Legislature(2005 - 2006)
03/29/2006 02:36 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB308 | |
| HJR32 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2006
2:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative John Coghill
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 308
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
- MOVED CSHB 308(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32
Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 325
"An Act relating to post-conviction DNA testing; and amending
Rule 35.1, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 414
"An Act relating to allowing a parent or guardian of a minor to
intercept the private communications of the minor and to consent
to an order authorizing law enforcement to intercept the private
communications of the minor."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 3/31/06
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 308
SHORT TITLE: CALLER ID HACKERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN
05/08/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/08/05 (H) JUD, FIN
03/22/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/22/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 03/24/06>
03/24/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/24/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 03/29/06>
03/29/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 32
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/10/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/06 (H) JUD, FIN
03/15/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/15/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/17/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/17/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/27/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/27/06 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 03/29/06>
03/29/06 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM MURPHY, Congressman
U.S. House of Representatives
Upper St. Clair, Pennsylvania
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments, shared a personal
example, and responded to questions during discussion of HB 308.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 308.
DIRK MOFFATT, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 308, provided a
comment on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Lynn.
ROBERT DOUGLAS
PrivacyToday.com
Steamboat Springs, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 308.
KEVIN G. CLARKSON, Esq., Attorney at Law
Brena, Bell & Clarkson, PC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Legislative Council, provided
comments during discussion of HJR 32, and responded to
questions.
MAUREEN LONGWORTH, M.D.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 32, provided
comments on behalf of both herself and the Alaska Academy of
Family Physicians.
DOUG VEIT
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HJR 32.
KEVIN DOUGHERTY
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 32.
LAURA MOSLEY-MINNE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 32, expressed
concerns and requested that the committee not allow HJR 32 to
move forward.
KIM PATTERSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 32, provided
comments and expressed his hope that the resolution will pass
and go before the voters.
DEBBIE JOSLIN
Eagle Forum Alaska
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 32, and asked that the resolution be passed.
KAREN TAFT WELLS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns during discussion of
HJR 32.
BEN KRALL
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
CINDY BOESSER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
BARBARA BELKNAP
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
JAMES GRAY
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
GREG SCHMIDT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 32.
CHARLES L. O'CONNELL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
RANDY MAGEN, Ph.D., President
Alaska Chapter
National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
LIN DAVIS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on HJR 32 and urged the
committee to vote no on it.
SIDNEY HEIDERSDORF
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 32.
DIXIE A. HOOD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 32, provided
comments and urged the committee to stop the proposal to deny
rights and benefits based on marital status.
AMY PAIGE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to refrain from passing
HJR 32.
MARY ELIZABETH RIDER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
MARINA DAY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 32 and asked the committee not to pass it.
JEANNE LAURENCELLE
Social Action Committee
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 32, provided
comments and urged the committee to oppose the legislation.
JIM MINNORY
Alaska Family Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 32, provided
comments and urged the committee to vote in favor of the
resolution so as to allow it to go before the voters.
STEVEN JACQUIER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HJR 32, expressed
concerns and asked the committee to defeat the resolution.
FRANCIS MANYOKY
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:36:36 PM. Representatives
McGuire, Gara, Kott, and Coghill were present at the call to
order. Representatives Gruenberg and Anderson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 308 - CALLER ID HACKERS
2:38:26 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 308, "An Act relating to false caller
identification." [In committee packets was a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 308, Version 24-LS0779\F, Bannister,
1/25/06.]
2:38:40 PM
TIM MURPHY, Congressman, U.S. House of Representatives, relayed
that in October, 2005, his office in Pittsburgh received nearly
100 calls from constituents who'd received recorded phone
messages that were politically critical of him; what was of
particular concern was that the caller identification (ID)
number that appeared on the constituents' phones was that of his
congressional office. He went on to say:
Needless to say, the calls did not come from my
office, and my constituents were confused, annoyed,
and asked me to stop making the calls. Their
complaints, in fact, tied up my phone line in my
district office for a good two days. The calls
stated, in their recording, that they were sponsored
by an unknown group called, "We the People" that have
lobbed similar calls from the districts of my
colleagues in Congress. Stealing, masking, or
otherwise altering one's caller identification is
certainly a deceptive, unaccountable practice that
exasperates citizens. When these calls are directed
at elected officials, these anonymous attacks also
undermine the political process, which is [an]
important part of the democracy.
And those who commit caller ID fraud for political
reasons are essentially the snipers of politics
because they anonymously fire attacks at candidates
and public officials without accountability or the
possibility of a truthful rebuttal. As it turns out,
the information they were providing in these calls was
false. What's important to bear in mind is, I think
they're motivated by the idea that if they convince 1
out of 100 people that they call, these fraudulent
callers would likely consider their campaign a
success, and that's why they continue to do that -
they don't really care how many constituents they've
bothered along the way.
But consider the effects of the false use of caller ID
in other areas. Past federal and state efforts to
block unwanted phone solicitations with do-not-call
lists [were] ... supposed to provide some privacy for
citizens, but when someone hijacks your phone number,
they can bypass that protection. In the U.S. House
[of Representatives], I'm working, now, with my
colleagues, to enact legislation that stops those who
engage in this misleading [indisc.]. Why? Because of
some of the problems it causes. The reason to enact a
law to penalize caller ID fraud is not just ... to
protect politicians, but ... to protect American
families, because illegally using another person's
phone number could have limitless unlawful
applications, including being used for physical
threats to other citizens, businesses, schools, and so
on.
And of course it doesn't take much imagination to
understand how dangerous this ability could be for
unlawful people: criminals seeking personal financial
information from citizens by falsely using a bank's
phone number; a pedophile stalking children using a
school's phone number; ... a sexual predator using a
doctor's office phone number; [or] a terrorist making
threats from a government phone number. So I salute
your efforts to fight back against caller ID fraud
perpetrators, and I'm going to continue my work to
enact caller ID fraud protection for all Americans.
In the meantime, I'm pleased that my good colleagues
in Alaska are working hard at this and really setting
up a pace of leadership for our nation that the rest
of the states should follow, and urge your
considerations to enact this bill to protect all
Alaskans.
CONGRESSMAN MURPHY, in response to a question, relayed that he
represents the 18th congressional district of Pennsylvania.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what kind of sanctions or penalties
are being proposed via the aforementioned federal legislation.
CONGRESSMAN MURPHY said they were still exploring options,
options such as levying a fine for each instance of a call;
researching how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
proposes to deal with this issue; or adding a fine on top of
some other criminal penalty. Using fraudulent caller ID numbers
is not a matter of free speech, and the goal is to protect
people from those that would use such numbers for criminal
purposes.
2:44:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 308, Version 24-LS0779\F, Bannister,
1/25/06, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version F
was before the committee.
2:44:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, said
that one should be careful when looking at the name and number
provided by a telephone caller ID mechanism because they could
be phony; the fraudulent use of names and numbers in this manner
could be part of a joke, but it could also be part of a criminal
activity. A child molester could be calling one's children, or
a person could be claiming to be the police or a school official
or one's doctor's office. Someone could use this form of fraud
to destroy another's good reputation. The power to create
serious mischief with caller ID "spoofing" technology is almost
unlimited, from simple pranks, to spying, to telemarketing, to
fraud, and to enticing victims to dangerous locations.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that although the FCC and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are most often the entities
dealing with caller ID spoofing, Alaska can take steps by
publicizing the threat and making it a class B misdemeanor to
insert false information into a caller ID system. The bill,
however, does contain an exemption for municipal, state, and
federal law enforcement agencies. He concluded by asking for
support for the legislation.
2:48:06 PM
DIRK MOFFATT, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, added on behalf of Representative Lynn
that a "spoof card" - a sample of which has been provided in
members' packets - can be purchased for between $10 and $40, and
that such cards allow the caller to change the number that is
displayed on someone else's caller ID system or even change the
sound of the caller's own voice; if one can use a calling card,
one can "caller spoof."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked what the penalty is for impersonating
a police officer.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned whether it is a crime to
impersonate others, particularly those in positions of
authority. He offered his belief that under certain
circumstances, a class B misdemeanor is too low a penalty, and
asked the sponsor whether he'd given thoughts to increasing the
level of penalty should one be caught attempting to impersonate
a police officer via fraudulent caller ID technology. For
example, a person could call up a homeowner, claim to be a
police officer, instruct the homeowner to vacate the home for a
specified period of time, and then burgle the home during that
timeframe. Could a higher penalty be imposed if such a person
were caught before the successful completion of the burglary if
fraudulent caller ID technology was used?
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he is assuming that there is a penalty
for impersonating a police officer, or, if there isn't one
currently, there certainly should be. He characterized the use
of spoofing technology to impersonate a police officer as more
egregious behavior than if such technology were used to
impersonate some other type of person, and thus he would be
friendly towards any amendment that would raise the penalty for
impersonating a police officer via the use of fraudulent caller
ID technology.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that there are statutes pertaining to
criminal impersonation in the first degree and criminal
impersonation in the second degree - AS 11.46.565 and AS
11.46.570:
Sec. 11.46.565. Criminal impersonation in the first
degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal
impersonation in the first degree if the person
(1) possesses an access device or identification
document of another person;
(2) without authorization of the other person,
uses the access device or identification document of
another person to obtain a false identification
document, open an account at a financial institution,
obtain an access device, or obtain property or
services; and
(3) recklessly damages the financial reputation
of the other person.
(b) Criminal impersonation in the first degree is
a class B felony.
Sec. 11.46.570. Criminal impersonation in the second
degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of criminal
impersonation in the second degree if the person
(1) assumes a false identity and does an act in
the assumed character with intent to defraud, commit a
crime, or obtain a benefit to which the person is not
entitled; or
(2) pretends to be a representative of some
person or organization and does an act in the
pretended capacity with intent to defraud, commit a
crime, or obtain a benefit to which the person is not
entitled.
(b) Criminal impersonation in the second degree
is a class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT surmised, then, that under AS 11.46.570, the
person could be charged with a class A misdemeanor.
CHAIR McGUIRE concurred, but noted that HB 308 provides for a
class B misdemeanor penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it seems as though it would be
difficult to either prove a person used fraudulent caller ID
technology, or to track down someone who has used it.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested that it might be possible to
backtrack to the person who is using such technology.
CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to questions, pointed out that HB 308
provides for a mental state of "knowingly," and surmised that
someone might be charged with this particular crime once another
crime is committed or a complaint is received and the victim
reports that he/she received a phone call from someone who
turned out to not be the person listed on his/her caller ID
system. For example, one could report that one's child is
getting repeated phone calls from someone who seems to be using
fraudulent caller ID technology, and then that situation could
be investigated by law enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pondered whether they were creating a
crime that can't be enforced.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged that this type of crime could
be very hard to prove, but offered his understanding that a
fraudulent caller ID would be recorded on a caller ID system and
so someone might be caught in that fashion.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that "knowingly" is a high standard.
2:57:07 PM
ROBERT DOUGLAS, PrivacyToday.com, relayed that he's spent the
last nine years as an information security consultant,
specifically examining information brokers and others who use
various types of deceit in order to obtain personal information
and, in many cases, sell it on the Internet. He mentioned that
he recently testified in the House and Senate of the U.S.
Congress on [certain] issues, including the issue of caller ID
spoofing. Mr. Douglas said that he would like to adopt the
comments made by Congressman Murphy and Representative Lynn and
point out that the services are being used at a substantial
volume. Furthermore, there are investigations underway and
although those investigations are in their infancy, it's evident
that these services and devices are being used successfully to
deceive both consumers and American businesses into divulging
proprietary and personal information.
MR. DOUGLAS said that these devices are also being used against
banks, companies, and the military. Furthermore, they are used
in corporate espionage, defeating the federal and state "do not
call" lists, and by pedophiles and stalkers. He then referred
to a case that occurred in New Hampshire in which deceit was
used in a murder case. He explained that a woman named Amy
Boyer was stalked by a number of years by a Liam Uen. Mr. Uen
was documenting the stalking and his intent to kill Ms. Boyer
and others. Moreover, Mr. Uen went to a number of information
brokers to obtain personal information about Ms. Boyer in order
to assist him in conducting the murder. Mr. Uen used a company
that called Ms. Boyer's mother pretending to be an insurance
company that had a refund for Ms. Boyer that needed to be
processed through her employer. Ms. Boyer's mother thought it
was a legitimate request and turned over Ms. Boyer's work
address. Within weeks, Ms. Boyer was gunned down at her place
of employment.
MR. DOUGLAS opined that the aforementioned example graphically
illustrates that if these services can be used to convince the
recipient of a phone call that they are from an organization to
which the information can be legitimately released, the more
likely they are to succeed. He posited that there is really no
legitimate purpose for these services, and therefore he
applauded the introduction of HB 308.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, line 6, and offered
his belief that a national security agency may potentially have
to do this. Therefore, he questioned whether the language "or
national security agency" should be inserted after "law
enforcement agencies".
3:02:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that he would accept the aforementioned
as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, to insert, on page 1, line 6, after the words, "law
enforcement agencies", the words, "or national security
agencies". There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 308.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that he couldn't think of any
unintended consequences of this legislation, but suggested that
some thought be given to any possibilities. He surmised that
political polls would be swept in by this legislation as well,
which he said may not be a bad thing. He then said that the
legislation should be moved out of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN pointed out that HB 308 addresses the
utilization of an actual device that can be purchased at various
stores. He also pointed out that those performing polls do so
using a regular telephone call.
3:04:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 308, Version 24-LS0779\F, Bannister, 1/25/06, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
308(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
HJR 32 - CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
[Contains brief mention of SJR 20, Senate companion bill to
HJR 32.]
3:05:01 PM
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32, Proposing an amendment to the
section of the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to
marriage.
3:05:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor, relayed that
HJR 32 was engendered by the Alaska Supreme Court ruling in the
2005 Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State & Municipality of
Anchorage case regarding benefits for same-sex couples, a ruling
with which he disagrees. He offered his belief that in passing
the 1998 [marriage] amendment to the Alaska State Constitution,
68 percent of the voters also had the expectation that no
benefits would be granted based on same-sex relationships. [Via
HJR 32], he is proposing that the people of Alaska get a chance
to speak to this issue specifically; he said his concern is that
the movement to establish that same-sex relationships are equal
to marriage will have a huge impact on Alaska's whole body of
law, and his hope, as the resolution continues through the
process, is to have statutes and other [provisions of law]
[underscore] his belief that [no benefits should be granted
based on same-sex relationships].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is concerned that the only way
the people of Alaska will have an opportunity to speak to this
issue is via a constitutional amendment, and although he is
reluctant to propose any amendment to the Alaska State
Constitution, his view is that there is a tension between what
the people of Alaska think and what the courts think. He opined
that the legislature has been clear regarding same-sex
relationships, even putting it in statute that the benefits of
marriage would not be afforded to same-sex couples; the
legislature has been clear on what a marriage is, what the
benefits of marriage are, to whom they belong, and yet the
courts have gone right around that.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that some will raise the
argument that [HJR 32] is discriminatory, and he somewhat
agrees; "it's discrete that a marriage should be between a man
and a woman, and the benefits of marriage should be between that
man and that woman in that marriage." To allow another
relationship to be equal to or congruent with marriage is not
something that "we as a society" should do, he opined. He said
he would like to appeal to the people of Alaska and ask them if
"that's what they really mean." Again, there is a tension
between how the courts view this issue and how the people view
it, but unless the people get a chance to speak, there will only
be the court's viewpoint to go by.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL characterized the language of HJR 32 as
being fairly clear, noting that it says in part, "No other union
is similarly situated", remarking that the term "similarly
situated" comes directly from the aforementioned Alaska Supreme
Court decision in which the court equated a same-sex
relationship to marriage. And so by necessity, he opined, the
language in the Alaska State Constitution must be changed so
that it speaks to the issue of whether the rights, benefits,
obligations, qualities, and effects of marriage should be
extended to any other union.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is sympathetic towards people who
need healthcare coverage and benefits, but he stands firm in his
belief that the relationship of marriage is one of the "health
cornerstones" of the country. He relayed that he would speak
more on this issue after the public has testified.
3:11:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he doesn't think the sponsor has stated
the issue the way he thinks it is being presented to [the
legislature]. He elaborated:
I think the voters, in 1998, said marriage shall be
between a man and a woman, and I think you can respect
that and separately consider the issue ... [of]
whether ... people who are not heterosexual are
entitled to health benefits at work. I think they're
separate questions, and I don't believe that you would
disrespect the [Alaska State] Constitution, the
prohibition against same-sex marriage, by letting
somebody get health benefits for working - or their
partner. I certainly understand there might be an
opposition to that latter concept; we can have that
debate, and I want [to] ... hear the discussion on
whether ... we should limit health benefits to only
straight couples, but I don't think that has anything
to do with the separate question of same-sex marriage.
And so I guess I don't agree with your
characterization of the issue.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked members to refrain from using witnesses to
profess their own views.
3:14:38 PM
KEVIN G. CLARKSON, Esq., Attorney at Law, Brena, Bell &
Clarkson, PC, relayed that he'd been retained by Legislative
Council to provide legal advice regarding the recent Alaska
Supreme Court case, ACLU v. State & Municipality of Anchorage,
and the proposed amendments - SJR 20 and HJR 32 - that were
introduced in response to that case. He then said:
By way of introduction, I was legal counsel for the
Alaska legislature in 1998 in the legal action that
related to whether the marriage amendment, Article I,
Section 25, would remain on the ballot so that the
people of Alaska could vote to ratify it. I also
represented the Alaska legislature in the original
same-sex marriage case itself, and I was one of the
primary drafters of the marriage amendment. Now, in
order to understand the significance of HJR 32, it's
essential to understand the history that has lead up
to its introduction in the legislature at this time.
Relevant history, I think, includes events in the
United States Congress, the Lower 48 states, also in
Alaska.
Now, in 1996, Congress adopted the federal Defense of
Marriage Act - DOMA. Congress passed [the] DOMA
because of a decades-long assault that had been made
in various courts challenging the definition and
constitutionality of marriage, and particularly in
response to a Hawaii court decision at that time.
[The] DOMA has two sections: one defining "marriage"
for purposes of federal law, and the other affirming
federalism principles under the authority granted by
Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, which
is the full faith and credit clause. The first
section of [the] DOMA states that for purposes of
federal law, marriage means a legal union between a
man and a woman. The second ... section reaffirmed
the power of the states to make their own decisions
about marriage.
By way of [the] DOMA, all of the various attributes,
benefits, and privileges of marriage that are created
or assigned by federal law, are assigned or provided
only to, one, "marriages," which are limited to only
legal unions between one man and one woman as husband
and wife, or, two, "spouses," which is defined in
[the] DOMA as a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife. Thus, under [the] DOMA, and under
federal law, none of the various attributes, benefits
and/or privileges of marriage that exist under federal
law are available to any unmarried couples, whether
same sex or opposite sex. Now, in Alaska, ... the
marriage amendment was ratified by the people, on a
vote of 68 percent to 32 percent.
MR. CLARKSON continued:
Now, the Alaska marriage amendment can be said to have
its origin in reaction to a specific judicial
decision, much like HJR 32; the marriage amendment was
ratified in response to a decision by ... [an Alaska]
Superior Court judge in a case called Brause v. Bureau
of Vital Statistics. On February 28, 1998, that ...
judge ruled that the Alaska [State] Constitution
provided a fundamental right to marry someone of the
same sex.
Now, the history of Alaska's marriage statute, which
is relevant as well, dates back to about the early
turn of the century; Alaska's marriage statute is
based on a territorial law, which defined marriage as
being a civil contract entered into between males of
the age of 21, and females of the age of 18. In
[1959] the law was changed slightly to change the ages
that people could marry at; in 1970, the statute was
modified to reduce, from "21" to "19," the age at
which a man could marry. And, up to this point in
time, Alaska's marriage statutes clearly restricted
marriage to one man and one woman - along with all the
benefits and attributes of marriage that went along
with marriage.
Now, something very interesting, and also very
unintended, occurred in 1974. The Alaska revisor of
statutes set upon the task of rendering Alaska's
statutes "gender neutral" in language and, in the
process, made two unintended substantive changes to
the marriage statute, one clear and express and the
other implicit. ... Now, mind you, the revisor of
statutes has no authority whatsoever to be changing
the substance of Alaska statute; that's something that
only the legislature is supposed to be doing, or the
people, by initiative, but nonetheless it occurred.
The express substantive change which the revisor of
statute's made was to change the age of permissible
marriage for both genders to 19 from the previous 19
for men and 18 for women. And the second substantive
change, which was only implicit in effect, was to
eliminate the words "man" and "woman" from the statute
and insert the word "person" in their place.
