Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/27/1998 01:18 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 1998
1:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 313
"An Act relating to sponsor certification of initiative petitions;
relating to sponsor identification during petition circulation;
relating to the voidability of an initiated law; placing
limitations on the compensation that may be paid to sponsors of
initiative petitions; prohibiting payments to persons who sign or
refrain from signing initiative petitions; and repealing procedures
for filing a supplementary initiative petition."
- MOVED SB 313 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 344
"An Act relating to paternity establishment and child support;
relating to the crimes of criminal nonsupport and aiding the
nonpayment of child support; and amending Rule 37(b)(2)(D), Alaska
Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 344(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42(FIN)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to marriage.
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 313
SHORT TITLE: PROCEDURES FOR INITIATIVES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/16/98 2526 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/16/98 2527 (S) JUD, FIN
3/13/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/13/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/18/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/18/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/19/98 2894 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2NR
3/19/98 2894 (S) DP: TAYLOR NR: ELLIS, PARNELL
3/19/98 2894 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
3/19/98 2894 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
3/20/98 (S) RLS AT 11:55 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
3/20/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/23/98 2947 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/23/98
3/23/98 2951 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/23/98 2952 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/23/98 2952 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 313
3/23/98 2952 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
3/23/98 2952 (S) HALFORD NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/24/98 2976 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
3/24/98 2977 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/25/98 2733 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/25/98 2733 (H) JUDICIARY
4/20/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/20/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/23/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/23/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 344
SHORT TITLE: PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT CRIMES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/23/98 2114 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/23/98 2115 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
1/23/98 2115 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
1/23/98 2115 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (2-ADM, REV)
1/23/98 2115 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/10/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/10/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
2/17/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/17/98 (H) MINUTE(HES)
2/18/98 2348 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 2DP 2DNP 2NR
2/18/98 2348 (H) DP: BUNDE, PORTER; DNP: VEZEY,
KEMPLEN;
2/18/98 2348 (H) NR: GREEN, BRICE
2/18/98 2348 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
1/23/98
2/18/98 2348 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
2/18/98 2348 (H) 3 ZERO FNS (REV, 2-ADM) 1/23/98
4/01/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/01/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/17/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/17/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/20/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/20/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/23/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/23/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
4/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SJR 42
SHORT TITLE: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/02/98 2701 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/02/98 2701 (S) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
3/09/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/09/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
3/10/98 2807 (S) JUD RPT CS 4DP 1DNP SAME TITLE
3/10/98 2807 (S) DP: TAYLOR, PARNELL, MILLER, PEARCE
3/10/98 2807 (S) DNP: ELLIS
3/10/98 2807 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SJR & CS (GOV)
3/24/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/31/98 (S) FIN AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/31/98 (S) FIN AT 7:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/01/98 (S) FIN AT 7:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/02/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/06/98 3158 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1DNP 1NR SAME TITLE
4/06/98 3158 (S) DP: SHARP, PHILLIPS, PARNELL, DONLEY,
4/06/98 3158 (S) TORGERSON; DNP: ADAMS; NR: PEARCE
4/06/98 3158 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (GOV)
4/08/98 (S) RLS AT 11:20 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
4/08/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/16/98 3294 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1NR 4/16/98
4/16/98 3297 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/16/98 3298 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/16/98 3298 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y4 N16
4/16/98 3299 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING Y15 N5
4/16/98 3300 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 42(FIN)
4/16/98 3300 (S) PASSED Y14 N6
4/16/98 3300 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/17/98 3334 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
4/17/98 3334 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14 N6
4/17/98 3346 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/18/98 3071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/18/98 3071 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
4/27/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Bert Sharp
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 313 on behalf of Senator Sharp.
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director
Child Support Enforcement Division
Department of Revenue
550 West 7th, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-6804
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 344.
DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 344.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
820 West 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005
Telephone: (907) 264-8265
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 344.
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 344.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 113
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 42.
JACQUELINE HUTCHINS
3520 Sailboard Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-2063
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42.
GEORGE HANSEN
4860 Folker Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 563-7518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 42.
SCOTT SMITH
P.O. Box 2744
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42.
TAMARA WHEELER
1211 Redwood Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 278-3912
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
AL INCONTRO
2235 Daybreak Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-9226
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
NORMAN SCHLITTER
2521 Banbury Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-0116
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
TOM RACHAL
P.O. Box 90122
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
Telephone: (907) 333-1050
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
ELMER KANETA
6251 East 41st Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-1852
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
PATRICIA MARK, Law Clerk
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
419 Barrow Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
ELLEN TWINAME
5306 Caribou Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 338-5343
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
ALLISON MENDEL
8830 Banjo Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 279-5001
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
MILDRED BOESSER
17585 Lena Loop
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-1445
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
JASON NELSON
909 First Street
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 364-2865
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
SYLVIA DEAN
2225 Meadow Lane
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3512
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
MARSHA BUCK, Co-Chair
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
8445 Kimberly Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-6167
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
STEVEN JACQUIER
P.O. Box 90
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 289-2118
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
ROBERTA GILLOTT
P.O. Box 671
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-1361
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
LORNA PLETNIKOFF
P.O. Box 864
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5981
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
ANDREA PETITFILS
P.O. Box 2122
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-4635
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
TAYLOR BURNS, Representative
Alaska Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers
P.O. Box 305
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-3912
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
THERESA MILLER
2921 Glacierwood Court
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 790-4463
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
ROSEZELLA MICHALSKY
P.O. Box 210896
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Telephone: (907) 465-2889
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
UTA THOMAS
P.O. Box 2697
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-1690
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
HOLLY HALL
P.O. Box 2186
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4280
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
KEN KIRKLAND
P.O. Box 1530
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4798
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
RHODA ESSARY
P.O. Box 2178
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5920
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
AUDREY VAN WAGONER
P.O. Box 1896
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3774
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
SUSAN PHILLIPS
1760 Evergreen Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-2695
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
PETER OTSEA
215 Gastineau Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3009
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42.
JEANIE WILLIAMSON
2454 Killamey Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-8242
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42.
PATTY KEARON
P.O. Box 72268
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 451-8132
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
MARI GALEREAVE
P.O. Box 212
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
SARA BOESSER, Representative
Committee for Equality
9365 View Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-9604
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
MARY GRAHAM
235 5th Street, Number 2
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4938
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
TOM GORDY, State Director
Christian Coalition of Alaska
P.O. Box 34832
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 789-3953
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42.
LIZ DODD
100 Parks Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-2601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 42.
SUSAN CLARK, Representative
Alaska State League of Women Voters
1109 "C" Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6952
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
CAROL ANDERSON
P.O. Box 22493
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
BETH KERTTULA
10601 Horizon Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
WILLIAM ESSARY
P.O. Box 2178
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-5920
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
RAY HALLEY
P.O. Box 1515
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2131
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
RAY MACY
P.O. Box 614
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2533
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
BRUCE VAN BUSKIRK
P.O. Box 614
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-2533
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
DANIEL COLLISON, Chairperson
Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance
P.O. Box 21466
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
DAVID ROGERS
P.O. Box 33932
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
CAREN ROBINSON, Representative
Alaska Women's Lobby
P.O. Box 33202
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
DAVID JACKSON
P.O. Box 32333
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
SUZAN FITZGERALD
4484 Hillcrest Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 780-6649
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
ANN NORTHRIP
2810 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-3554
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
WILLIE ANDERSON
8443 Kimberly Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 780-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 42.
MORISSA L. WILLIAMS
P.O. Box 240791
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
NOMA STEWART
P.O. Box 305
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-3912
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
LYN CONLON, Psychiatrist
P.O. Box 305
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-3912
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
CAROL McDANIEL
P.O. Box 2122
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-4635
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
CAROLE WHERRY
1528 Stellar Drive
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-7772
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
BETH BARRY
P.O. Box 3524
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9270
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
PATRICK MARLOW
P.O. Box 83683
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 458-0913
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
NANCY KAILING
P.O. Box 84680
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-4944
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
RICHARD COLLINS
P.O. Box 83683
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 458-0913
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
BILL BRODY
P.O. Box 82533
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-4139
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
ROWENA GROSS
321 Miller Hill Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-6676
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
MARY BISHOP
1555 Guss's Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 452-2577
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
STEPHEN KAILING
P.O. Box 84680
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-4944
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
RICHARD KEMNITZ, Social Action Committee
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fairbanks
P.O. Box 84734
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 457-9009
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
MARINA DAY
P.O. Box 11
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (907) 474-8829
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
JEFF WALTERS
P.O. Box 82708
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 457-3876
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
JANA PEIRCE
820 Rifle Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 488-8692
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
MICHAEL JONES
P.O. Box 6185
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8384
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
TED DEATS, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Terry Martin
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on own behalf in support of SJR 42.
BRAD SINYON
P.O. Box 3020
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-4275
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
NOEL HEATON
1900 West 32nd, Suite C
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 272-2225
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
SUSAN GALEREAVE
P.O. Box 212
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (907) 479-8811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
CECELIA HUNTER
1819 Muskox Trail
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-2754
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
LISA SLAYTON
P.O. Box 85315
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 457-2787
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
SHELDON THOMPSON
162 Allegheny Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 456-2424
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
DENA IVEY
P.O. Box 80164
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 456-2471
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
JEAN BATTIG
720 Chena Ridge Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-0001
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
GERALDINE SMITH
P.O. Box 35223
Fort Wainwright, Alaska 99703
Telephone: (907) 455-7611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
ELAINE SCHROEDER, Psychotherapist
1706 Willow Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6879
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
NANCY SIMPSON, Marriage and Family Therapist
2270 Fritz Cove
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 780-1564
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
AMY SKILBRED
P.O. Box 23122
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 780-4649
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
SHELLEY OWENS
19137 Randall Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-2525
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
KATHRYN SCHUBECK
P.O. Box 744
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-2867
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
KAREN KONOPACKI
831 West 13th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-5179
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
CONNIE FAIPEAS
2846 Redwood Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 276-4137
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
SHARON RUDOLPH
1839 Thunder Bird Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 563-8558
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
DAN CARTER
P.O. Box 210072
Anchorage, Alaska 99521
Telephone: (907) 274-9226
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
ELLIOTT DENNIS
1010 Wroth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-0133
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE
2870 Linda Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-1313
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
KAREN WOOD
9626 Stikine Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 790-2941
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
SUSAN HARGIS
P.O. Box 22493
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-2410
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
MARY HICKS
Box 22565
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 364-2842
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
AIMEE OLEJASZ
870 Linda Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 789-1313
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
KEVIN SAMPSON
P.O. Box 140481
Anchorage, Alaska 99514
Telephone: (907) 333-0416
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
LARRY WOODARD
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
GINA COLLINS
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
KIM POOLE, Pastor
United Methodist Church
P.O. Box 22848
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 364-2110
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
ELIZABETH ANDREWS
P.O. Box 23122
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
ANGELA MU OZ
P.O. Box 22713
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-4034
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
MELISSA HOWELL
1050 Salmon Creek Lane, Apartment 3-001
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9730
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
ALLEN SHULER (ph)
Address not provided
Juneau, Alaska
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
LINDA HEMPHILL
8937 Haffner
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 790-2852
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 42.
