright frightening array of possible restrictions on
marriage - or divorce, for that matter - including ones with
"who-knows-what" price tags attached to them."
ANGELA MUNOZ, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU HUMAN, RIGHTS
COMMISSION testified in opposition to SJR 42. She noted
that the Commission believes that SJR 42 invades an
individual's right to privacy and targets the gay and
lesbian population. She expressed concern that the costly
and lengthy litigation will follow. She stressed that the
rise in hate crimes against gays and lesbians has been
documented in other states.
LAWRENCE WOODALL, JUNEAU, left written testimony that was
read by Jason Nelson, Juneau.
"Thank you for the fair and just treatment in the
course of this legislative investigation of SJR42. I
realize that this legislature has already wasted much
time and expense pushing this issue in the wrong
direction.
This issue arose a few months ago when Judge Peter
Michaelski ruled that SB308 was unconstitutional and
asked the state to provide a compelling interest for
the law. Now if Sen. Loren Leman is correct that gay
marriages will inevitably devastate our society, than
there must be hundreds of proven compelling reasons for
denying gay couples the right to marry. Just give one
of those reasons to the judge and its all over. The
state will have fulfilled the legal requirement for the
statue to become law. If the state cannot come up with
a valid compelling interest, then there is no reason to
mess with our constitution.
The Senate Republicans sure thought they had some good
reasons during their floor debate. Apparently they were
afraid to submit their reasons to a "constitutionality
test" by the Alaskan courts. They would rather leave
the decision to the voters who can be influenced by
their homophobic rhetoric. Ironically this ballot
amendment will most likely also be declared
unconstitutional and thrown out by the courts. Marriage
is a civil right that cannot be determined by popular
vote. It is a fundamental right to family and
fulfillment that must be available to all members of
our society equally. How would you feel if your
marriage were on next falls ballot?
Please let the courts complete their work on this issue
and do not allow constitutional amendments without
reason. I urge you to allow this resolution to remain
in committee."
JASON NELSON, DOUGLAS testified in opposition to SJR 42. He
referred to the "Report of the Secretary's Task Force on
Youth Suicide", U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 1992 (copy on file). He reiterated that suicide
is the leading cause of death among gays and lesbian
teenagers. He read from the report: "When you have been
told that you are sick, bad, and wrong for being who you
are, you begin to believe it. Gay youth have frequently
internalized a negative image of themselves. Those who hide
their identity are surrounded by homophobic attitudes and
remarks, often by unknowing family members and peers, that
have a profound impact on them." He recounted personal
experiences as a gay teenager. He maintained that
homosexuality is not a choice.
MARSHA BUCK, CO-CHAIR, PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF
LESBIANS AND GAYS, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42.
She stressed that Alaskans "don't need to support same sex
marriage to be able to see discrimination when it stares us
in the face." She added that "Alaskans don't need to
support same sex marriage to be able to understand that we
all will be hurt by the divisiveness and hateful rhetoric
that will occur in our great state if S JR 42 ends up as a
ballot measure."
BETH KERTTULA, ATTORNEY, JUNEAU testified in opposition to
SJR 42. She stressed that all Alaskans benefit from the
constitutional right to privacy. She stressed that
discrimination costs and questioned "why bother to have
courts if you don't allow them to do their jobs." She noted
that the resolution would cut many Alaskans off from the
benefits of social security, health care and veteran's
rights. She observed that the state of Alaska would end up
paying more. She maintained that the legislation would
increase public safety costs. She urged that the Committee
not pass an amendment that institutionalizes discrimination.
ANN NORTHRIP, STUDENT, JUNEAU testified against the SJR 42.
She stressed that she was taught Constitution protected the
rights of minorities and that people came to America for
religious freedom. She stressed that discrimination,
regardless of what it is aimed at, is not funny.
KIRSTEN BOMENGEN, ATTORNEY, JUNEAU testified in opposition
to SJR 42. She expressed concern with the disregard and
disrespect that is being shown for the state's judiciary.
She maintained that the legislation would short-circuit the
court's review and observed that the court process would
take another year or two. She related experiences in Bosnia
y Herzigovina. She stressed that in Yugoslavia, leaders
played to religious and ethnic differences that lead to
hostility, death and economic ruin. She pointed out that
George Wallace was admired by many as he blocked attempts to
end segregation in Georgia's schools. She observed that good
leadership does not crate a platform for feeding
divisiveness.
TOM GORDY, MINISTER, CHRISTIAN COALITION, JUNEAU testified
in support of SJR 42. He questioned if the state has the
right to define what it wants to recognize publicly as
marriage. He observed that according to Judge Michalski's
decision it is a private choice. Judge Michalski stated
that "Government intrusion into the choice of a life partner
encroaches on the intimate personal decisions of the
individual. The Constitution does not allow unless the
state can show a compelling interest "necessitating the
abridgement of the constitutionally protected right."
Mr. Gordy maintained that Judge Michalski's decision
implicates that marriage would be allowed between person's
whose relationship is closer than first cousins. He
concluded that the decision could lead to incestuous and
bigamous marriages. He observed that Alaska would be the
first state to recognize same sex marriage. He stressed
that SJR 42 allows the people of Alaska to decide if they
want to define "marriage".
DAN CARTER, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
opposition to SJR 42. He stressed that the ballot campaign
would be divisive. He estimated that civil rights and
voting rights for blacks would have failed if they were
decided at the ballot box. He noted that bigamy, incest and
marriage of children are illegal because the state has a
compelling state interest to make them illegal. He
questioned the compelling state interest in preventing two
consenting adults from marrying.