MR. CLARKSON added:
Now, while gender neutrality is probably a very noble
goal, and appropriate in the context of most Alaska
statutes, from the standpoint of the substantive
meaning and effect of the marriage law, the result was
very drastic. ... By eliminating the words "man" and
"woman" from the marriage statute, the revisor's
gender neutral language had the appearance of changing
Alaska's definition of marriage to being a civil
contract which could be entered into between any two
persons, presumably of any combination of either
gender, who are 19 years [of age] or older.
3:20:02 PM
The statute was again modified in 1975, this time by
the legislature itself, to reduce the age of marriage
to 18 for both men and women, and, apparently unaware
of the substantive change that had been made by the
revisor at that time, the Legislature just retained
the gender-neutral language and didn't even discuss
what effect it might have. And from that point
forward, the marriage statute remained unchanged and
unchallenged for the next 21 years until 1996.
Now just a year before the marriage amendment was
adopted, the Alaska Supreme Court heard a case
involving two employees of the University of Alaska
who wanted healthcare insurance for their same-sex
partners. The employees challenged the University's
decision not to extend the benefits to their same-sex
partners, claiming that there was a violation of the
state human rights Act, which prohibited marital-
status discrimination.
The plaintiffs in that case challenged the University
of Alaska Fairbanks's policies limiting spousal
benefits to the husbands or wives of its married
employees. The superior court judge in Fairbanks
pretty much set loose a firestorm when she ruled that
UAF could not legally limit spousal benefits to
traditional husbands and wives, basing her decision in
part on the revisor of statute's 1974 bill and the
sort of inaction of the legislature in 1975 when it
failed to mention the impact of that gender neutral
language.
MR. CLARKSON also said:
Now, suddenly, at that time, the Alaska legislature
became very aware of the potential substantive change
that had taken place and the impact that it would have
upon the extension of marriage benefits, privileges,
and attributes. And in 1995, Representative [Norman]
Rokeberg introduced House Bill 227, which was designed
to define marriage specific to a man and a woman and
to limit the benefits and privileges of marriage to a
marriage between a man and a woman, and there was
another bill, House Bill 226, that was introduced also
at that same time. Those bills were passed and
enacted and the statute was amended to clearly define
marriage as [between] a man and a woman only, and to
limit the benefits, privileges, attributes [of]
marriage to that marriage relationship between a man
and a woman.
Now, the plaintiffs in the Brause case - which is the
same-sex marriage case, which was filed in 1995 also -
... sought marriage as a doorway to the benefits and
privileges that the law bestows upon married couples.
The plaintiffs in Brause argued repeatedly that there
are some 115 benefits and privileges available to
married couples under Alaska law, which they could not
access. The plaintiffs in Brause sought to use the
status of marriage as a doorway by which they could
access the various benefits and privileges of
marriage, and attach them to their same-sex
relationship.
The Brause litigation treated marital status and
marital benefits as being inseparable. In Brause, the
plaintiffs specifically sought benefits based on
marital status. In fact, the [Alaska] Superior
Court's ruling in Brause treated marital status and
benefits as being inseparable. "Once married," the
court said, ... "the state provides benefits and
imposes duties that are significant and valuable to
society as well as to the individual members of the
marriage." ... Put another way, the [Alaska] Superior
Court's ruling treated the benefits, privileges, and
duties of marriage as being entirely consequent upon
marital status.
MR. CLARKSON then said:
Now, the marriage amendment, in 1998, ... was
specifically designed to close marital status as a
doorway by which same-sex couples, or any combination
of opposite sex couples, other than one man and one
woman, might access the benefits and privileges of
marriage. The marriage amendment as it was originally
introduced in the legislature as [Senate Joint
Resolution 42] contained three sentences - today it
only has one - ... and it provided that to be valid or
recognized in the state, a marriage may exist only
between one man and one woman. ...
The second sentence [said that] no provision of the
[Alaska State] Constitution may be interpreted to
require the state to recognize or permit marriage
between individuals of the same sex. [The] final
sentence [said that] additional requirements related
to marriage may be established to the extent permitted
by the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. The third
sentence of the amendment was dropped by the
legislature during the legislative process.
CHAIR McGUIRE, noticing that Mr. Clarkson was merely reading his
written testimony, requested that he summarize, since members'
packets already contained that 19-page document. She also
mentioned to Mr. Clarkson that Representative Coghill has asked
that he remain on line, listen to the remainder of the meeting,
and be available as a resource.
3:25:14 PM
MR. CLARKSON, in conclusion, then, opined that HJR 32 is in line
with the amendments that have been passed and proposed in the
Lower 48, noting that 19 states have marriage amendments, 11 of
which contain language very similar or identical in effect to
HJR 32. Also, there are 12 more states with similar amendments
pending; should these all be adopted, there would be 31 states
with marriage amendments. In response to a question, he said he
didn't know why originally men in Alaska had to wait until they
were 21 to get married.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that maturity might have played
a role.
MR. CLARKSON, in response to further questions, relayed that his
fee is $235 per hour, that his total bill to the state so far is
probably less than $4,000, and that it would be up to
Legislative Council to decide whether he would also be getting
paid for his time testifying before committees.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked, "I think much of this is really a
political debate and not a legal debate, and, frankly, I don't
think that we need to keep you on line for the next hour, hour
and a half, at $235 an hour, to listen to this."
MR. CLARKSON said, then, that he would not bill the legislature
for [the time he remains on line].
3:29:02 PM
MAUREEN LONGWORTH, M.D., relayed that she would be testifying on
behalf of both herself and the Alaska Academy of Family
Physicians. Referring to the term cornerstone, she said that
she grew up in a very religious atmosphere, and her family was
taught the value of love and of loving everyone at the expense
of any judgment. She offered:
My father entered the kitchen every morning saying to
my mother, "Oh, my vision of loveliness," before he
kissed her. This was taken even [further] when
anybody in the family had a need, whether it be
something ... we could barely afford; my father worked
very hard, for our family of nine people, to support
us, and it wasn't easy. Beyond that, he taught us
that in a religious context - and he used the bible as
his guide - we would extend that kind of love and
fairness to others outside our family.
I remember when I was 10 years old, the first time a
black student enrolled in my grammar school, my father
sat all nine of us down and talked to us about
discrimination, and he said, "We will treat Blen (ph)
as we wish to be treated, we will always love one
another the way we wished to be loved." Later, in my
thirties, my father was asked to speak at a gay
commitment ceremony, and it was at a time when that
was still a very new thing, and I was very proud of
the words my father spoke at the microphone at that
ceremony; it was: "May all the barriers that face you
and others in your minority group fall away, and may
you be met by the love you have for one another,
reflecting back to you, all the days of your lives."
You know by what I'm saying that I'm very lucky to
have been raised with my father. He obviously was a
sacred leader, someone who went beyond what he felt
about anyone judgmentally, to be able to teach us
what's right and wrong ... [and] to practice what he
preached to us about love and about equality and lack
of discrimination. This made it easer for me, when I
decided to become a physician, to practice that way
with my patients, so that I'm able to walk into the
emergency room and give non-discriminate care to the
girl who was raped or to the uncle who raped her.
DR. LONGWORTH relayed that what the Alaska Academy of Family
Physicians is pointing out, along with the American Academy of
Family Physicians - which, respectively, are groups of 355
doctors and 94,000 physicians in the United States - is that a
legislator's oath of office is of a similar sacred nature. She
said she agrees with Representative Gara that this is not about
marriage at all, but is instead about equal access for
healthcare. She said:
This is a cornerstone of our constitution, of our
rights as Americans, to be able to provide better
health for all people, and we should certainly not
change it in our constitution. We believe, as people
who've taken a sacred oath, that you who've taken a
sacred oath need to not let this go to a ballot box,
where people who do not take any sacred oath are given
an opportunity to vote. Whatever your prejudices,
whatever your feelings about gay marriage, your duty,
as our legislators, is to guarantee health access to
the families of all our workers. In actuality, and
you can look at any statistics, ... when ... [such is]
provided for more families, we know that economically
we have a ... [stronger] nation. We know, as well,
that it strengthens the healthcare of a people to have
benefits - there's less disease and there's less
poverty.
So we are asking you to put aside your ideas of what's
discrimination and what's not discrimination; all
these ... thousands of physicians are asking you [to
understand] that this is not an issue for the ballot
box. It requires your sacred oath, the one that you
swore to when you came into office, and I hope that
some of you, enough of you, will be as big as my
father, who taught me this at a young age. And I wish
for all of you that you had the example that I had
growing up, and I'm sorry that not everyone does.
Thank you so much.
DR. LONGWORTH, in closing, offered her belief that members'
packets contain a letter from the Alaska Academy of Family
Physicians.
3:36:34 PM
PAULA TERREL said she is opposed to HJR 32, and would like to
discuss two points. She relayed that she's been in a loving
relationship for 20 years followed by 7 years of marriage, and
that she used to work for the legislature - for 28 sessions -
and had wanted to "pull" her retirement. Doing so, however,
meant that she couldn't protect her then-partner - with regard
to health benefits and survivor benefits - without getting
married, and so they were married for that practical reason.
She had that choice, she pointed out, because she happened to be
heterosexual, but those that are gay don't have that same
choice. The issue of equity is what the Alaska Supreme Court
was speaking to, she opined, rather than to the marriage
amendment, which was passed while she worked as a legislative
aide.
MS. TERREL offered her understanding that Representative Coghill
is concerned that "opening up ... benefits for state workers"
would open up a "Pandora's Box" because it would open up so many
other benefits for same-sex couples; her response to that
concern is, "Why not?" To her, she relayed, such would be fine
if the couple is in a committed relationship. She urged the
committee to oppose HJR 32, adding her belief that although some
issues should go before the voters, some things shouldn't - the
Alaska State Constitution is more powerful in its right of
privacy and equal protection [clauses] than other states.
Recalling testimony provided during a Senate committee hearing,
she asked members what they think would have happened if, in
1965, the issue of integration had been put before a vote of the
people; had such been done, she surmised, integration would not
have passed. For some issues, she concluded, the people must
rely on their legislators and on the Alaska Supreme Court.
3:40:38 PM
DOUG VEIT, after relaying that he is homosexual and currently
doesn't have a partner, said he is very dismayed that the
supporters of HJR 32 are bringing forth ponderous legal
arguments, bending over backwards, in an attempt to illustrate
the logic and order of this proposal, and yet the very fact that
"we are here in the first place" is because of illogic, "no
thinking," and fear - all based upon religious beliefs. He went
on to say:
I find it very disappointing that now we are having
logic when why wasn't logic applied in the very first
place concerning whether there is anything
inappropriate about gay people marrying. It's already
been mentioned that this amendment is nothing but
flagrant and blatant discrimination. I find it very
upsetting that on the pretext of citizens' rights,
that the people of this state should have the right to
fine-tune this, the original ignorance; that on the
basis of their citizens' rights, you're stripping
another group of people of their rights; that you're
stripping human rights from loyal, successful, useful,
instructive members of both state government and state
citizenship just because of their gender orientation.