JEAN FINDLEY
P.O. Box 22866
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-3259
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SJR 42.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-71, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:18 p.m. [stated as 3:18 on tape]. Members
present at the call to order were Representatives Green, Bunde,
Porter, and James. Representatives Berkowitz, Croft and Rokeberg
arrived at 1:20 p.m., 1:25 p.m., and 2:05 p.m., respectively.
SB 313 - PROCEDURES FOR INITIATIVES
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business would be SB
313, "An Act relating to sponsor certification of initiative
petitions; relating to sponsor identification during petition
circulation; relating to the voidability of an initiated law;
placing limitations on the compensation that may be paid to
sponsors of initiative petitions; prohibiting payments to persons
who sign or refrain from signing initiative petitions; and
repealing procedures for filing a supplementary initiative
petition," sponsored by Senator Sharp.
Number 0050
MARILYN WILSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator Bert Sharp, Alaska
State Legislature, read the following sponsor statement on behalf
of Senator Sharp:
"It is often assumed that persons obtaining signatures on a ballot
initiative are volunteers who believe strongly in their cause.
Unfortunately, that is more often not the case. Instead, it is
more likely these solicitors are signature bounty hunters who are
paid by the sponsor of the initiative.
"In an effort to bring the initiative process back to a more
grassroots effort, Senate Bill 313 requires visual identification
of name and voter registration identification number of the
petition circulators and also prohibits payment per signature by
the sponsor. This bill also prohibits paying a person to sign a
petition.
"In addition, existing law grants a 30-day extension to a sponsor
if they are unsuccessful in obtaining the required number of
verified signatures within the allowed time frame. Senate Bill 313
will eliminate this 30-day extension. This way, if the required
number of signatures are not successfully obtained, the initiative
simply does not appear on the ballot.
"The flurry of initiatives that we are currently experiencing has
resulted in the verification of signatures, and thus qualifying for
the ballot, coming as late as the middle of April, resulting in
eliminating the possibility of the legislature being able to react
by crafting a similar statute. The number of initiatives appear to
be growing, and the results may well be the Californization of our
entire legislative process."
Number 0196
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said he thinks it is an excellent bill.
He made a motion to move SB 313 from committee with the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. There being none,
SB 313 moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 344 - PATERNITY/CHILD SUPPORT/NONSUPPORT
Number 0229
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address HB 344, "An
Act relating to paternity establishment and child support; relating
to the crimes of criminal nonsupport and aiding the nonpayment of
child support; and amending Rule 37(b)(2)(D), Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by the
House Rules Committee by request of the Governor.
Number 0330
BARBARA MIKLOS, Director, Child Support Enforcement Division
(CSED), Department of Revenue, came before the committee to explain
HB 344. She said the legislation was introduced in order to comply
with federal welfare reform requirements. In 1996, Congress passed
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
and ended welfare as we know it. They realized at the time that if
they were going to get people off welfare permanently, poor
families needed assistance in achieving self-sufficiency. One of
the ways that self-sufficiency has been achieved is through child
support. She explained they made many changes in child support
legislation, and then required the states to comply with those
changes. Last year, SB 154 passed the legislature, which made a
lot of the changes, but the complete package was not passed. Ms.
Miklos informed the committee that HB 344 finishes the package.
Some of the provisions weren't included because people realized we
had more time to comply. She noted there has been technical
amendments, and many of the requirements were changed with the
technical amendments. The department has attempted to put only
things in the bill that are required by welfare reform. She said,
"There are a couple of things that we realize that we can take out
afterwards and would be glad to talk to you about those things."
Ms. Miklos stated that if the legislation is not passed this year,
the federal government has said they would penalize the state of
Alaska approximately $15 million by ending all federal funding for
child support, and eventually ending the Tannif (ph) bock grant,
which is about $63 million to the state of Alaska. She urged the
committee to pass the legislation.
Number 0404
MS. MIKLOS indicated she would review the highlights of the bill.
The legislation requires that all employers report all new hires or
rehires within 20 days to CSED. The legislation gives the courts
the authority to revoke sport fishing and hunting licenses in some
criminal cases and in contempt of court cases. She said the bill
mandates that social security numbers be provided for child support
purposes on applications for drivers licenses, and hunting and
sport fishing licenses. It gives the child support liens from
other states the same standing as Alaskan liens. The bill gives
the courts the authority to hold a person in contempt for failing
to honor an administrative child support subpoena. The rest of the
changes are technical changes in definitions or changes to make
things consistent.
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to a license revocation and said if that
license is used in a person's livelihood, is there a legal problem
with that?
Number 0499
DAN BRANCH, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section,
Civil Division, Department of Law, responded that he doesn't
believe so.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said if we assume the same lien that would be
applied if a person has moved to Alaska from another state, does
that, in any way, cause any problem with Alaska accepting other
state's laws? He said sometimes there are conflicts with laws
between states.
MR. BRANCH indicated he doesn't believe there would be a problem.
He said the lien would have to be valid in the law of the state in
which it's issued. Every state has to meet the same federal
mandates. Every state will be required to give every other state
child support liens (indisc.) and credit. Mr. Branch pointed out
that the way the legislation is drafted, the department would
expect that the lien would be recorded in the same way that our
child support liens are recorded. Basically, it would open a door,
for example, for Montana to record one of its child support liens
in Alaska. At that point, it would be treated as if it were a
child support lien of Alaska.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "And by so accepting, we wouldn't necessarily
imply anything that we might not accept from say Montana. Maybe
they have helmet law that's different, or some other law that has
nothing to do with this. This acceptance would not create any kind
of an implied (indisc.)."
MR. BRANCH said he doesn't believe it would be any type of waiver
of state sovereign powers.
Number 0604
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked what the opportunity is for reciprocity
using the Montana example. He asked how many other states might
accept Alaska's liens.
MR. BRANCH responded, "Every single one." He stated all the states
are mandated by the same federal laws to have legal procedures that
allow for Alaska's, and every other state's, child support liens to
be treated as if they arose in their state. Mr. Branch stated they
are all looking for the same penalties.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said if Alaska was to lose $10 million, that would
be a significant amount of money. He pointed out that perhaps
there are some states where that wouldn't be such a big issue. He
asked if the dollar amount is $10 million to each state that
doesn't comply, or is it proportional to something else like
population.
MS. MIKLOS responded that it is all the federal money that goes
into child support. A bigger state would have more money. She
noted it is all the federal money that goes into public assistance
block grants.
Number 0735
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES said she has absolutely no problem
making people who owe child support to pay their child support.
Her objection to the legislation relates to several issues, but
mostly it is a demand from the federal government for us to do this
or they'll take away our money. She stated, "And I guess I'm as
far to the right as you can get on that, Mr. Chairman, because it
doesn't make any difference to me if it's child support or any of
the other issues. I am up to here with the federal government
telling me I must do it their way or they'll take back their money.
And I say take the money and go home and we'll do it our way." She
indicated she will be a "no vote" on the bill.
Number 0808
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ referred to the references in the
bill to social security numbers and said the way he reads the bill
is that even people who aren't subject to CSED's jurisdiction would
have to provide a social security number.
MS. MIKLOS responded in the affirmative and noted it would be on
the applications.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said currently on an application for a
fishing license the social security number is optional. He asked
if he would be required to include his social security number if
the legislation becomes law.
MS. MIKLOS responded in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if even people who aren't subject to
CSED's jurisdiction would have to include their social security
numbers on a license application.
MS. MIKLOS said, "Yes, according to the federal welfare reform
legislation passed by Congress, ... and then those social security
numbers are to be maintained. There is still privacy protections
on those numbers and released as requested by Child Support
Enforcement."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "When I go down to the store and buy
my license, it's on a blank slate or essentially on a sheet that
anyone can read through. And there is no provision, in most
places, for protecting that kind of privacy information. I'm
comfortable with people having, to some extent, knowing the details
that are on my fishing license. But if I want to protect my social
security number, you're telling me my choice is either no fishing
license or what would happen?"
Number 0905
MS. MIKLOS pointed out that the Department of Fish and Game has
agreed that next year, if the bill were to become law, they would
be willing to black out the two copies of the fishing license. The
copy the person receives and the one the store receives wouldn't
have a social security number on it. The only one that would have
a social security number would be the copy that is sent to the
Department of Fish and Game. Another option is that a person may
apply directly to the Department of Fish and Game for a license.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that it seems to him that the
federal government is being granted more authority than they need
to have. He said you could require the people, who are subject to
CSED jurisdiction, to include their social security number on their
licenses, but he doesn't see how that would prevent somebody unless
there is an immediate check when the license is issued. He said he
doesn't see how it would require him to make payments or how it's
related to his CSED payment. Representative Berkowitz said in a
way, it's almost easier to come back retrospectively through CSED
and see who has fishing licenses and pull them that way, rather
than going the other way around.
MS. MIKLOS said one of the requirements is that you must have some
sort of sanction that requires withholding a sporting license. She
said they have tried to make that the least onerous that they can
by making it a court proceeding. In order to determine if someone
had one, the way CSED would find that out is by social security
number. She said CSED would ask the Department of Fish and Game if
a person had a license.
Number 1025
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he understands the thrust of the
argument and the maintaining of the privacy. While that notion is
universally assessable, it frustrates him. He said it is his
understanding that if he paid certain national organizations $35,
he could obtain anyone's social security number within a day. He
asked if that statement is accurate.
MS. MIKLOS stated that she didn't know that. She informed the
committee that CSED has found existing places where there are
violations of the privacy act regarding social security numbers.
They are supposed to be completely confidential according to
federal legislation passed in 1990. Nothing in the bill changes
that and they will be maintained as confidential. It is a federal
crime if you don't keep social security numbers confidential,
whether your a storekeeper or an employee of CSED. In that sense,
there are many protections still built into the system. She noted
she didn't know people could obtain social security numbers the way
Representative Bunde discussed.
Number 1108
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Is it the concept of this ... reasoning that
it's so much easier to -- or is it because of uniformity of the
other states that you would use a (indisc.) social security number
other than searching the fish and game records? I mean those
licenses all have a number on them too."
MS. MIKLOS said she believes it was Congress' intent to try to make
finding people as easy as possible. She referred to Representative
James' comment about federal mandates and said she thinks that a
lot of people probably feel that same way. Ms. Miklos informed the
committee that the idea of the legislation was to help collect
child support, and in order to do that, they've also made some
mandates. Social security numbers are much more of a consistent
identifier than anything else we have.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said he has found that people who get sport fishing
and sport hunting licenses quite often, not always, have a tendency
to be law abiding citizens. He said there would be a lot of people
who would slip through the net because they're not fishers or
hunters.
MS. MIKLOS referred to implementing the welfare reform legislation
and said there was a large net because there is other ways to find
people. In terms of legislation passed last year, it included
occupational licenses, drivers licenses and new-hire reporting.
Hunting and fishing licenses is another way, but it's not the only
way. She noted that in an article in the New York Times that the
new-hire reporting has found 100,000 people, since it was
implemented in most states, who have not been paying child support.