SARAH BOESSER, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42. She
observed that the court decision states that: "The Marriage
Code now specifically prohibits same-sex marriage, bigamy
and marrying anyone closer than one's first cousin." The
decision only deals with same-sex marriage. She disagreed
that the decision would affect the legality of incest of
bigamy. She stressed that it is too early to consider
mending the Constitution's basic privacy rights.
Ms. Boesser maintained that the ballot campaign would
declare open season on her and her families. For example,
at a Senate Finance Committee hearing a pastor declared that
the Bible says homosexuals should be stoned to death. She
stressed that the real issue is that the bill is premature
because the lower court decision has a long way to go to be
resolved at the state and federal court appeals.
MAUREEN LONGWORTH, PHYSICIAN, JUNEAU testified against SJR
42. She stressed that the legislation would discriminate
against a group of people. She asserted that it is a proven
and medical fact that the gay lifestyle is normal. It
occurs spontaneously in approximately 15 percent of the
population regardless of gender, background, religion or
ethnicity. It exists in most species. The human species is
the only one that honors long term committed relationships
with a contract that brings with it legal and financial
benefits. Marriage offers benefits that help a couple to
provide for one another. She maintained that to pass
legislation that violates these rights for Alaskans would be
legalized discrimination and would violate the Constitution.
She observed that gays and lesbians who are now the only
minority group in the United States without equal rights.
DAVID ROGERS, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. He
maintained that SJR 42 promotes discrimination. He asserted
the legislation would make some persons permanent second
class citizens. He stressed that there is no historical
precedent, legal theory, religious doctrine or
constitutional amendment can change that fact.
CAREN ROBINSON, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY, JUNEAU testified in
opposition to SJR 42. She maintained that the legislation
implies that it is okay to discrimination.
CAROL ANDERSON, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42.
She observed that the ballot resolution does not question if
same-sex marriages should be permitted. It asks if same-sex
marriage should be prohibited. She maintained that SJR 42
is more of an opinion poll. She pointed out that there are
no Alaskan or federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation. She observed that the
Committee hearing was televised and emphasized that their
testimony could put gays and lesbians at risk.
WILSON VALENTINE, MINISTER, EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SAINT
BRENDAN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42.
(Tape Change, HFC 98 - 147, Side 2)
Mr. Valentine observed that clergy performs the majority of
marriages. He stressed that the passage of SJR 42 will put
clergy in a bad position. He agreed that the legislation
would discriminate. He urged members to stand against
discrimination. He compared the length of time that SJR 42
has been debated to the length of debate on a subsistence
amendment.
WILLIE ANDERSON, JUNEAU testified against SJR 42. He stated
that as an African-American he has experienced
discrimination. He noted that at one time African-Americans
could not marry white Americans. Slavery was once legal in
America. Native and non-whites were once held in separate
classes. He maintained that the legislation would legalize
discrimination.
LINDA HEMPHILL, JUNEAU stated that she supports SJR 42. She
observed that if there were no unions of men and women that
there would be no offspring. She asserted that when the
foundational block of society is chipped away the foundation
begins to crumble and the end result is no society.
MARISSA WILLIAMS, DOUGLAS testified in opposition to SJR 42.
She stressed that the measure is contrary to the
Constitution, faith and ideals.
LEANNE GRIFFIN, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42.
She stated that SJR 42 is contrary to what she was taught
about equal protection under the law.
DARIEN WAHL, JUNEAU spoke in support of SJR 42. She
maintained that it is an issue of moral perversity. She
asserted that same-sex marriages would undermine the
foundation of our society.
LIN DAVIS, JUNEAU testified in opposition to SJR 42. She
stressed that the amendment would violate privacy rights and
equal protection.
Mr. Pauley responded to arguments against SJR 42. He
summarized arguments by previous testifiers. He observed
that testifiers compared SJR 42 to the previous ban on
interracial marriage. He observed that the former Joint
Chief of Staff, Colin Powell stated "skin color is a benign
nonbehavior characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps
the most profound of human behavior characteristics.
Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."
He observed that testifiers stated that SJR 42 would
constitute discrimination against a class of people. He
observed that the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony
from Lynn Wardle, who is a professor of family law. He
pointed out that the law divides human relationships into
three categories. The first class is prohibited
relationships such as incest. The second category is
tolerated relationships such as two heterosexuals cohabiting
together. The third category is preferred relationships.
Marriage is a preferred relationship. He observed that
there is a desire to move homosexual relationships from the
tolerated category to the preferred category.
Mr. Pauley maintained that SJR 42 is not premature. He
observed that the Hawaii Supreme Court could issue a
decision legalizing same-sex marriage before Hawaiian voters
have a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment. He
recalled testimony by the Department of Law that SJR 42
would bring an expensive lawsuit to an end. He stressed
that the court decision could be settled before the year
2000.
Mr. Pauley maintained that SJR 42 does not exasperate the
divisiveness of the issue. He acknowledged that the
Hawaiian court could not find a compelling state interest.
He observed that courts require evidence. He stressed that
it is impossible to document the harms of an institution
that has never existed.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the necessity of lines 9 -
11: "The legislature may enact additional requirements
related to marriage to the extend permitted by the
Constitution of the United States and this constitution."
Mr. Pauley stated that the court's decision could threaten
the ability to restrict marriage to two persons. He
observed that the ban on interracial marriage has already
been declared unconstitutional under the federal
Constitution.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that the legislation carries a
standard $3.0 thousand dollar fiscal note.
Representative Kelly MOVED to report CSSJR 42 (FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSJR 42 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal impact note by the
Office of the Governor, 3/10/98.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:28 p.m.
House Finance Committee 18 5/04/98 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|