Why? What have they ever done to deserve this?
Again, you're favoring one group over another group,
all because of ... religious beliefs. The arguments
of pros and cons about what constitutes a gay person
and/or those relationships has never really been
adequately, logically discussed or debated. In
conclusion, I just want to say that anybody who's
thinking about dollars today, that that issue is
miniscule and petty in the extreme compared to the
real damage done, willy-nilly, to other humans for the
sake of somebody else's religious beliefs. I think if
this proposal is passed, ... [then] the support for it
is actually representative government at its most
vicious, and, I think, in its darkest mode. Thank you
for your time.
3:44:30 PM
KEVIN DOUGHERTY, mentioning that he is a retired attorney,
stated that he strongly supports HJR 32 and the Senate companion
bill. He offered his recollection that from the time Alaska
became a state, 27 amendments to the Alaska State Constitution
have been approved, all with the goal, he surmised, of
reconciling the will of the people with conflicting law or court
decision. He opined that constitutional policy questions are
very different than political questions; characterized Alaska
constitutional law as the "organic law" of the people; and read
the first few words of the Preamble, as well as a good portion
of Article I, Section 2, of the Alaska State Constitution, to
underscore his belief that it is not the will of the legislature
or the courts or the executive branch [to decide this issue].
In conclusion, he posited that although the Alaska
Constitutional Convention makes no mention of redefining
marriage, there is constitutional history surrounding the 1998
marriage amendment, and opined that they ought to honor the
constitution and the "foundation" by respecting the right of the
people to vote, rather than viewing this issue from a political
standpoint.
3:47:43 PM
LAURA MOSLEY-MINNE thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify. Acknowledging that Representative Coghill is the
sponsor of HJR 32, she opined that this proposal to amend the
Alaska State Constitution's definition of marriage will, in
effect, limit healthcare benefits to straight couples only, and
will specifically discriminate against a minority group of
people, and that, as her father's son has stated, "is simply un-
American." She went on to say:
At home, as well as in our schools, we teach our
children to welcome diversity, to accept differences
in others, and to be willing to stand up for what we
believe is right. I am the mother of a 10-year-old
son. Both his father and myself work hard at teaching
him to be tolerant of behavior he may not understand.
We encourage him to search deeper to find meaning and
worth in another person he may not agree with or even
like. We teach him about acceptance and about being
fair.
Children are not born with discriminating thoughts or
prejudices, they are learned ... [from] the adults in
their lives. Parents and leaders alike have the
responsibility to our children to begin, as a society,
to walk this talk of embracing diversity and
demonstrating their belief in equality and justice for
all. As representatives for all the people, I ask
that you do not discriminate against those that may
not believe as you do. I want to remind you that
same-sex couples are people who believe in god, and
are doctors, your friends, your children, your
coworkers, your family members.
These are people who, like you, have fully committed
to sharing their lives and hearts with one other
person. This issue is about discrimination and
inequality. I ask that you search within yourself to
find what your real intention and truth is. We are
people who vote, who have strong voices, values, and
commitments to our families, communities, and to this
beautiful state. We are not odd or despicable. We
just happen to love differently than you may. I ask
that you take a stand for what is truth and just, and
do not allow the proposed [resolution] ... to go any
further.
3:50:54 PM
KIM PATTERSON thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify on HJR 32, and relayed that he has been married 19 years
and makes a living helping people. He offered three reasons for
putting this issue before Alaska voters. One, it will provide
Alaskans a final opportunity to restate more clearly - statewide
and to the rest of the nation - what was determined in the 1998
marriage amendment, that the majority of Alaskans hold to the
view that marriage in Alaska should be defined, legally, as
being a union between one man and one woman. Two, it will draw
more people to the polls, people who will want to make it known
that they feel marriage should be between one man and one woman.
And three, as an African-American male, he is insulted by those
who bring up the issue of discrimination because of race as a
basis for acquiring healthcare, since members of minority races
can't choose their race. He expressed his hope that HJR 32 will
pass.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked testifiers to try to keep their
comments civil and non-personal.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred, but added that he doesn't want
people to refrain from expressing their passion on this issue.
3:54:42 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, Eagle Forum Alaska, thanked the sponsors for
introducing HJR 32 and SJR 20. She said:
Since the beginning of history, marriage between one
man and one woman has been recognized as special and
unique. The people of Alaska thought we had made
ourselves quite clear on this subject in 1998, when we
voted overwhelmingly to adopt the marriage amendment
as part of our [Alaska] State Constitution. The
Alaska Supreme Court has once again undermined the
will of the people in their October 2005 decision.
The court's ruling to mandate the state to pay spousal
benefits to same-sex partners of state employees shows
no regard for the meaning and spirit of the law.
The [Alaska] Supreme Court is supposed to be upholding
our constitution, but has instead chosen to attempt a
rewrite by legislating from the bench; ... the meaning
of the amendment in 1998 was very clear to everyone
but the [Alaska] Supreme Court. So now we are forced
to spell out, in capital letters, that marriage is for
one man and one woman, and marriage is special and
unique from any other relationship. Passing HJR 32
will allow the people of Alaska to clarify what we
said in 1998, for those who did not understand.
Please pass this ... [resolution]. Thank you.
3:56:29 PM
KAREN TAFT WELLS noted that she has worked for the State of
Alaska for 27 years and is taking annual leave in order to be
present to testify. She said:
The [Alaska] State Constitution says that I have equal
protection under the law. What some of your
colleagues have proposed to do is take that right away
from a certain class of people and say that everyone
is protected except for gays and lesbians. By placing
this [resolution] on the fall ballot, you will be a
party to further discrimination against a certain
class of people. I am one of those people, and I ask
you to stop this initiative today.
I have thought about this issue for many years, and
had many conversations about what is the truth. In my
mind, the truth is that this is an issue of separation
of church and state, that each church across the land
should let their congregations decide who and what
they want to recognize as marriage in the eyes of
their chosen god and beliefs. State and federal
government, however, should be responsible for
granting to all people equal protection, rights, and
benefits. Since this is not the system within which
we live, you as our elected officials and
representatives need to protect all citizens.
When Alaskans chose to deny gay and lesbian couples
the right to marry, discrimination happened - this lie
was written into the constitution. The reason it is a
lie is that I exist, I am here, I am a resident of
this state, I work for the state, I love a woman, and
my god holds a space for any person who loves to be
treated equally. The Constitution denies me the right
to receive a marriage license, which is the document
that bestows benefits to heterosexual couples.
Because I cannot obtain the license, I am
discriminated against in terms of being granted the
same benefits my married co-workers receive.
Why is there anything written into the constitution
about human genitalia? Why can't we make laws based
on the human heart? The heart is the organ of
perception, it is the organ where love arises, and
where my love for another is as precious and deserving
as yours. My heart longs to join with another and
create a divine union just as yours does. Who cares
if my love is for a woman, rather than a man, and if I
want to share my life with a woman? What business is
it of yours or any other person who lives in this
state to judge who and how I love?
The people of this state do not vote on union
contracts, on GGU or legislative pay raises or any
other personnel policies. Why should they vote on
this particular issue? How do you think the majority
would vote? Do you really think the people of this
state can navigate the legal waters better and more
fairly than our esteemed Alaska Supreme Court? I
don't. I think the wording of this [resolution] ...
is mean spirited and seeks to discriminate against a
class of employees that you, as the body that
represents us, are responsible for protecting. A
better question to put to the voters would be to ask
if they want to limit the equal protection clause so
that it no longer applies to unmarried individuals.
And lastly, what scares me the most is that amending
the constitution to discriminate against some citizens
will set the standard for any other minorities to be
written out of the constitution. Because I am ...
part of a minority group should not lessen my value or
worth as an employee. What group will be next? I
hired a new employee last week and she has two
children - three new people for the state insurance
benefits without a thought, let alone a constitutional
change. It gave me pause. I passed a car this
morning with a bumper sticker [that said]: "If the
people lead, the leaders will follow."
I pray that your decision will be in service of the
truth and right action, rather than political agendas
influenced by constituents who do not have tolerance
for human differences. Thank you for this
opportunity, and [I] just hope you know that this is
such an emotional thing to sit before you and do this.
4:00:52 PM
BEN KRALL, after relaying that he is 10 years old and was born
and raised in Juneau, said he would be testifying against HJR
32. He said:
I know that the legislature has already made one big
mistake by stopping gays and lesbians from being able
to marry. I was the ring bearer in the joining
ceremony of two of my really good friends who are
lesbian. I just can't believe you think that any two
people are less than any other people, when they are
so much in love with each other. But now you are just
going too far. You are trying to make life for gays
and lesbians harder than ever by taking away from them
so many things that all people deserve to have. Like
they want to be able to take care of the people that
they love and their children, but you're not going to
let them have insurance and other things they need.
My friends are about to start a family, and I know
they'll be really good at it. They have babysat me
many times, come to lots of my soccer games, taught me
how to play cribbage, taken me on hikes, fed me,
played at the beach, come to all my birthday parties,
and just been great friends. My parents have chosen
them as some of the people who might take care of me
if both Mom and Dad died, and I think they're great
choices. But what if you pass this amendment to the
Alaska [State] Constitution? I don't know all the
rights that married people get, but I have heard of
some of them.
How will they be able to pay for their kids'
insurance? And how will they have the right to take
care of me? Or if one of them got really sick, could
the other one even have the right to visit them in the
hospital? My aunt is a lesbian too, and her partner
is a great aunt to me. They have been together 27
years, which is a really long time. ... Don't you
think that proves they deserve all the rights,
benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects that
married people get? I sure do. And I would be really
disgusted with the legislature if it passes this
horrible amendment. Lots of my friends I've talked to
about this agree with me. Here's some advice for you
that my mom always says to me: "Really think about
what you're doing." Please stop trying to do this.