Number 1290
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I don't have the full text here but
the briefing I have here seems to indicate that this is written in
a conjunctive 'and,' and the applicants for licenses and
individuals who are subject to court order and anyone who's died is
really nothing to worry about. Those folks have to put their
social security number down. And it seems to me that we can comply
with the federal requirement with - instead of stating, 'Everyone
who applies for a license has to provide a social number,' it's
simply stating, 'everyone subject to a court order has to provide
a social security number.'"
MR. BRANCH said he disagrees. He stated he believes that in
federal language an intent is to require that anyone who applies
for any of these licenses provides a social security number,
whether or not they have child support obligations. Mr. Branch
said he isn't condoning that, but that is what he believes that
Congress mandated, which is very clear. He said, "We have to have
legal proceedings requiring that social security numbers of any
applicant for a professional license, drivers license, occupation
license, recreational licenses, marriage license, be recorded on
the application. And any individual who has died be placed in the
record relating to the death and be recording a death certificate."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that it's "and" and not "or."
They're not drawing a distinction between the three classes of
applicants and the three categories. He said because it's "and,"
his interpretation of what they're saying is, "If you're applying
for a license and you're subject to a support decree, then you have
to put you're social security down."
MS. MIKLOS responded, "It says any applicant who applies for a
recreational license."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "But then -- that's subparagraph 1,
and subparagraph 2 it says, ';' at the end of subparagraph 1, so
paragraph 2 '; and', not '; or'. And the way we interpretate our
statutes here is if you have a laundry list, if it's laundry list
and then an 'or', it's any of those individual items. But if it's
the 'and', then they have to all come together."
MR. BRANCH said he disagrees with that interpretation. He said the
use of the gammer indicates that the social security numbers of the
applicants, for any those licenses, and the social security numbers
of any individuals subject to a domestic relations order, and
anyone who's died, that their social security number be placed on
the death certificate.
Number 1625
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there are three proposed amendments. The
first amendment is by Representative Croft.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected to the adoption of the Amendment 1,
for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT explained he has spoke to the
Administration about the protecting social security numbers. He
said he had been worried that it would set up an ideological
conflict. As it often happens, you're able to find a practical
accommodation. He said, "What they said is, 'Our problem is it's
one form and the social security number is on it. It has to be
confidential by federal law.' And I found further support for that
in a memo from Dan Branch, of the AG's (Attorney General) office,
talking about which federal provisions require it to be
confidential. So it is required to be confidential now, but it's
difficult the way the bill is written for the department to do it.
And if they have the authority to separate, keeping the same file
but separate the other information from the social security number,
then they can easily give that other information and keep the
social security number confidential. I'm not sure what exactly in
the bill prevents - or even current law, prevents them from doing
it now, but if we can enable them to do that it might help some of
the legitimate privacy concerns that some people have."
Number 1720
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how difficult this could be and what the
fiscal impact would be.
MS. MIKLOS stated the amendment is in conjunction with an amendment
that was requested by the court system. She pointed out that last
year in SB 154 there was actually language that said the social
security number would go on the divorce or disillusion papers. At
that time, people didn't take into account that those were public
documents. Ms. Miklos said when they started looking into the
whole social security number issue, it became clear that it would
be onerous to the court system for them to have to make those
papers confidential. She said the solution that was worked out was
that they would develop this extra form, as described by
Representative Croft, and then this amendment allows them to give
CSED the information in that form. She stated to two amendments
kind of go together.
Number 1722
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, came before the
committee. He explained that under the current provisions, they
transmit the information to CSED that they need on the forms. Mr.
Wooliver said the amendment is a technical amendment. It still
allows the Alaska Court System to transmit the numbers, but since
those numbers aren't on the forms any longer, other language is
needed, which is included in the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE inquired about the fiscal impact.
MR. WOOLIVER explained the fiscal impact was incurred in SB 154, as
that is the bill that required the changing of forms. He stated
they still have to collect and transmit social security numbers per
federal law. The amendment would allow the changing of the form.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said Amendment 1 allows for that internal
transfer with social security numbers.
CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the Alaska Court System and CSED will
still have the social security numbers, but both groups will have
them separate from any documents that the public would see.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE removed his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there is a proposed Amendment 2, E.5. He
then called for a brief at-ease.
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the divorce and disillusion
documents and said you can separate the social security numbers,
and thereby not cause the Alaska Court System so much of a problem
in something that is a public document which, under federal law,
would have to be kept confidential because it has a social security
number on it.
Number 1867
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE removed his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 2.
MR. WOOLIVER explained that amendment would allow the court system
to segregate the social security numbers from the public document.
CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to page 3, line 16, of Amendment 2, and
said it talks about listing social security numbers for each child
whose rights are addressed in the judgement. He asked if that
would apply to people who may not be under CSED auspices. He said,
"Does this create a problem for possible -- cousin Berkowitz, for
example, who would not like his social security number
automatically out in the public and he's not under CSED, but he may
have been a child, 17-year-old or something, that's going to go
into the service, or 18, something in that range. I'm stretching
a point, I'm just trying to..."
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER stated it is existing law.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said it is existing law that they would have their
number listed as well.
Number 1963
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that just because someone has a
disillusion of marriage, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are
going to need to be attended to by CSED. She said she would really
object to having her name and social security number being reported
to CSED, because she doesn't ever plan and maybe never ever would
have the need for services of CSED.
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was a further objection to the
adoption of Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was
adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated there were two further amendments by
Representative Rokeberg, who wasn't in attendance.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE offered Amendment 3, E.3, Lauterbach, 4/20/98,
on behalf of Representative Rokeberg.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
Number 2060
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. She
explained the amendment was offered by Representative Rokeberg to
address a concern a constituent has. Under current statute,
modification of child custody or visitation, the court may consider
a parent's failure to pay child support. The amendment goes
further by telling the courts that they may not modify the custody
or visitation rights if the parent arrears have increased after the
date of the final support order. She stated that it doesn't take
visitation rights away, it just says that the court may not modify
the custody or visitation rights if the parent's arrears have
increased, unless the custodial parent agrees.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if that would be for any reason. He
questioned what would happen if there are some other compelling
reasons to modify the visitation right such as the parent that is
in arrears is in jail.
MS. SEITZ said the amendment does contain the language "best
interest of the child" lanugage in the amendment, so that would be
considered by the court.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "May not modify custody or visitation
rights if they've been arrears and it's been increased even in --
I guess we're assuming, in one direction, that it would go in a way
that was -- this doesn't seem to put it - to limit it to only one
direction. That is what if there were an order that cut off or
limited the visitation rights of the nonpaying parent and the court
wanted to do that, but this says I cannot - 'you're not paying as
well as other conduct, I want to modify your visitation rights, but
I find that it has increased.' It seems to me if that's the
direction it's going, it would be phrased in the one direction, not
sort of both. I can't help -- I can't hurt the parent in arrears
under this provision. I know that was poorly stated but I was
trying to get...."
MS. SEITZ referred to the case where the noncustodial parent keeps
threatening the custodial parent and said the noncustodial parent
hasn't paid the child support but he/she keeps telling the
custodial parent that they're not going to pay child support, they
are going to go to court and get visitation rights modified or
increased, or they are going to get the custody arrangement
changed. She said the amendment is an attempt to suggest to the
court that they "may not" unless they determine the modification is
in the best interest of the child, until those arrears are taken
care of.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "The way I read it if the court said,
'We've had enough of your nonpayment, as well as other actions,
including threats, we want to cutoff or drastically reduce your
visitation rights,' I think this limits the court's discretion to
do that. I think I understand the problem that Representative
Rokeberg was trying to address, but I worry sort of the idea of
unintended consequences -- that we could hamstring a court who
finally said -- who wanted to discipline that in arrears party."
Number 1963
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she supports the amendment. She said
her experience with the public is that the visitation rights of the
noncustodial parent is a plus for the child, not a negative. The
amendment says the failure to grant the modification would be
detrimental to the best interest of the child. That is an
important part of this issue. The best interest of the child
should demand the case and nothing else should interfere with that.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated he tends to agree with
Representative Croft's reading of the amendment. He asked if it
would satisfy the sponsor's intent if new language said something
like, "The court may restrict the custody or visitation rights of
a parent with respect...."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Unless the other parent consents in
writing to the modification -- so it may be that if it goes in the
other parent's direction, you just have to get their, 'I like this
- this modification.' So if we're going to restrict the visitation
on the parent in arrears, maybe they have to go through that
additional hoop of getting the custodial parent, in this case, to
do it." He stated this is an area for discretion of the court.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested the amendment read, "Visitation is
not granted unless it's in the best interest of the child." It
would allow the court the maximum freedom to decide, even if
somebody is in arrears. It would be a matter in the best interest
of the child.
Number 2345
CHAIRMAN GREEN called for an at-ease. He called the meeting back
to order and announced Amendment 3 was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG said he is satisfied with the way
the amendment was presented unless somebody can tell him otherwise.
He said, "It is his understanding of the nature of the amendment
was that, because it cut both ways, in order to overcome harassment
and the argument that I'm going to -- if the noncustodial parent
was threatening the custodial parent, that they could indicate that
no matter what you do, if you threaten to go back and get
visitation rights or custody changed, it's not going to change
anyway, whether you're in arrears or not. And also, it protects
somebody who is in arrears from losing their custody or visitation
rights the way I took it."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said "may not" means "no," as opposed to "may" or
"shall" where there is not a "not" behind it. He stated his
concern is that if he is the custodial parent, this would prevent
him from getting a change in the order because "deadbeat" isn't
paying.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the amendment is offered on the behalf
of a custodial parent to overcome, what she believes, is the threat
of harassment. He said he is trying to use the law as protection
for people, but he noted he doesn't want to do anything with
unforseen consequences.
TAPE 98-71 , SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said the section that is being modified, AS
25.21.010, adds new language in (b). He stated that (a) sets the
general standard and (a) says, "an award of custody of a child, the
visitation of a child, may be modified if the court determines that
a change in circumstance requires a modification and the
modification is in the best interest of the child." He said that
puts it in permissive language, but it is basically the same as
saying it cannot be modified unless you find these two things, a
change in circumstance that is significant enough to modify it, and
the best interest. Representative Croft said, "Given that the best
interest is the touch-tone of both of these, I'm not sure what it
adds. And I think it limits the way we were talking about. And
I've been thinking more about this, 'unless the other parent
consents.' In the classic two-parent divorce situation, that might
be an effective back door way to cure it. Say, "Well if you're
going to reduce their visitation because they've been in arrears -
they haven't paid, then I'm okay with that and I'll sign as the
other parent." He noted that there are other situations as custody
could be given to someone else besides the other parent. The
amendment says the other parent consents in writing. He said the
custodian consents, whoever it is.
Number 0075
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her concern with the issue is that in the
first part of the section, which is existing law, it seems to say
in the first four lines that the court can consider whether or not
the noncustodial parent is paying child support when they're
determining what the visitation rights, et cetera, are. She said
it seems to her that it shouldn't be automatic to deny a parent
visitation rights for not paying child support because we don't
know the circumstances of why they have not paid. She said it
shouldn't be assumed that they're a deadbeat parent as there could
be other reasons. Representative James stated, "The conflicting or
confusing part of it is that unless the other parent consents in
writing to the modification of the court, that seems to be out of
place in this issue. But unless the failure to grant modification
be detrimental to the best interest of the child, I think, makes
a lot of sense."
CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Well my problem, though, is if you've said
you may not modify this order, even if the arrears change go up,
they're further behind unless you get the parent to say yes or it's
in the best interest of the child. How could that be in the best
interest of the child if the arrearage gets bigger?"
Number 0153
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that there may be circumstances
beyond the control of the noncustodial parent who was paying the
support that couldn't pay. He said one of the impacts with the way
the amendment is drafted is it did cut both ways because it's after
a final support order is (indisc.), therefore, the ground rules
would be known. If there is a request for change of visitation
custody, the fact that there was an arrearage wouldn't come into
play.
CHAIRMAN GREEN said if a father quits working, but still wants
visitation, the court couldn't change that even if he doesn't pay
anything.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said generally, when you take away the
discretion of the court and allow another parent to give approval,
generally, what happens is you subject that other parent to
extraneous pressures which might not necessarily be in the best
interest of protecting the process. When you require the other
parent to consent to modification, you might be undermining the
court's authority and the ability to do what's best for the child.
Number 0217
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew the amendment as he still has some
concerns with it. Representative Rokeberg then moved that
Amendment 4, E.4, be adopted.
CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it came to his attention that
there was a lack of communication, or there were some obstacles to
communicating, between two different departments of our government.
Because of a relatively recent change to our statute regarding
vital statistics, the vital statistic about the act of marriage,
the marriage certificate, itself, is sealed for 50 years.
Apparently the application and registry is available at our vital
statistics information service. You cannot get somebody else's
marriage certificate. He stated, "It came to my attention was a
situation where spousal support or alimony is being paid by the
individual under a court order that indicated it would cease at the
time that his ex-wife got remarried. Well this occurred in this
fact pattern and the individual stopped paying the spousal support,
but then after a month or so was being done by child support
enforcement for failure to pay the support when, in fact, his
formar spouse had gotten married. Then there on added interest to
another month and it became a real Mexican hat dance has happened,
when, in fact, this person is running around trying to get a copy
of the marriage certificate -- perhaps didn't get the right
information from vital statistics where he could have gotten a
record of the registry apparently. But nevertheless, then asked
the department to do it and they said they couldn't do it, didn't
have authority, it's against the law from a statute." He stated
that in the circumstance that he is aware of, the ex-husband went
to the new husband after a period of two or three months and he was
kind enough to give him a copy of the marriage certificate. He
said the department was wasting time and money collecting money
that wasn't due. There is one group not talking to another group.
He said Amendment 4 takes care of that situation and will,
hopefully, help out the department and the level of communication
between the various departments to make sure they're meeting their
responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he supports the amendment.
Number 0384
CHAIRMAN GREEN withdrew his objection to the adoption of Amendment
4. He asked if there was further objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 344, as amended, out
of committee with the attached fiscal notes and with individual
recommendations.
Number 0398
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted his concern about the social
security language and urged that the next committee narrow the
language regarding social security numbers. He said he would like
to see a more substantial amount of thought go into it.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Bunde, Berkowitz,
Croft, Porter, Rokeberg and Green voted in favor of moving the
bill. Representative James voted against moving the bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced CSHB 344(JUD) moved out of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
SJR 42 - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE MARRIAGE
Number 0440
CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the next order of business would be CSSJR
42(FIN), "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to marriage."
[NOTE: This portion of the meeting was transcribed verbatim.]
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Senator Loren
Leman. I represent District G, which is parts of Anchorage. And
I would just in introduction on this resolution, I'm not really the
sponsor of the resolution even though you've said that and some
others have. I serve on the Senate HESS [Health, Education and
Social Services Committee] which is the sponsor of the resolution.
I'm here today speaking on behalf of that committee and it's
Chairman, Senator Gary Wilken, who sends his regards. So with that
as a, at least, technical correction I will begin. Mr. Chairman
and committee members, Senate Joint Resolution 42 will give Alaska
voters the opportunity to defend the existing definition of
marriage in this state, and this definition is clarified by the
legislature as recently as 1996 by a strong bipartisan vote in both
the House and the Senate, and that was Senate Bill 308 -- we defend
it by placing this definition, essentially the same definition,
into our constitution. Why do we need to do that? On February 27,
Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski discovered in the state's
constitution, in his opinion, a right that the right to privacy
gives a fundamental right to choose a life partner. He went on to
say that the failure of the state to provide public recognition of
this private choice violates the state's constitution unless the
state can demonstrate a compelling state interest. And I'll just
note here and digress maybe for some other thoughts that
Representative Croft is here and I know he's taken me to task for
my criticism of Judge Michalski's ruling - and while I disagree
with him strongly about his ruling and his lack of judicial
precedent in jurisdictions throughout the country on the same issue
- and my disagreement with him should not be construed as being a
personal attack on him or on Representative Croft or anybody else
who may disagree with me.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: I appreciate that, Senator. Thank you.
SENATOR LEMAN: Judge Michalski's decision now sets in motion a
chain of events that could result in Alaska becoming the first and
only jurisdiction in the world to recognize homosexual unions as
marriage. And I'll note that all 50 states of the United States
agree on this issue and all have the same laws that we have; they
define marriage as being a union between one man and one woman.
And I'll further note that recorded history has, almost in all
cases, held the same with some brief forays into polygamy that have
occurred and there are some other examples in portions of the
world, but essentially in the Western World, this definition,
certainly in modern Western tradition, has always been the case.
The federal government defines "marriage" as being a union that can
exist only between one man and one woman. This was the Defensive
Marriage Act passed in 1996 with President Clinton's signature. I
note, and there again, a strong bipartisan support in the Congress
for the definition. And in federal statutes and regulations, the
term "marriage" and "spouse" referring to (indisc.) appears in more
than 3,900 sections of law. And so -- you know you see the great
impact that this could have if Alaska engages in redefining what
marriage is, it would have an impact on federal law and also it
could have an impact on the other states. Marriage is an
institution with profound cultural importance. Redefining it, even
if that is possible, raises hundreds of cultural and legal
questions that we have just barely begun to explore. The effort by
some to redefine marriage is indeed one of the great questions of
our time. Decisions of this magnitude should be made by the people
of Alaska, not by unelected judges. Passage of SJR 42 will ensure
that the people have a voice in this process. And I commend it to
you for passage from this committee and also to passage on the
House floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Senator. Are there any questions of
the committee members. Yes, Representative Rokeberg.
Number 0660
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, Senator Leman, do you know
the latest status of the situation in Hawaii in terms of their
legislature and supreme court hearing.
SENATOR LEMAN: Perhaps others can speak to the legal part. My
understanding is that Hawaii will have on its ballot this November,
essentially the very same question that is being proposed by
SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, Representative Berkowitz.
Number 0688
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Thanks very much. Senator, it's kind of
nice to see you cite President Clinton on matters of morality
there. I have a question about the Brause Case [Brause/Dungan
case] which as I understand it there was just a preliminary ruling
essentially requiring that immediately the state make a compelling
showing. Is that your understanding of the Brause Case?
SENATOR LEMAN: That's my understanding of Judge Michalski's
decision, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Do you feel that there is an inability
to make a compelling case?
SENATOR LEMAN: I don't feel that there is an inability. I believe
that the evidence, and tradition, and natural law, and a number of
legal precedents, to me I mean if I were a judge, I would say that
those show a compelling interest. However, the people who are in
your profession advise me that that is a tough standard for
government to reach to, you know, rather than the rational basis
test, you know, the compelling and interest test. And that is one
that, you know, in the Hawaii - the Hawaii courts, you know,
struggled with that and you have to recognize that, you know, we
have - in law we have us, the people who represent the people. And
then you have the judges who, there may be a few of them, they may
come to different conclusions and the only way that we can regain
the voice of the people is to take this to the people. And in the
case where the courts are clearly at odds with public sentiment,
there are times when we have to do things like (indisc.--coughing)
example of taking an issue and putting it back in control of the
people where I believe it belongs.
Number 0770
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: The point about the courts clearly being
at odds, it seems to me that we might be jumping the gun a little
bit in this case since the courts haven't made a final
determination. I wonder if you could respond to what the reason
for your timing, or the HESS Committee's timing on this resolution
rather than letting this case wind its way through the courts.
SENATOR LEMAN: Well, let me speak, Mr. Chairman and Representative
Berkowitz, from the Department of Law's own report. They issue a
monthly report that perhaps all you have seen, and if you've looked
at it, I was particularly intrigued by what they might write about
this case, and they say the state has filed its petition for
review, which we've encouraged them to do in our SCR 25, which is
I believe winding its way through your body. It says, "In
addition, the legislature is moving on a constitutional amendment.
If that amendment passes the legislature and is approved by the
electorate, it would bring this case to an end." The Department of
Law is arguing the very case. It's defending the existing statutes
of the state of Alaska. The reason for it is that I don't want
this decision to take several years and to come to the same
conclusion that Hawaii has is that you have to take it to the
people. You can wait another two years, you can spend several
hundred thousand dollars in legal fees or we can deal with it now
and I believe this is the appropriate approach to take.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: I think we have Bunde and then -- okay,
Representative Rokeberg.
Number 0917
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, Senator Leman, given your
interest in this, have you had an opportunity or been made
available to you, the brief to counsels in this particular case,
particularly the attorney general's brief in the case? Because I
think one of the judge's problems is that this very lack of
precedent may have been bad lawyering. I'm wondering if that's the
case -- I mean the case is so ludicrous on its face. And my study
of this particular area of law, there is substantial amount of case
law on this. I mean even here in the state of Alaska. So I mean
have you had an opportunity to look at the briefs, particularly by
the attorney general?
SENATOR LEMAN: I have read the ruling, I have read the briefs by
the attorney general which I believe Assistant Attorney General
John Gaguine, who may be here - I don't know, it would certainly be
good if he could be here. I believe it's a good brief and legal
scholars tell me that Judge Michalski's ruling is particularly
weak, it's devoid of judicial precedent and they are surprised with
that ruling. That's what others tell me. I'm not going to sit
before you today and claim that I'm a constitutional scholar. I
have studied constitutional law, but I'm not going to make that
assertion to you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Any other questions of the sponsor?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, the reason for my question
I had not had a chance to read the brief and I was happy to get
that analogy (indisc.).
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative Croft.
Number 0928
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: I just wanted to remind (indisc.) that this
is discussion and not summing up ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Following up on Representative Berkowitz's
point, so even if Judge Michalski tomorrow ruled, as I understand
why he did, but the compelling interest was met.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What?
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Judge Michalski moved that the compelling
interest test was met and that there was no right under the Alaska
Constitution. Should we still have this on the ballot?