4:03:52 PM
CINDY BOESSER, after remarking that she is fortunate to be able
to be married, and that she is "birthmother" to one child and
stepmother to another, relayed that she would be testifying
against HJR 32. She said:
It is blatantly discriminatory against a minority of
Alaska residents. [It's] simply unthinkable to put
such an amendment in the great Constitution of the
State of Alaska, even if 99 percent of the voters
shared a prejudice against gays and lesbians. Why
would it be wrong? Because we live in a country where
equal rights are supposed to be guaranteed for each
and every individual of all minority groups, no matter
how un-accepting the majority of the voters is at the
time.
We learned this in the South, with the white Christian
majority righteously denying minority rights just as
long as they possibly could. We learned it in Europe,
when the Jews, the mentally ill, the gypsies, and the
gays and lesbians were murdered by the white,
Christian, straight German majority. We learned it in
World War II at the expense of our Japanese-American
minority friends and neighbors, who were heartlessly
interned, with [the] ethnic majority's approval, in
the name of god and our country. We learned it in
Alaska as the peoples of this great land were laid
waste by the aggressive majority's cultural
destruction, in many cases led by the missionaries.
It greatly saddens me now to see this effort, by so-
called Christian legislators, proposing such a hateful
amendment to our [Alaska State] Constitution. The
Jesus I know loved and accepted the outcasts of
society. And unfortunately, at this point in history
in this country, gays and lesbians are still often
outcasts. But they're also my friends and my
neighbors and my coworkers and my family. I love
them. And I see them in long-term, very committed
relationships. And I insist that they deserve to
receive equal compensation for their work, which means
they must receive equal benefits regardless of what
you think of as marriage; this is not about marriage -
you're trying to put it on there. ... Their rights
must be protected, even if only a minority of one
speaks up for them.
Don't you dare put [this amendment] before the voters;
they have done horrible things in the past, and they
could ... [again]. Please take [a] good hard look at
history as you consider this appalling resolution.
Don't repeat the mistakes of zealots throughout time,
no matter how many of your constituents pressure you.
For when we allow the majority to determine the rights
of the minorities, none of us will be safe. Thank
you.
4:06:52 PM
BARBARA BELKNAP, after relaying that she is a retired state
employee and currently owns her own business, said she would be
testifying in opposition to HJR 32 and for equal rights as
guaranteed by the Alaska State Constitution. She offered:
This resolution and its companion [resolution] have
given Alaskans a forum for debate about fairness,
preserving equal rights for all in our [Alaska State]
Constitution, and the role of the three separate
branches of government. Challenging the [Alaska
Supreme] Court's decision has provided an opportunity
for some Alaskans to express their visceral
condemnation of homosexuality, and for others to speak
out for the right of Alaskans in the gay and lesbian
community.
I am a 57-year-old white heterosexual woman who has
been married to the same man since 1969. We have two
adult children we're very proud of and two beautiful
grandchildren. As a retired state employee I have
health insurance that covers my husband. As a retired
Coast Guard officer, he has health insurance that
covers me. As children of United States Marines, we
have had some form of guaranteed healthcare our entire
lives. As children and later as young married adults,
we took healthcare for granted. Now we consider
health insurance to be one of our most valuable
assets.
My sister Kathy is 53 years old. She is the mother of
two grown children and the grandmother of two little
boys. For many years she owned her own business in
the small town of Montello, Wisconsin. She was
elected to the school board and served as a parish
lector and member of the parish council at St. John
the Baptist Catholic Church. When she was 47, she
embarked on a different life path. At [the age of]
50, Kathy earned her degree in pastoral ministry at
Dominican University in Chicago and is now a social
worker with a nonprofit in Connecticut.
MS. BELKNAP continued:
Kathy is also a lesbian; she "came out" in 2002.
Kathy and her partner Leslie, who is also a mother and
grandmother, have lived lives as married women in the
past. They are acutely aware of the legal and social
inequities between their previous privileged status
and now. While they can be their authentic selves
now, they cannot live whole lives because they are
reminded on a daily basis, in small and large ways,
that they are less than equal. When my sister got
married at [the age of] 21 to a cowboy who rode bulls,
my first reaction was, "Everybody knows bull riders
are trouble"; and he was - and they divorced seven
years later.
But when she came out as a lesbian at age 50, my first
reaction was fear for her. What must it be like to
read articles and letters to the editor almost every
day vilifying who you are? I also feared for her
personal safety - that year a man was charged with a
hate crime for murdering two lesbians on the
Appalachian Trail. I've learned a great deal in the
past three years. Sara Boesser's book, Silent Lives:
How High a Price? is an excellent resource. I know
that Kathy's community has lists of safe and welcoming
[places] for lesbians to stay on vacation, relatively
safe towns to travel to, and states that allow them to
be relatively full citizens.
It's taken Kathy two years to find a new church that
welcomes her unconditionally. Here is a religious
woman with a degree in pastoral ministry who must
search for a spiritual home. Straight people have
become agnostics for less. Does all this sound
familiar? These are humiliations minorities know only
too well. Their full citizenship is relative - they
face physical danger, even death, because of who they
are as people. I firmly believe that
institutionalized discrimination against gays and
lesbians will be a thing of the past in my lifetime,
but prejudices live in people's hearts, and [so] it's
up to our government to take the high road.
Civil rights for Alaska Natives, voting rights for
blacks, school desegregation, a woman's right to vote,
and the American Disabilities Act all came out of the
courts and the halls of state legislatures and the
Congress. The court decision that generated this
resolution is about fairness and healthcare. City
governments and private employers all over the country
are providing health benefits to same-sex couples and
the world continues to rotate on its axis.
The United States of America is the only
industrialized country that does not have a universal
healthcare system. What outrages me is that uninsured
parents have to organize fundraisers to save their
sick children's lives, and what shocks me is that
medical bills are the number one cause of financial
ruin in the world's richest nation. There are states
with fewer resources and a lot more people than Alaska
considering some kind of statewide health insurance
program. It would make me very proud if the energy
being expended on this resolution and SJR 20 were
channeled into the creation of an all-inclusive health
insurance system for Alaska.
MS. BELKNAP concluded:
This morning, the opening prayer in the [Alaska State]
House of Representatives called for light and love.
This amendment is about neither light nor love.
Preserve our constitution's equal protections for
Alaskans - please vote no on this resolution. Thank
you.
4:12:08 PM
JAMES GRAY, noting that he is employed by the Anchorage Fire
Department, indicated that he would be speaking in opposition to
HJR 32 because it is discriminatory in nature and would enshrine
that discrimination in the Alaska State Constitution. In the
current climate of "religious-rule mentality," he remarked, it
may be that this proposed constitutional amendment would be
approved by the voters, but 50 years in the future, he
predicted, the DOMA and this proposed amendment will clearly be
seen as discriminatory and plainly wrong. "It's simply wrong to
deny my partner and I the [same] benefits [that are granted] to
those ... who are allowed to marry simply on the basis of their
sexuality, and I ask you to table this discriminatory proposal
because it makes me a second class citizen and its hurtful to my
family," he concluded, and thanked the committee.
4:13:13 PM
GREG SCHMIDT relayed that he appreciates the opportunity to
testify in favor of HJR 32. He suggested that members look at
the logic of the Alaska Supreme Court's decision and where it is
likely to lead the state. For example, the court first
identifies a duty to define the liberty of all, and then states
that the express goal of state government is to limit benefits
to "truly close" relationships. He opined that this concept
throws out the actual wording of the [Alaska State] Constitution
and presumes that a person's liberty includes deciding what sort
of sexual relationship is most satisfying to him/her and then
that decision, by implication, becomes part of that person's
identity, thereby engendering a state obligation to fund
benefits for the parties in that "close relationship." Under
that logic, he surmised, the state would be helpless to limit
the extension of benefits to "other living arrangements" such as
polygamy or group sexual relationships if the participants
declare that they are committed and truly close.
MR. SCHMIDT opined that although this "logic" implicitly accepts
the idea that sexual preference is an immutable trait, it is a
weak foundation upon which to upend the legislature's and
voters' decision to define what marriage is. If the Alaska
Supreme Court's ruling is allowed to remain unchallenged by the
legislature, he predicted, Alaska could become fertile ground
for the overturning of the DOMA - thereby weakening the fabric
of marriage - because if the legislature concedes ground
regarding same-sex civil unions, benefits, adoption, and other
incidents of marriage, the courts may well view it as state
policy, which could then be used in attempts to overturn the
DOMA.
MR. SCHMIDT said that this is an issue for the ballot box, and
clearly affects the stability of the family as well as the very
fabric of society; this is an issue of discrimination against a
behavior, rather than against what a person is, and merely
addresses a demand by a small, vocal minority that taxpayers
subsidize a certain lifestyle. Other states have proposed and
adopted constitutional amendments protecting marriage and its
benefits, and it is time that Alaska do the same, he opined, and
concluded with a request that the legislature allow this
important issue to go before the voters.
4:17:19 PM
CHARLES L. O'CONNELL, after indicating that he is a married
father of five [grown] children, relayed that he would be
testifying in opposition to HJR 32 on behalf of all seven of his
family members, all of whom are frequent voters. He said:
The first Americans have lived on our continent for at
least 30,000 years; Columbus got close in 1492; the
pilgrims arrived in 1620; the Declaration of
Independence was signed by 56 delegates on July 4,
1776; and our [U.S.] Constitution was ratified by 14
states between 1787 and 1791. Well guess what? Not
one single person among the millions alive during this
entire period of our nation's early history had a
marriage license. I'm sure that the millions who were
married during this historical period were recognized
as married by their respective contemporaries.
Why oh why is my country so caught up in this marriage
debate? It is not a time to further limit the rights
and benefits of citizens who share housing without a
government marriage license. The marriage license,
after all, was originally, and has always been, a
tyrannical way to legally oppress minorities. People
promoting this amendment are the same ideological
purists who want to make some medical decisions
between a woman and her doctor illegal, they want
certain religious dogma in courthouses and schools,
they brazenly interfere with the right to die, and
they oppose enlightened scientific research with stem
cells.
For me, nothing could be more threatening than this
stupid, continued interference in the personal privacy
of some of Alaska's citizens with whom some disagree.
This entire interference in marriage was created in
the first place by government oppression of a
consensual relationship between consenting adults of
mixed race. And now there are those in elective
office who are seriously considering further limiting
those constitutional rights and benefits solely based
on whom we live with. What the state should do is get
out of the privacy of our homes, and provide for our
public safety and promote our general welfare.
Tyranny by the majority is extremely dangerous.
Remember, we are all minorities in some degree.
Racial segregation, striking down "separate but
equal," the right to interracial marriage, striking
down sodomy laws, and the constitutional right to
equal benefits for all are all the result of court
decisions. Were it up to the tyranny of the majority,
all of these enumerated rights would not exist.