SENATOR LEMAN: Mr. Chairman, Representative Croft, this issue
likely wouldn't have been before the legislature if Judge Michalski
hadn't made his ruling on February 27th. It wasn't that I or
anybody else, or Senator Wilken, members of the Senate, were
looking for an issue to devote a lot of time to and another issue
to put on the ballot, but because the issue is before us and
because he hasn't ruled, and looking at some of the rulings in the
Hawaii case and what could be - at least the likelihood in his case
to rule that way and be tied up in perhaps a substantial amount of
time before the Alaska Supreme Court and missing this cycle for
putting it on the ballot, then the timing I believe is correct to
put this on the ballot this year rather than wait two years. You
know, you well know that the next time that this could be put on
the ballot would be two years from now.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: So even if ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative Croft, we're getting very close now
to a debate rather than discussion. It's a supposition that what
would have and it didn't. It was a decision and now we're trying
to do something about that. So if it's a question, I'll allow it.
If it's a debate, I'm going to (indisc.).
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: I didn't understand the response, it was
just a question. If -- this should be on the ballot even if Judge
Michalski ruled tomorrow that there was -- I'm worried about the
timing of it and, later, what it's actually doing. But why we are
in the middle of a decision making this amendment, I'm just trying
to get your view about whether this should be on the ballot
regardless of the court's decision. If they went one way or the
other, this is the time to put it on? I'm worried about changing
our constitution unnecessarily.
Number 1043
SENATOR LEMAN: Mr. Chairman, Representative Croft, I, too, don't
relish the thought of changing our constitution for reasons that
are not substantial. I believe this issue is one of the most
substantial issues that we will debate in this legislature. It's
one of profound significance and, you know, we recognize that this
issue will not go away if Judge Michalski rules -- whichever way he
rules, there will be an appeal and that will take time and money.
I believe that the appropriate step for us to take is to clearly
state and defend the institution of marriage in our constitution
and I'd say the answer to your question is "yes." Is this the
right time? Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: I'd just like to thank you for your opening
comments (indisc.).
SENATOR LEMAN: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative Berkowitz.
Number 1090
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: And I'm similarly trying to get a grip
on the issue. You said it was a substantial issue, which is why
you felt the need for a constitutional amendment. I was wondering
if you could enumerate the reasons why it's substantial.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: The question is out of order ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: That sounds like a little bit more of a debate
than a request of why he's doing it. He's got a joint resolution
before us, his motives ...
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: No, I'm not asking his motives. I'm not
asking his motives. I'm trying to understand -- Senator Leman, if
I understood correctly, said that this is an issue that - a
substantial issue and I want to understand, from a policy
perspective, what issues are the components of the determination
it's a substantial issue.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright.
Number 1134
SENATOR LEMAN: Mr. Chairman, Representative Berkowitz, there isn't
another institution that so affects our culture as the institution
of marriage and our families. This whole thing defines who we are
as people and it sets up the framework for the structure of the
family and the protection of children and of unions and everything
that we are. That's why I believe the issue of the definition of
marriage is so substantial. I can't think of another issue that we
have before us that is any more important than that. I mean if
somebody knows of one, please identify it. I don't know. I mean
I find it intriguing when I've received two or three messages --
perhaps you will hear some testimony today from people who say,
"You know, get off of this issue and get on to something more
important." I ask them, "Like what?" What could be more important
than the very fundamental definition of who we are. And Senator
Halford made a very brief comment on the floor and he said, "Let's
recognize this. All we are doing in this resolution is defending
the status quo when it comes to marriage." It isn't a radical
departure from it, it's a defense of what we have always had as a
state, always had as a territory and always had as a country.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Any other questions of the sponsor? Yes,
Representative Porter.
Number 1211
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Not really a question, just a statement.
For the record, that was not a request to provide what the state's
compelling interest might be in this legislation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Senator. We have a significant number
of people wishing to testify. We have two that have planes to
catch, so I'll take them first and then we'll, I guess, go back and
forth. We have about 50 on teleconference and some 35 here in the
audience. So, Jacqueline Hutchins.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Are you going to limit the time?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, because of this over 85 people wanting to
testify, I'm going to limit the testimony to two minutes. It's a
rather simple yes or no type thing and maybe a reason. You don't
have give whether yes or no, but just ....
Number 1262
JACQUELINE HUTCHINS: Do you want my name?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, please.
MS. HUTCHINS: Thank you, my name is Jacqueline Hutchins. I'm from
Anchorage and I'm actually down for something else today, but I was
hoping this would be up, also. I think it's important to note that
as I have read a number of the letters to the editor of the
Anchorage Daily News that this issue has tried to be cast as an
economic fairness issue when it is very clearly a moral issue. If
this is really about what kind of benefits I'm being given by my
employer, then I believe the proper place to be addressing that is
to my employer and not to the state legislature. If it's a matter
of what kind of insurance am I receiving, then I should be
addressing that to my insurer and, again, not to my state
legislature. I believe that because, as Senator Leman said, and
I've never heard of him before this issue, I don't know anything
about him, but because as he said, it has such far reaching
consequences to our society, that it is an issue that is too large
to be decided by one judge or even by some 50 odd legislators. I
think it's...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: We're not all odd.
MS. HUTCHINS: Okay, that it's an issue that really does need to go
to the people, that the people need to, as a voice, say this is
what we do want for our society or what we don't want for our
society, because it does have far reaching consequences for our
society and we need, as a society, to be able to decide what it is
we want. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, very much.
MS. HUTCHINS: Am I under two?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, you did very well, thank you. And George
Hansen.
Number 1362
GEORGE HANSEN: My name is George Hansen. I'm from Anchorage. I
have come to testify in favor of putting this measure on the
ballot. As I look at the constitution, when the constitution of
the state of Alaska was put together it was an attempt to outline
how we, the citizens of Alaska, would be governed and how we would
govern ourselves. And I think it -- that all the judge has said to
us is, "Well you failed to look at this one matter. And because
you didn't look at it, we can't rule on it one way or the other.
And so we have to rule on a neutral manner." This measure simply
says to us, "Okay, now let's go back and reconsider that, let's let
the citizens of the state of Alaska decide how they want to be
governed in this particular phase of life." And I think it's a
little bit brazen of us to consider not putting it on the ballot if
we're going to try to run this as a republic or a democracy or
whatever. For the legislature or for the judiciary to say, "No,
you the citizens aren't going to get to vote on this, you had your
chance to speak on it one time and that's it," I think that's going
too far. So I would hope that we would put this on the ballot and
let the citizens make the decision, whichever way it goes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, very much George. We will go to
Valdez, you have a Ken Kirkland.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hi, this is Valdez. Ken has stepped out for
a bite to eat. Could we move him to later?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes. Is William Essary there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, the only person we have left to testify
right now is Scott Smith. Could you take him?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, he wasn't on. We'll take him, Scott.
Number 1482
SCOTT SMITH: Yes, I'd like to address this. I think it's a shame
that we have to spend the time to ... address this because of one
judge trying to set law by a decision. I think we need to look at
the standard of marriage as we have known it all of our life and
all of recorded history as a nation. That needs to be said by all
Alaskans. Let's move on with this ballot and let's set out the
outline of marriage of one man and one woman in the state
constitution and end this debate and let it be said. I would move
that we pull this out of committee and put it on the ballot. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. We'll pick up a few from
Anchorage. They are going off line for about two hours. So Tamara
Wheeler and Bob Wheeler.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tamara is right here getting set and Bob
Wheeler did have to leave.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay.
Number 1544
TAMARA WHEELER: My name is Tamara Wheeler and I am here to testify
in favor of SJR 42. I proudly support this because I do believe it
has a far reaching eeffect. I don't believe that it discriminates
against homosexuals as some critics have claimed. Currently,
homosexuals are free to live however they want. The state does not
prohibit their behaviors or their relationships. And I feel
(indisc.) that the people of Alaska is to approve of their
lifestyle and to allow it to be promoted. I personally cannot give
my approval of a homosexual lifestyle. And current polls show that
there are many people who feel the same way I do. So I think it's
imperative that this issue does come before the voters. So I urge
you to vote for this resolution and give us a chance to vote right
here in our state in November.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you much, Tamara. Mike Cray.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mike Cray had to leave. Al Incontro would
be our next person.
Number 1611
AL INCONTRO: Yes, my name is Al Incontro and this is my second
time to testify against SJR 42. And I've been with my partner,
Dan, for over 29 years now. We both consider ourselves real good
and helpful citizens and neighbors. And we try to do everything
just like everybody else here. We're no different than most
people. Another thing I want to say, we think of ourselves as
Christians and church going people. And just please vote against
SJR 42. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Al, thank you very much for your testimony.
Norman Schlitter.
Number 1663
NORMAN SCHLITTER: Yes, Norman Schlitter. I urge you to vote no
against SJR 42. I'm the father of a 39-year-old gay son which we
feel proud of and love dearly. Same-sex marriage or marriage
between one man and one woman are not an issue to be addressed by
a constitutional amendment. Who a person loves and wants to marry
is a personal matter. Now that union is recognized as a legal
matter - not a legislative matter. Who a person wants to be a
beneficiary of an insurance policy, a tax exemption, having a say
about federal care and life supports, are really personal matters
also. These are legal matters, not legislative. Marriage is a
legal matter, it should be handled by the court system, not the
legislature. (Indisc.) vote to change the constitution now, you,
our future elected officials, will probably be looking in the
future of ways to reverse this decision. But I urge you to vote no
against SJR 42. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thanks Norman. Tom Rachal.
Number 1730
TOM RACHAL: Yes, my name is Tom Rachal.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. RACHAL: That's okay, sir. Laws concerning marriage are
changed often in American history. (Indisc.) was defined as the
union of two people of the same race and same religion, and said
wives were the property of their husbands. Until recently, many
state governments denied interracial marriages - interracial
couples the right to marry. Marriage laws must change as society
recognizes the need for fairness to all. Today, the choice of a
marriage partner should belong to each man or woman, and not the
state. In America, religious and civil marriages are separate
institutions. The state should not dictate which marriage any
religion performs or recognizes, just as religion should not
dictate who gets a civil marriage license from the state. Same-sex
marriage is about the freedom to have a civil marriage license
issued by the state. Rights that married people take for granted
are denied to gay and lesbian people. If one partner in a married
couple is seriously ill or incapacitated, the other partner is
permitted to make decisions regarding their care. The basic right
of guardianship is denied to gay and lesbian couples because their
committed relationships are not recognized under the law. If one
partner is incapacitated, the other partner is not given the right
to make basic health care decisions. The issue of same-sex
marriage is a privacy and equal rights issue, nothing more nor
nothing less. In a representative democracy such as ours the
rights of the minority must be protected by the majority.
Therefore, I urge you to not interfere with the inherent equal
right for all Alaskan citizens by voting no on SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Rachal. Elmer Kaneta
Number 1855
ELMER KANETA: A couple deeply in love wants to marry, a symbol of
remarkable desire, but an impossible one, no matter how committed
that couple is to a future together, if the individuals are two
women or two men. Gay people are ruled by the same things of
personal, economic, practical reasons for marriage as other people.
Marriage has social and emotional significance. The opportunity
for support of public declarations of laws and commitments. And,
it is the sole source of enforcement (indisc.) economic protection
that can be essential in times of crisis. Only marriage ensures
social security, Medicare, and veteran benefits for a spouse. Only
marriage automatically grants the right to make emergency medical
decisions for a spouse and access to hospital emergency and
intensive care units. Only marriage assures the right to choose
the final resting place for a deceased spouse, (indisc.) recent
(indisc.) and inherit automatically in the absence of a will.
Child custody frequently is denied for gay parents simply because
they are not married. Only marriage brings responsibilities and
protection such as with divorce and child support requirements.
There are hundreds of legal rights and responsibilities with civil
marriage affords. I don't want religious marriage; I don't want
gay marriage. The term "gay marriage" implies that same-sex
couples are asking for special rights or provisions that married
couples do not have. I want civil marriage. I want equal rights
to civil marriage just like you have. After all, I am no less
committed to my life mate than you are to yours. I urge you not to
interfere with the inherent equal rights for all Alaskans by voting
no on SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Kaneta. Particia Mack.
Number 2004
PATRICIA MARK, LAW CLERK, ALASKA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (AKCLU):
Good afternoon, my name is Patricia Mark, I'm a law clerk for
Alaska Civil Liberties Union. The AKCLU ....
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: I can't hear her.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Can you move a little closer to the microphone,
please.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: And start over.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is your name Patri...
MS. MARK: Yes, Patricia Mark.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Mark, thank you.
MS. MARK: Okay, can you hear me now?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes.
MS. MARK: Okay, my name is Patricia Mark. I am a law clerk at the
Alaska Civil Liberties Union. The AKCLU is a nonpartisan
organization dedicated to preserving and defending the principle of
individual liberties guaranteed in the U.S. Bill of Rights, in our
(indisc.) Alaska State Constitution. I have come here today on
behalf of over 800 current members of the AKCLU urging you not to
pass SJR 42 out of this committee. Putting this amendment on the
ballot for a vote is a bad idea. First of all, SJR 42 is premature
because of the Brause case has not even been decided by the courts
yet. Despite a unanimous (indisc.) we pass the measure urging the
state to file a (indisc.) the Brause case, so why not let the
process take its course before investing money to put SJR 42 on the
ballot. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is a bad idea for
Alaskans because it takes the most sensitive, personal, private
decisions an individual makes that concerns their lives (indisc.)
publicly declare for (indisc.) to a majority vote. A recent public
opinion poll by (Indisc.) and Associates asked the question, "Would
you support or oppose a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-
sex marriage in Alaska." (Indisc.) 51 percent oppose such an
amendment and only 39 supported it. Also a recent Alaska ABC poll
indicated that 52 percent of Alaskans favored same-sex marriage.
Now we can argue about the accuracy of polls, (indisc.) the
majority will need, but all of this is beside the point. The point
is that the role of government needs to carefully balance the
rights of the majority with the rights of the minority.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: You need to wrap up, Patricia.
MS. MARK: That's pretty much all I wanted to say, thank you very
much. Please don't pass this (indisc.).
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, I was looking for the
fiscal note. Isn't an constitutional amendment $3,000 or is it
$30,00?.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: $3,000.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Just for everybody's information, it's
$3,000.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes. We have Ellen Twiname.
Number 2187
ELLEN TWINAME: Hello, my name is Ellen Twiname. I would just like
to address some of the arguments against gay marriage. I urge you
all to vote no on SJR 42. One of the main arguments is marriage is
an institution between one man and one woman, and that's the most
often heard argument, one even codified in U.S. federal law. Yet
it is equally the weakest. It says two marriages should be defined
by the marriageable. Isn't that kind like of allowing a banker to
decide whose going to own money stored in his vault? It seems that
if the straight community cannot show compelling reasons to deny
the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied,
and such simple and nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling
reason. They are really more like an expression of prejudice than
any kind of real argument. The concept of not denying people their
rights unless (indisc.) is the very basis of the American ideal of
human rights. Like that argument I hear a lot, is that marriage is
for procreation. The proponents of that are really hard pressed to
explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed
to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when a proponent of
such an argument is to explain to his post menopausal mother or
impotent father that he thinks not procreate, they must now
surrender their wedding rings. Again, such an argument fails to
persuade, based on marriages, (indisc.) marriages, but it does
allow routinely for (indisc.). The third argument I hear is that
same-sex couples (indisc.) to raise children. That's an
interesting one in light of who society does allow to get married
and bring children into their marriage. Murderers can bring
(indisc.) of all sorts, even child molesters (indisc.). If
children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The
fact is that many gay couples raise children adopted and seems to
(indisc.) heterosexual marriages. (Indisc.). In conclusion, I
would say vote no on SJR 42. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, just a moment.
Number 2383
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG: Mr. Chairman, I regretfully have to leave
the committee hearing at this time in order to take up my duties as
chairman of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. I just wanted
people down there in T.V. land to know I was not running off for
some unexcused reason.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: We will hope to see you later.
Number 2420
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: I have a brief time that I have to go back
and meet with some people and I will be back in about ten minutes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Representative James. Allison Mendel.
Number 2440
ALLISON MENDEL: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN JAMES: Your testimony.
MS. MENDEL: I am here to urge you to vote no on SJR 42. First of
all, putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot on this
issue is premature at this time as the committee has previously
heard ...
TAPE 98-72, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. MENDEL CONTINUED: ... for being so backed up at the supreme
court, there is no possibility that there could be a final word on
the court on this issue in less than a year. And I think more like
two or three years. If you've been following the event in Hawaii
-- it's been years since Hawaii and there's still no final
(indisc.) although there could be one at any time. So, jumping the
gun to put this on the ballot and ask the populous to deny civil
rights to a certain portion of the population before there is even
a court decision on the issue, I think would be (indisc.).
Secondly, despite the denials (indisc.), Senator Leman made a very
good case for viewing this as a civil rights issue if he says it's
at the foundation of our social and cultural organization,
something with which I would agree. Denying the foundation of our
social and cultural organization to a small portion of the
population is not a constitutionally good idea. It is very
important - it is very important that people have this right and,
therefore, it is important to people who are denied this right. I
agree with previous testimony that I have yet to hear a[n]
articulated reasons why this is a bad idea other than that we're
not used to it. I understand that we're not used to it and that's
one reason I think that this whole issue is prematurely brought.
We only began discussing this publicly in the state of Alaska on
February 27th when the court's decision was handed down. That's
hardly enough time to decide whether we want to make radical
changes in our social organization. I have a great deal more to
say but my time up. I do have a great deal of legal expertise on
this question and I'd be happy to answer questions if anybody wants
to ask.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Allison.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, Representative Berkowitz.
Number 0158
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Ms. Mendel, just sort of very quickly,
what are the more salient legal principles involved here? Just
very quickly.
MS. MENDEL: Well, in Judge Michalski's opinion, he rested his
opinion on the privacy clause in the Alaska Constitution which has
previously been interpreted by our state Supreme Court very
broadly. Alaska's citizens have greater privacy interests than
citizens of many other states. Examples are the marijuana home use
decision and the long hair at school decision. On all kinds of
issues, we have greater rights than many people do in other states,
and in that sense, his decision is in no way radical. Our state
has been built on the proposition that our citizens want the
maximum right and the minimum interference by government. He also
said that if he were forced to decide, he would also find it to be
gender discrimination, but he didn't get that far. He then said
that it'd have to go to trial and the state had to come forward
with a compelling state interest. And yet I think the committee is
aware the state has never had to articulate what its compelling
interests are and has intimated that it can't show a compelling
interest which as you know the state of Hawaii couldn't show. I
think it's inherent in the whole process the state be required to
come forward with its compelling interest and let us all consider
it in a major and considerate fashion instead of jumping to a
popular vote on the issue.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Follow-up question.
Number 0287
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: There's also an issue raised about the
-- this proposed resolution being reflective of our culture and I
was wondering if you knew of any other instances or many other
instances where constitutional amendments retrospectively reflect
culture.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Allison, I would suggest that you answer the
question as to other areas and not go off on opinion again.
MS. MENDEL: I'll certainly endeavor to do that. There are many
situations in which the court took the first step toward expanding
what the populace understands as inherent civil rights. One
example is school desegregation. The (indisc.) statutes is another
example in which the Supreme Court in (indisc.) v. Virginia said
that you can't prohibit interracial marriages. The rights of
slaves and slavery itself is another example. Kleppe v. Ferguson,
the courts said you can't segregate the railroad. All of these
things are examples of practices which were both legal and publicly
supported by the majority at the time the court decisions were
made. So this is quite similar to that situation. We have
something that is publicly unpopular and the courts say, "Well
unpopular or not, this is an inherent right guaranteed to by the
constitution." I know of very few instances where the public has
come back and said, "Well then we'll just narrow the constitutional
protection and eliminate this possibility." That is more or less
what's at issue in Hawaii is going to be on the November ballot.
That is what was done in Colorado with amendment II. It went to
the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court said, "You can't
do that."
Number 0431
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Bridge, I understand that you're supposed to go
off at 3:00 o'clock and rejoin us at 5:00 [p.m.]. Is that correct?
There are still some people to testify.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Anchorage has another commitment for
this room at 3:00 o'clock.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, we'll rejoin you at 5:00 [p.m.] then. Thank
you. That will bring us back to Juneau for a few folks then.
Okay, Laura Champagne. Mildred Boesser, okay.
Number 0518
MILDRED BOESSER, REPRESENTATIVE, COMMITTEE FOR EQUALITY: Mr.
Chairman, members of the committee, thanks for listening. I have
a great long testimony here which I realize I can't use all of, so
I'll just take a part of it.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Try and keep it to two minutes if we can.
MS. BOESSER: My name is Mildred Boesser, I'm 73 years old, the
mother of four and grandmother of four, all raised and being raised
in Alaska. I'm a homemaker and a clergy wife. My husband and I
came to Alaska as missionaries in 1959. This year we celebrate our
fiftieth year of marriage and he would be here today to testify
with me except he's out of town. So most certainly I am not here
to shoot down the institution of marriage. I want to enlarge the
concept, and I think that's possible. So I oppose SJR 42. However
you feel about gay and lesbian persons, is not really the issue
here, and of course, it colors and distorts the issue. This
resolution is about changing the constitution to say it's alright
to discriminate. Certain rights and privileges are given to people
who marry and if you're not married, you don't get those rights and
privileges. But the catch 22 is that some people can't get married
and, therefore, the rights and privileges are not given to them.
And so the thing that really worries me about putting something
like this on the ballot is that it opens up the door to so much
discussion that is not going to be easy for any of us. I think any
time a government condones the marginalization of a group of its
citizens, the door is open to unbelievable hatred and violence,
which are sure to follow. And I think this is what will happen if
we bring this to a public debate and it frightens me. I don't
think Alaska will be any exception to that. So I ask you, please
don't pass this.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask Mildred if
you would give us a copy of that, so we could put it in the file.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jennifer Mannix.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Jennifer will come back later at 5:00
[p.m.].