Marriage has long been a vehicle used to oppress
minority groups.
You can be [a] pawn or you can be a statesman on this
issue - the choice is yours. I urge [you] to keep
your oath of office and uphold the [Alaska State]
Constitution - don't turn your back and vote to limit
it - please oppose House Joint Resolution 32.
4:21:07 PM
RANDY MAGEN, Ph.D., President, Alaska Chapter, National
Association of Social Workers (NASW), said he agrees with the
sponsor's comment that the issue of marriage was settled in
Alaska in 1998. Furthermore, he opined, neither HJR 32 nor the
aforementioned Alaska Supreme Court case have anything to do
with marriage. That court case was decided on the issue of
equal protection, and the first sentence in the conclusion of
that case says, "We conclude that the public employers' spousal
limitations violate the Alaska Constitution's equal protection
clause." He went on to say:
I've heard speakers who've believed it was necessary
to begin their testimony by talking about whether they
were heterosexual or homosexual, married or single, or
how they worship god, all of which I consider private
behavior, private behavior which the state has no
interest [in] or right to interfere with. And, again,
this legislation has nothing to do with sexual
orientation, marriage, or religious beliefs - it's
about equal protection. So the Alaska chapter of the
National Association of Social Workers is opposed to
HJR 32 for philosophical and practical reasons.
Philosophically, this legislation conflicts with the
core values of the social work profession - the values
upon which ... social work's mission is based; this
legislation allows for discrimination and unbalanced
protections, a stance in conflict with the value of
social justice. This legislation sets a class of
people apart and makes them unworthy of benefits, in
conflict with the value of respect and the dignity and
worth of every person. Pragmatically, the ... [NASW]
is opposed because this eliminates domestic partner
benefits. Domestic partner benefits are a pragmatic
way to deal with the over 100,000 people in Alaska
without health insurance.
It would seem to me that the legislature would be
interested in covering more people with health
insurance, especially at a time when they're
struggling to deal with the increased burden of
Medicaid. Furthermore, domestic partner benefits are
widely used in [the] private and public [sectors] in
Alaska as a way to recruit and retain employees. And
I fear that if you pass this legislation, the only
winners will be lawyers who spend time litigating the
constitutionality of this amendment. So our
organization urges you to vote no on [HJR 32]. Thank
you.
4:24:27 PM
LIN DAVIS, after relaying that she has taken annual leave from
her state job in order to be present to testify and that she has
a master's degree in career counseling, said that her life of
service is based on the idea that a community is only as strong
as its most disadvantaged and low-income members, adding, "We
all pay when community members can't succeed economically and
don't have safety nets." She went on to say:
For the last [nine years] I've worked out at the ...
Juneau Job Center, working for the Department of Labor
& Workforce Development. Interestingly, my job is
called a Community Development Specialist, and I think
probably at heart all of us who do work for the State
are community development specialists. Now let's look
at House [Joint] Resolution 32, and see if it deserves
a community development specialist award: Does it
strengthen Alaskan communities? Will it help us
create an improved business environment in Alaska?
Does it create a level economic playing field for our
community members? Is it a model of fair and
reasonable government activity? Is it kind? And does
it have the highest intentions for the people of
Alaska? The answer to all of these is no: it does
not appear to have community or economic value, it
harms Alaska's children, it harms Alaska's families,
and it prevents equal pay for equal work.
Ten days ago, I attended my union convention, and we
represent the largest union of State employees - 7,500
people, more of whom are women - and we voted quite
easily a resolution to condemn HJR 32. And I would
urge all of you, for so many good reasons that have
been put forward, to oppose it as well. ... I liked
what President Bush said at Coretta Scott King's
funeral; he said her work made us whole. Now the work
of [HJR 32] is not going to make us whole; it is mean
and divisive. And Tommy Sands, the singer from
Ireland, was here in Juneau just a few weeks ago, and
he reminded us, he said, "You know, so many
democracies are not really very democratic, they're
really like three wolves asking two sheep what would
they all like to have for dinner tonight." And
majority-ism is alive and well; it's alive and well in
this resolution that we're discussing today.
And I feel like, because I am a plaintiff in this suit
and I'm nine years older than my partner - I'm the one
who is working for the state - I would simply like for
her to have my death benefits if I die before her; she
recently lost her job of 13 years, and I would really
like ... to get her on my health insurance. We are
stronger in our community when we have that financial
safety net. And so, given the health cost crisis in
this country, as many other speakers have said, it
just doesn't make sense for people to be voted out of
having this kind of safety net. Despite good jobs, my
life partner and I know that it's easy to be one car
accident or one major medical emergency away from a
family financial crisis, not to mention, and maybe you
folks know about this too, going down the trail of
dental work - dental work can take you to the poor
house quite quickly.
So not being able to be double covered really ... has
a severe financial impact on my little family, and we
try to send checks to her mother and her sister, who
are both disabled and in wheelchairs, and as much as
we can be financially strong we're able to help other
family members stay financially stronger. So there's
a clear reason why my heterosexual coworkers and [I]
were [yahooing] and crying tears of joy Friday,
October 28, when we all got the news about the
[Alaska] Supreme Court decision; it affirmed equal pay
for equal work. For nine years I've been working
alongside my straight coworkers and now I have the
chance to receive the same benefit package that they
get, and as we all know, the ... benefit compensation
is a big chunk of our compensation as State employees.
So thank [you] for this opportunity to tell you my
story, and I urge you to vote against this.
4:29:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged how difficult it can be to
testify on this issue, and pointed out that the most
conservative member of the Alaska Supreme Court wrote the
opinion that is being discussed. He went on to say:
I know that when a court issues an opinion people
don't agree with, they assume that the judge must have
different values than they have. ... [But] often, when
a judge writes an opinion, it has much more to do with
what the law is that they have to follow than what
their personal values are. And I suspect that maybe
some on the [Alaska] Supreme Court who voted one way
might have values that actually go a different way.
So I don't think that there were those on the [Alaska]
Supreme Court who were trying to impose values through
their opinion. Similarly, Representative Coghill and
I spend, I think, most of the day agreeing on one
thing, and that's that each other is wrong. ...
But the one thing I've gained a respect [for] is that
[Representative Coghill] is real well motivated by the
things that he does, and I don't think there's an
ounce of malice in this bill. It's something we'll
fight about, and we've had so many really, really
divisive issues in this committee - we get them all -
and most folks don't know Representative Coghill the
way I do, and I just ... want to assure people that
even though he's wrong, ... that there really isn't an
ounce of anything other than, really, a value system
going on here. And that's what makes the debate
really hard, when it's a value issue as opposed to one
where there is an easy answer one way or the other.
...
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that she has seen the effect that testimony
can have on members' points of view.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, remarking that there are three or four
different dimensions to this issue, one being the legal debate
and another being the political debate wherein values simply
clash, said that he respectfully disagrees with the [Alaska
Supreme] Court. Acknowledging that the art of persuasion plays
a role in debate, he said he generally tries to take the
approach of explaining the principle and then aiming for that.
So as people testify, he explained, he has been attempting to
discern the legal argument from the value argument, so as to be
able to see where he can either agree or disagree, clearly, with
the points being made by those who are speaking. In the
political arena, legislators display their values, he noted,
adding that he will attempt to do so as respectfully yet as
forcefully as he can.
CHAIR McGUIRE explained that regardless of her own personal
views on the proposed legislation, as committee chair she
attempts to consider whether a bill or resolution is legal, and
whether it fulfills the mandates of the [Alaska State]
Constitution, and whether it will fulfill the sponsor's goals in
a legal manner. With regard to HJR 32, she relayed, she would
like the committee to focus on whether the [Alaska State]
Constitution is the place for expressing the values surrounding
the resolution and whether it contains the appropriate language;
however, lawmakers should also attempt, in some regard, to see
ahead into the future and consider how the legislation will
affect the citizens of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA again acknowledged how difficult it can be
to discuss an issue that one believes in sincerely, as compared
to an issue one has purely a financial interest in.
4:38:33 PM
SIDNEY HEIDERSDORF said he wholeheartedly supports HJR 32, and
believes that it is appropriate for Alaskans to vote on this
issue. He opined that it is incredible that people are now
revisiting this issue, given the passage of the 1998
constitutional amendment defining marriage, and suggested that
everyone had the right to believe at that time that that would
be the end of the [debate]. It seemed quite logical, he
remarked, to think that if marriage was clearly defined, then
all the benefits of marriage would be limited to those who met
the requirements of marriage - not so, according to the Alaska
Supreme Court. He offered his belief that it would have been
much more logical for the court to have simply stated that the
amendment defining marriage was unconstitutional and then state
that it would be appropriate for any two individuals living in
some kind of close relationship to receive benefits.
MR. HEIDERSDORF offered his belief that it is disingenuous for
the court to say that the amendment was constitutional but
benefits cannot be limited to those who are married. He said:
Marriage is an institution vital to our society and
[the] wellbeing of our society. We recognize it as
the place for the begetting and rearing of children.
One way of recognizing the importance of marriage, and
to promote it, is to give special rights and benefits
to those who legally assume the responsibilities of
marriage. I've heard arguments against this proposed
amendment ... that if the right to benefits is denied
same-sex couples, it will simply be the first step in
denying rights to other individuals.
I would argue just the opposite, that if this court
decision is allowed to stand, there's no telling what
relationship the court will approve next in terms of
marriage benefits; using the logic of the court, it's
difficult to see how they could deny benefits to
bigamists or polygamists or any other kind of illegal
relationship. We hear [that] arguments ... [against]
benefits for same-sex couples is based on
discrimination. I do not believe it is discrimination
to limit benefits to people who must meet specified
qualifications when the state exercises control for
the benefit of society.
If we wish to call it discrimination, then we have to
acknowledge that there are limits to equal treatment
under the law. We live with all kinds of limitations
to equal treatment as far as I'm concerned; they're
based on age, race, economic status, and residence.
We have requirements for driver's licenses,
professional licenses, limited entry, subsistence
hunting, welfare programs. These requirements are
ostensibly for the good of our society, [and] the
benefits are limited to those who qualify. There's
nothing unusual, then, about limiting marriage
benefits to those who are married.
There is reason to fear [that] the formal recognition
of same-sex relationships would be harmful to our
society; however, I view [HJR 32] as a recognition of
the value and importance that marriage and the family
has to our society and the need to preserve it as a
unique and special institution for a healthy society.
So in conclusion I would ask the committee to look
favorably upon ... HJR 32, and I hope Alaskans will
have the right to vote on this issue. Thank you.
4:43:09 PM
DIXIE A. HOOD, after noting that she is a licensed marriage and
family therapist in private practice, relayed that as a citizen,
she is alarmed and offended that "our representative democracy"
at the state level, as well as at the national level, is being
undermined through political opportunism. She went on to say:
Proposing an amendment to our [Alaska State]
Constitution which would further deprive [many] ...
Alaskans of their civil rights is unjust and totally
contrary to ideals of our democracy. For hundreds of
years, women and blacks in the United States were
denied equality by laws determined by the majority.
I'm old enough to remember World War II and the
Germans' condemnation of Jews, gypsies, and
homosexuals. I participated in the civil rights
movement of the 1960s, [and] I have continued as an
advocate for civil rights on behalf of women, the
elderly, gays, and persons with disabilities.
Putting civil rights up for a popular vote is
shameful. There have been scientifically-valid
surveys of public opinion measuring support for the
Bill of Rights, [but] ... when these historic
statements were not identified as amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, the majority of American subjects
sampled were opposed to them. Discrimination based on
self-interest, ignorance, or righteousness is all too
common in this day and age, [but] it has no place in
Alaska. I urge you all to stand up for our highest
aspirations as a democratic society - stop this
proposal to deny rights and benefits based on marital
status. Thank you.
4:45:41 PM
AMY PAIGE said she felt compelled to come [and testify] because
she feels that her American citizenship would be damaged
terribly if legislation such as HJR 32 is allowed to go before a
vote of the people, because it would result in a tyranny of the
majority. She opined that it is important to protect minorities
in every way possible, and that the full protection of the law
is one of the highest features of the constitution - one of the
most prominent and best. Furthermore, she said she feels that
her fellow Alaskans would be damaged by HJR 32, adding that it
would make her so sad to think that she was part of a society
that would limit opportunities and rights just on the basis
gender and type of relationship.
MS. PAIGE said she doesn't believe that passage of HJR 32 will
help strengthen marriage; instead, homosexual families and the
whole community would be strengthened by giving [homosexuals]
the full rights that they have earned as employees of the State
and other entities. Offering her understanding that many
employers in the state already do provide benefits for same-sex
partners, she urged the committee not to pass HJR 32 on to the
voters, adding her belief that it is not something they would
want Alaskans to vote on given there are people who would vote
away their own rights as evidenced by the aforementioned surveys
regarding the Bill of Rights.
4:48:12 PM
MARY ELIZABETH RIDER said she would be testifying in opposition
to HJR 32. She recounted that as a teenager 26 years ago, she'd
came up to Alaska to live with a great aunt who took her in
during some of her rough days. Ms. Rider, in turn, took care of
her great aunt while she died last year. She went on to say:
My great aunt never married, and neither have I. My
[Great] Aunt Liz set up libraries anywhere there was a
[military] base in this state. She was [the American
Military University's (AMU's)] librarian until the
libraries were consolidated, she was the librarian in
Kodiak, she was a member of the Pioneers of Alaska,
she was an active member of the catholic church, and
[she] saved her money so she could leave it to
charities here, in Alaska. When I read HJR 32, I
think that this bill intends to consider unmarried
Alaskans such as my great aunt - who homesteaded here
before most of you were born - to be less than a woman
who married a man. I thought we had fought [that]
battle at the turn of the last century.
My great aunt had two homesteading neighbors who are
now in their mid-80s; they're still in the mountains,
they share a truck - which is a really good thing for
all of us - they have known each other for 60-plus
years - probably closer to 70 - [and] at this point
they live in one cabin instead of two - it's safer.
They're both men; they could be targeted under HJR 32
as unmarried people who share an asset. ... And they
don't think they're gay; they think they're
Episcopalian - and what Episcopalians do is share and
... take care of each other.
I live in Airport Heights, I'm the sole proprietor of
a very small business - I don't have employees - but
if I were fortunate enough to do so, I would be in the
same position as other Alaskan businesses are now -
I'd be working very hard to recruit and retain
qualified employees. The work environment has
changed. Employers that do not anticipate the
interests of their employees are going to lose out as
baby boomers retire and "GenX" and "GenY" generations
emerge as the primary workforce. Legislating against
benefits for workers is anti-business; legislating
against businesses' incentives to secure clients is
anti-business too.
[House Joint Resolution 32] is concerning to me, it's
not clear to me how far the author intends to go, but
I believe that this proposal not only restricts the
equal protection of Alaskans - which is a decidedly
un-Alaskan thing to do - but restricts free trade to
boot; I believe there are scores of unintended
consequences to this. I regularly lunch with a group
of women who are mostly working, we all take care of
parents or kids, some are married, some are living
with a partner, and some are dating and some are not;
HJR 32 is a hot topic on Saturday at (Indisc.). Two
bankers, a teacher, a therapist, two oil [executives],
and I had a hay-day with this; this is a message from
the ladies who had lunch: "This is confusing, it's
vague, it will surely end up right back in court
again."
MS. RIDER concluded:
To my friends and my elders and to me, the [Alaska
State] Constitution is just high near sacred. The
[Alaska State] Constitution should not be amended
lightly, and certainly not to restrict the rights and
responsibilities of specific groups. You do not have
to like everyone in this state, but you should have
respect for them as human beings, and that should be
reflected in our [Alaska State] Constitution; it
should remain the way it is in our [Alaska State]
Constitution. I ask you to please stand firm for
keeping government out of the business of
discrimination, keep our businesses safe, and protect
the personal liberties of Alaskans. Thank you.
4:52:00 PM
MARINA DAY recalled the slogan, "Alaska: land of the individual
and other endangered species." She said:
Individual rights and liberties are the foundation of
a free democratic society, and is that not why our
military men and women are on foreign soil in Iraq
fighting now to preserve our freedom? With all due
respect to them, let us preserve our freedom on ...
Alaskan soil also. I ask the committee to vote no to
limiting the Alaska equal protection clause so that it
no longer applies to the unmarried. Alaskans honor
their right to privacy as expressed in our [Alaska]
State Constitution.
I say, "Government, stay out of the private lives of
the people." The very language of HJR 32 is woolly.
Freedom-loving people would be fighting this
[resolution] for years, (indisc.) the broad and narrow
connotations of the [resolution's] (indisc.). I
understand that we now have to waste precious time on
such an attack against equal protection under the law.
Proponents say this [issue] attacks the [sanctity] ...
of traditional marriage.
[What] does that really mean? Where's the cryptogram
for this translation? How in the world does same
compensation for equal work attack the [sanctity] ...
of traditional marriage? There is no indication that
denying benefits to employees with same-sex domestic
partners has any impact on who marries. Granting or
denying benefits to employees with same-sex partners
does not (indisc. - teleconference system cutting out)
employees [with] opposite-sex domestic partners will
alter their decision about whether to marry.
Furthermore, same-sex domestic partners will not seek
opposite-sex partners with the intention of marrying
them just because being married entitles them to be
equally salaried from their employers. The denial of
benefits to all employees with same-sex domestic
partners is contradictory to the interests of
promoting family stability. The social good for
family stability in same-sex relationships is just as
important and valuable as the social good for stable
opposite-sex relationships.
The decision to extend benefits to domestic
partnerships is not revolutionary, but the decision to
withhold these benefits could be cataclysmic.
Healthcare should be expanded, not restricted. The
promotion of family stability ... [among] opposite-sex
couples but not among same-sex couples is
[discriminatory]. The definition of traditional
marriage is not under attack; rather the threat is
directed at the equal protection clause of our Alaska
[State] Constitution. This clause guarantees all
Alaskans reward for industry, and requires employment
to be based on merit, not marriage.
This resolution would give married workers
substantially greater compensation, for the identical
work, [than] they give to unmarried workers with ...
same-sex or opposite-sex domestic-partner
relationships. This is fundamentally against our
wonderful [Alaska State] Constitution principles, and
furthers no legitimate goal. The government may not
favor a class simply because it favors the class, and
discrimination is never a legitimate interest.
MS. DAY concluded:
Proponents of this amendment have gone too far. It's
all right to define the definition of traditional
marriage, but don't take away the rights of
individuals who fall outside of these norms. I'd like
to incorporate all the testimonies against this
ambiguous and [discriminatory] resolution, and I ask
the committee not to pass this on. Thank you for your
time.
4:56:15 PM
JEANNE LAURENCELLE, Social Action Committee, Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship of Fairbanks, relayed that Unitarian
Universalists affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every
person, and have a record of opposing slavery and women's
suffrage when those were divisive issues; Unitarian
Universalists also supported civil rights when other religious
denominations shied away from the topic. She went on to say:
As you know, history bears us out. I'm here today to
testify on behalf of all unmarried couples - gay and
straight; I think history will bear us out. We
absolutely reject the call to, quote, "Let the people
decide," unquote, in this matter. We assert that the
rights of a minority should never be subject to the
vote of a majority. This is a matter of justice. We
are proud that our [Alaska State] Constitution
guarantees every Alaskan equal rights, opportunities,
and protections under the law. This, too, is a matter
of justice which should not be undermined by
legislation such as the proposed constitutional
amendment, an amendment which was crafted with the
express intent of depriving a group of Alaskans of
rights and benefits.
I am pleased to report that the opinions of Lutherans,
Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians are evolving
to a greater recognition that gays and lesbians are
individuals created and loved by god. A local
example: Fairbanks Lutheran Church has adopted a
resolution welcoming and valuing all people,
regardless of sexual orientation; gays are welcome to
fully participate in the life of the congregation.
Even Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who
strongly opposes gay marriage and civil unions, is now
supporting a benefits bill in Colorado that includes
unmarried and same-sex couples.
A February 19th article in The Christian Post quotes
Dr. Dobson as calling it, quote, "A fairness bill,"
unquote. It further states that Focus [on the Family]
believes the reciprocal bill they support will address
the issue [of] benefits separately from marriage. We
are right there with Dr. Dobson; we, too, believe that
this is a matter of fairness, and we, too, believe
that benefits can be addressed separately from
marriage. If benefits for unmarried couples and gays
are morally acceptable to the leader of the "Christian
Right" in Colorado, they must therefore be morally
acceptable in Alaska too.
MS. LAURENCELLE continued:
As I am sure you know by now, the cost of implementing
benefits for state workers is miniscule, [so] this is
not a financial issue. Focus on the Family endorses
benefits legislation to include unmarried couples and
same-sex couples in Colorado, so this cannot be a
moral issue. The Alaska Supreme Court found
unanimously that the state must provide partner
benefits for gay employees, so there is no legal
issue.