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Jason Nelson.
Number 0671
JASON NELSON: My name is Jason Nelson and I just kind of wanted to
share a story with you today. It's about a family, specifically
about a mother and a son - by the names Bobby and Mary Griffith.
When Bobby was growing up, he always knew that he was different
than the other kids. And Mary sort of knew this too, but she had
no way to deal with the fact that Bobby was different than the
other kids. So when Bobby was 16, he told his older brother that
he was gay. His brother passed this on to his parents. His
parents confronted Bobby and it was a very traumatic moment for the
family. Mary was told all her life by the majority of people
around her that homosexuality was evil. She was very active in her
church and they told her this as well. Bobby finally moved away
from home and when he would come back to visit, Mary always sensed
that Bobby was very isolated, very lonely. He had no one to talk
to. And when he was 16, I just want to say a few passages he wrote
in his diary real quick. He said, "I can't let anyone find out
that I'm not straight. It would be so humiliating. My friends
would hate me, I just know it. They might even want to beat me up.
And my family, I've overheard them lots of times talking about gay
people. They said they hate gays and even God hates gays, too."
Two months after his twentieth birthday, Bobby Griffith did a back
dive off a freeway overpass into the path of a semi-truck and
trailer. He died instantly. It took this traumatic moment in
Mary Griffith's life to realize that the majority of people around
her who told her that homosexuality was wrong were in fact wrong,
and she searched for different answers on her own. And she has now
become a very national - a national spokesperson for PFFLG (ph),
which is Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. I'm
telling this story for two reasons. One is that I want you to
realize what gay teenagers go through. You might not be able to
identify with Bobby Griffith, I can. Thirty percent of the
teenagers now days who kill themselves are gay, lesbian, or
bisexual. With issues like this around, people who might not
normally be so vocal about their opposition to homosexuality will
be more vocal. These kids will hear it and they won't feel too
good about themselves. The second reason I'm telling you this is
although you may not be able to identify with Bobby Griffith, maybe
you can identify with Mary Griffith. Some of you may have
children, even grandchildren that you would do anything to protect
- that you want (indisc.) to be discriminated against, no matter
how they were different. You certainly wouldn't want them to take
their own lives in a tragic way that Bobby Griffith did. I urge
you to vote no to SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, one brief question. You quoted a
statistic that 30 percent of the teenagers are now either bisexual
or ...
MR. NELSON: Thirty percent of teenagers -- according to Paul
Gibson in a report to the secretary's task force on gay and - or on
youth suicide, this was done in - was it 1992? It was a report
the Bush Administration and it is published. And his conclusion
was that 30 percent of all teen suicides are committed by gays,
lesbians, or bisexuals.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, I'm sorry, okay. Thank you. Sylvia Dean.
Number 0867
SYLVIA DEAN: I'm Sylvia Dean, teacher and a mother of four. And
I'm concerned also for the time, so my comments will be brief.
Again, I feel like you're dealing with a lot of important issues
here and listening to the comments on the bill before us, was
concerned what implications would happen with the problems of
redefining marriage. And I feel like the question of time has come
up because obviously this is going to be a very contested issue and
to wait two or three years to deal with it is going to increase
the concerns of the lady I follow - that there not be that
animosity within our state, that we can deal with it quickly,
clearly and the people's vote will carry. So I would appreciate
you dealing with this quickly in passing it through.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Sylvia. Marsha Buck.
Number 0924
MARSHA BUCK, CO-CHAIR, PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS
AND GAYS: My name is Marsha Buck and I'm here to ask you to oppose
SJR 42. I am the current Co-Chair of PFFLAG-Juneau. As you just
heard, PFFLAG stands for Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians
and Gays, and I'm involved in PFFLAG because I have a bisexual
daughter who is married in the eyes of our family and in the eyes
of the church that married her this past summer to a woman. I am
opposed to SJR 42 for many, many reasons, but I'll only mention one
of them here today. I want to be honest with you that I'm
frightened about what could happen to young people like my daughter
if this resolution is put to a vote of the people. I know that
many people don't and probably many of you don't agree with same-
sex marriage, and that's really okay with me because differences of
opinion aren't a problem for us in our democracy, and they
certainly aren't a problem for us in Alaska. But putting a
divisive issue like this on the ballot so that people who are not
as well informed as you are or who are as even-handed as you are,
as even tempered and know as much as you do about discrimination
issues, about separation of church and state, and about using
discourse to solve problems instead of violence could put us in the
position that both Oregon and Colorado have been in recently when
there were ballot measure there on the same-sex marriage issue.
And there - there was violence against gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals, and their friends and families. There was harassment,
threatening injury and even some killed in Oregon, which frightens
me since that is where my daughter now lives. This - all this
doesn't need to happen here in Alaska. This issue doesn't need to
come before the voters right now. There is no hurry that makes
this a crucial issue for this legislature, or for you personally,
to have to deal with right at this time. This is a time to be
patient and see what happens in the courts. And if doesn't go the
way that you think it's appropriate, then there is time to offer
good alternatives that are well thought through, appropriate. Our
daughters and sons and perhaps your grandchildren or nieces and
nephews, in the future, don't need to be sacrificed now by hasty
decisions and a hasty vote that would happen if you proceed with
this resolution. You're reasonable people. You can say no for now
so that you can save pain and suffering now and deal with this
issue calmly and clearly when the courts are finished and the time
is right. So please don't send SJR 42 out of this committee.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you Marsha. We can pick up some other
teleconference now. Michael Jones in Sitka. Sitka, are you on?
Dillingham, are you on? Steve Jacquier. Okay Steve.
Number 1102
STEVEN JACQUIER: Yes, thank you. My name is Steven Jacquier and
I currently reside in Manokotak. This is the second time that I
have taken a personal leave day from work and flown into Dillingham
to testify against this reprehensible legislation. Solid research
has established that a substantial percentage of (indisc.) teens
are killing themselves in large part because they fear that their
lives will be miserable if they turn out to be a lesbian or gay.
They fear rejection and marginalization to the point that they
would rather die than face it. The debate over this bill
contributes directly to fostering the climate of fear, intolerance,
and marginalization which leads to suicide. SJR 42 is cruel and
destructive. If you pass this bill now, the debate over SJR 42
between now and the November election would probably follow the
usual pattern of demonizing gay and lesbian people. It will
probably lead to witch hunting of people from their jobs, severe
hazings of some youth who (indisc.), and beatings and deaths
resulting from gay bashing. Do you really want the pain and blood
of those abused by a calloused majority in part on your hands?
Three people were gay bashed to death in the hours following Pat
Buchanan's anti-gay speech at the Republican Convention by drunken
bigots who listened to him. Let's not set up Alaska for this sort
of prejudicial violence, so reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Moreover,
how long is it reasonable to expect that people who are being
marginalized, singled out and unjustly persecuted will continue
turning the other cheek to the oppression? I urge legislators to
awaken with regarding the genuine urgency and passion of ordinary
people who are sick and tired of having pain, expense, and violence
inflicted upon them by the irrational prejudices of the ignorant
and by the cruel vindictiveness of the wrath called religious
rights. What means are going to become necessary for all citizens
to actually hold the equal civil rights, which are
constitutionally due each of us in a secular nation where church
and state are separate and all citizens are constitutionally equal
under the law. Please say no to this heinous legislation now
before this destructive debate becomes violent and bloody. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Steve. Is Roberta Gillott there?
Number 1233
ROBERTA GILLOTT: Hi, this is Roberta Gillott and I live here in
Dillingham. And I feel a responsibility to testify against this
constitutional amendment proposition because I am a new mother.
And I am here because of concerns for the state of Alaska and for
my daughter's future. I believe that even considering making a
part of the state constitution to discriminate against one group of
people is morally wrong and a bad service to the public by our
legislators. I think that we should and you should be thinking to
evolve to increase human rights, not seeking to discriminate
against one group of people. I think especially that is true in
the state of Alaska that is so diverse in belief, origin, and
lifestyles. So I urge you not to allow this - this bill to pass
out of your committee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Roberta. Is Lorna Pletnikoff there?
Number 1295
LORNA PLETNIKOFF: Yes I am. I believe that our state constitution
does not need to be amended relating to the definition of marriage.
SJR 42 seems to confuse the religious definition of "holy
matrimony" with a civil definition of "marriage." Whereas, a
religion can define marriage any way they wish, the state has no
business defining marriage to the detriment of some citizens.
Civil marriage offers legal and economic protections to spouses in
a way no other contractual arrangement in our American culture can.
Please uphold the civil rights of all our citizens. Vote no on
SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. That leads us to Craig, is
Jennifer Taylor in Craig on line? Nome, are you on line?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, hello.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Nome, is Andrea Petitfiles.
Number 1354
ANDREA PETITFILS: Andrea Petitfils.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay.
MS. PETITFILS: Hi, I have a few words concerning SJR 42 other than
the fact that I'm adamantly opposed to it. I cannot understand why
this -- that seems to me to be clearly a civil rights issue is even
being discussed here. This issue, as far as I'm concerned, needs
to go the Supreme Court where it belongs. And I would urge you to
let it die here today and let it go through the proper channels -
the court system where it belongs. The whole issue, as far as I
can see, has been organized by Senator Leman in his own personal
agenda to crush the civil rights of a minority. And I just can't
say enough that I think it belongs in the court system, it's a
waste of your time and my tax dollars. This issue has nothing to
do with any senator's personal belief or religious issues; it's a
civil rights issue. If not, we need to change some pledges of
allegiance and they should probably read, "...one nation under
Senator Leman with liberty and justice for self." The constitution
I thought was for all men and we had all the same rights. We can't
change the rights for some because we may not agree with them.
Putting it to public vote, I just don't see where that isn't
discrimination. As long as I can remember, we have a check-and-
balance system. Since when do we vote on the civil rights of a
minority? I just urge you to recognize this as a blatant example
of a minority being unfairly discriminated against. This issue has
nothing to do with God or religion. It's a civil rights issue and
belongs in the court system. The most important issue that I think
you should remember is that by allowing this to pass, you will let
the majority vote on the rights of the minority, and surely you can
all see that it's simply unfair. Let it die here today and go to
our court system, which is supposed to be fair and equal for all.
One other thing, Senator Leman might be informed that Denmark and
Sweden do allow same-sex marriages - just for his information.
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have a question for you, Andrea.
Number 1465
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Andrea, more of a statement. Senator Leman
and I disagree on this issue and a lot of others, but I've found
here, and we have rules that do that, that it doesn't make our
point very well to insult the other members or the sponsor. I mean
I think we do better to stick to the issue that we've got, rather
than sticking to Senator Leman. I didn't like him attacking, as I
saw it, Judge Michalski, but I don't think we do ourselves any good
attacking him personally.
Number 1502
MS. PETITFILS: I'm very sorry. I did not intend to do that. I
personally feel attacked myself with this proposal going. I mean,
you know, I'm a lesbian, I don't feel like it should be left up to
the majority to vote on whether or not I have civil rights. And I
am very sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Andrea. Taylor Burns.