By process of elimination it seems that this must be
an issue simply of discomfort and dislike - that is,
prejudice - driving a push to deprive others of rights
and benefits. I urge you to oppose HJR 32, an
unabashed attempt to discriminate against (indisc.).
And I'd like to make one further observation, that if
this amendment passes, five children in our
congregation will have the safety net of healthcare
and other benefits pulled out from under them. Thank
you.
4:59:40 PM
JIM MINNORY, Alaska Family Council, offered his understanding
that there are 19 states, including Alaska, that have enshrined
language in their constitutions preserving marriage; that in
nearly every election, the victory margin was 75 percent or
better; and that several more states will be voting on similar
language and each is expected to pass with solid majorities. A
national consensus is being formed, he opined, and defining just
what that consensus means in Alaska is what some are attempting
to do now. Marriage as a uniquely privileged relationship is
accompanied with certain benefits, but according to the Alaska
Supreme Court, the marriage amendment adopted back in 1998
eliminated the right to those benefits by preventing same-sex
couples from marrying; the recent Alaska Supreme Court decision
effectively ignored the will of nearly 70 percent of Alaskan
[voters], he remarked, because it ruled that state and local
governments must provide what he termed, "tax-payer funded"
benefits to employees involved in same-sex relationships.
MR. MINNORY opined that this ruling was based on a false
contention, and questioned whether currently the civil rights of
gays and lesbians really are being denied, particularly given -
according to his understanding - that gays and lesbians can
easily obtain legal documents establishing hospital visitation
rights, medical decision-making rights, inheritance rights, and
property ownership rights; be granted power of attorney; have
joint bank accounts; and be life insurance beneficiaries. He
then offered his belief that in Connecticut, same-sex couples
have been granted all the same benefits and protections as
married couples, but that even so, the state of Connecticut is
currently involved in litigation because some same-sex couples
are claiming that they still feel like second-class citizens
because they are precluded from marrying.
MR. MINNORY surmised that the reason for such litigation
revolves around the issue of public affirmation rather than an
issue of being denied benefits or rights. He then offered the
following as a quote by Paula Ettelbrick, director of the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Family Policy Program:
"Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family,
and, in the process, transforming the very fabric of society."
Mr. Minnory went on to say:
One of the more slippery aspects of the ruling will be
defining what qualifies as a same-sex relationship.
Will it be based on how long the relationship has
existed, or simply on whether the couple is living
together? Will the couple be required to be sexually
active? In order to be qualified for employee health
benefits at the University of Florida, same-sex
couples must sign an affidavit actually stating
they're involved in a, quote, "non-platonic
relationship." Do we want our tax dollars to be spent
determining who is engaged in sexual relations and who
is not?
Once the state is mandated to recognize same-sex
couples and provide them with benefits, it becomes
very difficult to deny that same right to polygamists
or even cohabitating friends or relatives. The
homosexual movement has been very purposeful in
avoiding any comparisons to polygamy, but that
argument is getting more disingenuous all the time.
The ACLU itself has declared its support of the repeal
of all laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of
what they call plural marriage. Polygamy advocates
today are following, to a "T," the script of the gay
rights movement, and TV shows boldly presenting
polygamy as an acceptable lifestyle - like the HBO
series ... "Big Love" - are paving the way toward
acceptance and more lawsuits demanding civil rights
and benefits of marriage for polygamy.
Those of us supporting these resolutions believe this
language simply clarifies what was central to the 1998
marriage amendment, [that] marriage between one man
and one woman serves a public purpose in a way no
other relationship can and should be legitimately and
uniquely privileged in public policy. It is not about
hatred, respect, or gay bashing. It never has been,
for most people lifting up the sanctity of marriage;
it's not about taking away rights or discriminating
against a segment of society, either. It's about
unapologetically distinguishing and intentionally
lifting up marriage as a treasured institution and
valued social bond that distinctively benefits our
community.
MR. MINNORY concluded:
The reality is that there's a segment of our
population that wants all of society to collectively
approve of and legally endorse homosexuality in the
same way we validate heterosexuality. Rulings from
the Alaska Supreme Court cannot make that happen;
neither can an attempt to thwart the will of the
people by denying them the right to vote on an issue
they've already decided on. I urge you to vote in
favor of [allowing] the people of Alaska to vote on
HJR 32, and I thank you for the opportunity [to speak]
today.
5:04:46 PM
STEVEN JACQUIER relayed that his partner is a retired University
of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) professor and small business owner,
and that he is a teacher and owner/operator of a small business.
He went on to say:
This is a second relationship for both of us. Doran
lost his first partner, Frank, to diabetes after they
were together for 27 years. I lost my first partner,
Robb, after 13 years. Doran and I have now been
together for 4 going on 5 years, and will doubtless
remain a couple for the rest of our lives. Between
the two of us, we've worked in Alaska for 43 years so
far. Our family resides in south Anchorage; our
daughter, Kristina, is in high school, and our son,
Andrew, is in college. Raising children and putting
them through college is indeed expensive, [but] we
carry our own weight, [and] are not a burden upon
anyone else.
My partner and I have worked long and hard in Alaska
and continue to do so now, [and] our payroll
contributions have funded the coverage of our married
coworkers for decades. My current group health
insurance runs out in October; if the [Alaska State]
Constitution ... is protected, then [in] October, I
will become covered by my partner's insurance. If
this bill succeeds, though, then after having paid
[in] once already via our payroll deductions, we would
be forced to also seek private health coverage,
pulling out our wallets a second time to pay at
private rates, on top of our labor having subsidized
coverage for our coworkers' spouses for 43 years.
MR. JACQUIER added:
We estimate a direct cost to our family of $11,400
(indisc - microphone picking up room noise) per year,
out of pocket, for obtaining equivalent medical
insurance at private rates. This is money which could
be much better spent on our children's needs and
college tuition fees. Bills like this in the South
were called "Jim Crow laws"; they marginalized and
disenfranchised people of color, forced white folks to
be parasites upon the labor of people of color, and
were bad for everyone. Jim Crow laws existed because
a righteous majority was content to abuse and take
advantage of a minority - not an admirable exercise of
good Christian values. This is no different. Gay
people are just as god created us; we have no more
choice about that than our skin color.
Just as women should receive pay equal with that of
men for performing equal work, Alaskans in
longstanding committed relationships contributing to
our community with our labor yet who are prohibited
from marriage absolutely do merit treatment equal with
that accorded our married coworkers. The Alaska
[State] Constitution says so, the highest court in the
state says so, and common decency says so. We work
just as hard, pay in just as much; we too have
children in school and college. We would go to city
hall and sign a civil marriage contract if we could,
and many of us have certainly been together as
committed unmarried couples far longer than most
heterosexual married couples.
If the situation were turned around, with this ...
[resolution] directly targeting our married coworkers
and neighbors - and forcing us to become parasites
upon them - then we would not stand for it. This bill
turns our married coworkers into parasites. Yes,
parasites - parasites benefiting at the expense of
others by taking from the labor of coworkers with
families who are barred from marriage. Parasites do
not make for good coworkers, nor good neighbors, nor a
healthy Alaska. Parasites are without any shred of
honor or dignity, and people who embrace being
parasites should not even think about trying to claim
the high moral ground on this issue.
Pandering to prejudice, HJR 32 seeks to pervert the
Alaska [State] Constitution by inverting the whole
purpose of a constitution, to - rather than protecting
equality and citizens' rights - instead strip away
equal treatment and unfairly target a specific group -
unmarried families - for harm while creating special
protections and special privileges for others -
married families - thus effectively forcing the latter
to be parasites upon their coworkers and neighbors,
whether they want that despicable role or not.
5:09:25 PM
MR. JACQUIER remarked:
Quite likely, some members of this committee actually
are listening to testimony with an open mind and a
genuine desire to sort out that which will best serve
our community here in Alaska. Unfortunately it is
also fairly likely that some of you are so enmeshed in
partisan politics that you are merely making a cynical
pretense at listening for the sake of form. Whichever
group you fall into, I hope that you can recognize
that such a divisive, ... fiscally irresponsible,
prejudicial [resolution] as this will, like a
malignant burden of parasites, bring more and more
grief, expense, and suffering the bigger it is allowed
to grow. And that harm will be to everyone,
yourselves included.
The sponsors and supporters of this bill should feel
deeply ashamed of themselves; they are also placing
themselves at risk. How would you feel if your
family, your children, were attacked? How would you
respond to people who are intending to deliberately
and knowingly inflict harm upon your family, your
children? Those who would target and attack people's
families and children should have a care for the
situation in which they are placing themselves; they
should not assume [that] those whom they delight in
demonizing and attacking will indefinitely turn the
other cheek to such brutality.
MR. JACQUIER concluded:
Prejudicially targeting and harming families and
children is exactly that which HJR 32 does - make no
mistake. Please do not become guilty of doing
violence to others through supporting this repugnant
legislation. Please demonstrate maturity, exercise
statecraft, and through your actions be leaders we may
feel proud to have serving in our legislature - please
defeat this [resolution] ... as well as every other
bigoted effort which comes before [you], regardless of
whom it targets. Thank you for listening to my
family; please feel welcome to contact us if you have
any questions.
5:11:49 PM
FRANCIS MANYOKY, noting that he has also submitted written
testimony to the committee, relayed that he is a student at UAA
studying business administration, is a homosexual, and is
opposed to HJR 32 on the basis that it will deprive both the
government and the citizens of Alaska of civil and economic
benefits. Although supporters of HJR 32 say that it is only
intended to protect traditional marriage and limit the benefits
of marriage to only those that are married, since homosexuals
have been denied the right to be married, they are thus also
precluded from the same state employee benefits accorded to
those that are married. Such being the case, are proponents of
HJR 32 suggesting that homosexuals should simply enter into
fraudulent heterosexual marriages so as to be able to get
healthcare and other benefits? Or are proponents simply
attempting to discourage homosexuals from seeking employment
with the state?
MR. MANYOKY pointed out that either way, HJR 32 will have a
negative civil and economic impact on the state. For if HJR 32
encourages heterosexual marriages among homosexual state
employees, it will then mock the very sacredness of marriage
that proponents claim to be protecting. And if HJR 32 is meant
to discourage homosexuals from seeking state employment, not
only would doing so simply be unacceptably discriminatory, but
also the state wouldn't be able to benefit from many
exceptionally qualified applicants. In conclusion, he asked the
committee to defeat HJR 32.
[HJR 32 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|