Number 1514
TAYLOR BURNS: Yes, for the record, I'm Taylor Burns, I'm a
licensed clinical social worker in the state of Alaska. I'm here
to represent the Alaska State Chapter of Social Workers, which is
also a part of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW).
I would like to read to you a part of the Alaska policy on lesbian,
gay, and bisexual issues. "The National Association of Social
Workers asserts that discrimination and prejudice against any group
is damaging to the social, emotional and economic well-being of the
affected group and of society as a whole. It is the position of
NASW that same gender sexual orientation should be afforded the
same respect and rights as opposite gender orientation. NASW
recognizes that homosexuality and homosexual cultures have existed
throughout history. Homosexuals have been subject to long-standing
social condemnation and discrimination. Toward the elimination of
prejudice, NASW recommends legal and political action to seek
repeal of and actively campaign against any laws allowing
discriminatory practices against lesbian, gay and bisexual people.
This bill is directly opposed to the kind of legislation that NASW
members would support. As a group, both statewide and nationally,
NASW as an organization will not support nor tolerate this kind of
legislation ..."
CHAIRMAN GREEN: You need to wrap up, Tyler.
MR. BURNS: I'd like to say that the Alaska state chapter has over
500 members and I've been given permission to speak for the
chapter. We have 500 members against SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Back here we have Jacqueline Hutchins.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: She was the first speaker, wasn't she?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh yes, right, I'm sorry. Theresa Miller.
Number 1609
THERESA MILLER: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the
Judiciary Committee. My name is Theresa Miller and I'm a home-
school mother here in Juneau, I have two boys. And I thank you for
this opportunity to speak on this important issue. I come before
you to urge all of you to support SJR 42. The potential change in
the definition of marriage is a change of such magnitude having far
reaching consequences that every Alaskan should have the
opportunity to vote their opinion. I feel it is unfair that the
decision made by Judge Michalski should stand. He is only one man,
with one opinion. While he has been able to decide his opinion and
exercise his authority, neither you, nor I or ... all other
Alaskans have had the privilege of being included in this change.
And I believe this is contrary to the democratic process. All
Alaskans should be able to vote on this important issue and I ask
you to please support SJR 42 and give all Alaskans this chance.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Theresa. Any questions? Rosezella
Michalsky.
Number 1669
ROSEZELLA MICHALSKY: Thank you. I'm here to request that you give
the people of the state of Alaska the right to vote on an issue
that is seen differently by Judge Michalski and by some of you.
Some of us believe in giving the same tough love to those who
choose sex with someone of the same sex as you would to an
alcoholic. Would you tell an alcoholic that his drinking is okay?
And think that by accepting his behavior you were showing kindness
to him. No, you tell an alcoholic that what he's doing is wrong,
but that you love him. Real love is tough enough to risk
rejection, an almost certain rejection temporarily to try to give
wholeness to one with difficult temptations. Because we practice
tough love, those of us who won't agree to the charade of same-sex
marriages love those who choose same-sex sex more than those who
oppose it. But this debate is more than about the illusion of
kindness in allowing same-sex marriages. It is about putting the
matter before the public. The legislature is supposed to represent
the people, but will be seen by the people as dictators and tyrants
if they do not want the people to have a voice in such an important
matter. If you do not vote for this, then you are voting against
the right of the people to be heard because you don't like what
they will say. Even though I say this, I do expect better of you
and expect you act honorably and vote for SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. We have one other, Ted Deatz
is he here or is he going to be back at 5:00 [p.m.]?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He'll be back.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: For both the people in the audience and those on
Gavel to Gavel there are several members missing. It's not because
they do not have a very, very deep interest in the subject, it's
they have other commitments and they will return when those are
completed. So we will go then to Kenai. Are you on Kenai?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: The first one I have is Thomas Uta.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Uta Thomas, yes Mr. Chairman.
Number 1781
UTA THOMAS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name if Uta Thomas.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. THOMAS: My name is Uta Thomas.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, please give us your testimony, Uta.
MS. THOMAS: I'm in strong support of SJR 42 because marriage
between a man and a woman has been ordained of God since the
beginning of time which includes Adam and Eve. At no time at any
dispensation has God proclaimed that it is alright of same sex.
And I feel that there is no separation between our civil rights or,
as you call it, religious rights because we claim "in God we trust"
and "one nation under God." If we really do, we do not break his
laws or commandments. If we make a law that same-sex [marriages]
is possible, we say that wrong is right and bad is good. The
traditional family which constitutes of a father and a mother is
the backbone of our society, our state and our nation, and also
culture. Again, I state my support of SJR 42, and it should be
placed before the voters at the next general election because I
feel that we, as a people of this state, have the right to express
our opinion. I do not judge people who are homosexual or whatever
lifestyle they may choose, but I feel that the traditional family,
a father and mother, should stay and stand out because our nation
will benefit from it. Thank you
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Uta, thank you very much. I'm sorry I had those
names reversed. Holly Hall.
Number 1850
HOLLY HALL: My name is Holly Hall and I'm standing up and speaking
(indisc.) SJR 42. (Indisc.) I believe every one of us in our heart
knows right from wrong.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Can you stand a little bit closer to the
microphone, please.
MS. HALL: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, very good.
MS. HALL: Alright, I believe every one of us in our hearts knows
right from wrong and all of us wants what's right. Traditional
marriage has been one of the most sacred covenants since the
beginning of time. Our Heavenly Father did not put two men on the
earth (indisc.) to procreate. Nor did he put two women on the
earth to procreate. If he did, none of us would be here. Our
Heavenly Father put a man and a woman on this earth so lives could
be born to all of us. The covenant between a man and a woman, a
sacred covenant called traditional marriage, is one of the most
important. Our family structure of a father and a mother is a very
important factor in children's lives. A mother and father both
teach children important things. The father teaches discipline,
strength, and tenderness. A mother teaches kindness, nurturing,
and patience. They are our role models. A man and a woman
compliment each in a traditional marriage. We are different, as it
should be, and we are equal. A husband helps his wife with the
heavy chores using his physical strength, while a wife lends her
husband emotional strength when things are tough in his life. We
cannot sit by and let the (indisc.) and we know it in the depths of
our hearts and souls and let others decide what is right for us.
I support SJR 42, traditional marriage. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Valdez, are you on Valdez?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have a Ken Kirkland.
Number 1933
KEN KIRKLAND: Yes, I just -- I live in Valdez, I've been here 20
years. And I just want you to know I'm solidly in support of the
SJR 42. I believe in marriage between one man and one woman. It
is a natural, and most of all, it is a sacred institution. Of
course by implication, I believe the opposite or a homosexual
marriage to be unnatural, immoral, indecent and ungodly. I view
the current push for homosexual marriage as an assault against the
traditional family, especially the Christian family. By far and
away, the majority that I know have the same conviction on
something as basic as this. Marriage cannot be any more redefined
than a person's gender. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Ken. Rhonda Essary.
Number 1988
RHODA ESSARY: I just wanted to say that I am in support of...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Excuse me, is it Rhonda or Rhoda?
MS. ESSARY: Rhoda.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Rhoda, thank you.
MS. ESSARY: As I have stated, I am in support of SJR 42. It is a
shame that America is falling further and further into the
condition that it is. It grips my soul and my heart that the
possibility of a legally recognized "homosexual marriage" would
even be considered in this nation. It is an abomination to God who
by the way is supposed to be the foundation for his country, and it
is a great shame in the society of mankind. The reason America
grew and prospered so greatly when it was founded was because God
was most important and most honored and most feared. As America
continues to operate and rule without the fear of God in (indisc.),
he is lost. We'll most assuredly lose the favor of God and fall
into irreversible destruction. Please do something to keep Alaska
right. I support SJR 42. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Rhoda. In Cordova we have
Audrey Van Wagoner. Cordova, are you on?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, we have one to testify right now.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is that Audrey?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
Number 2047
AUDREY VAN WAGONER: Thank you for hearing me. I just want to say
that I'm in support of the SJR bill 42. I'm in favor of
traditional marriage and I'm not in favor of same-sex marriages.
And I appreciate you giving me the time to express that.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Audrey, thank you very much.
MS. VAN WAGONER: You bet.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: That brings us back to Juneau. Susan Phillips.
Number 2067
SUSAN PHILLIPS: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Susan Phillips and
thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing
me to testify today. I'm a heterosexual and I want to tell you
that for a couple reasons. One is that I've been hearing other
people testify about people choosing the homosexual lifestyle, so
in that vain, I guess you could say that I chose the heterosexual
lifestyle. I don't feel that I chose to be a heterosexual, I just
one day started chasing boys around the playground and not girls.
I don't think gay men and lesbians choose to be homosexual any more
than I chose to be heterosexual. I think people are the way they
are. I also wanted to let you know that it's not just homosexuals
who are against SJR 42. There are heterosexuals who are also
opposed to it. I don't believe it is right to deny the opportunity
to marry to certain people just because they have same-sex
partners. And our constitution says that all persons are equal and
entitled to equal rights, opportunities and protection under the
law. I recently had the pleasure of seeing an exhibit here in
Juneau. It was called, "Love Makes a Family," and it was on
display at several locations around town for - a few months ago.
The exhibit featured photographs and text depicting families with
gay and/or lesbian members. Sometimes it was a lesbian couple and
their children, sometimes gay couples and their children, and
sometimes people my parents age who had adult children who are gay
or lesbian. And when I thought about my testimony today, I thought
about the title of that exhibit, "Love Makes a Family." Why deny
the right of adults who love one another to marry and have
families? The times they say they are changing. It used to be
that family meant mom, dad, and the kids all living together. Now
we have divorces, remarriages, blended families, stepparents,
stepchildren, adoptions, and single-parent families. I think that
everyone in this room agrees on the importance of families. And I
think the question is, should we expand the definition of families
or should we contract it to a narrow definition of the nuclear
family. I also want to say that I'm shocked at the number of
constitutional amendments before this legislature right now. I got
a BASIS printout this morning and it seems like there are 40 or 50.
I wish that this legislature had more respect for our constitution
than to propose amending it so often. As other people have said,
I think this joint resolution is premature in light of the court
decision on this not being final. In summary, I would just like to
say I caught part of the Senate floor debate on this joint
resolution a couple of weeks ago. I didn't catch much of it...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: That's it, you need to wrap up.
MS. PHILLIPS: I will -- some hateful things were said on the
Senate floor, not by a lot of people, but when I saw that I thought
this is a preview of coming attractions. If this goes to a public
vote, more hateful things are going to be said. And I urge you to
vote no on Senate Joint Resolution 42. And I'm done.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Kim Poole.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She'll be back at 5:00 [p.m.].
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, looks like - I can't read it, Peter Otsea.
Number 2199
PETER OTSEA: Hi, I'm Peter Otsea. I am married. I have a wife
and two children, and I would like to read to you a personal story.
Through my children I have met gay and lesbian parents and we have
become friends through our children. They're loving and caring
parents and I hold them in high regard. I believe that if they
choose to get married they have as much right to that as I do. I
don't believe these parents are a threat to our social fabric, but
rather they enhance it. That's all I want say, thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Peter. Thank you for brevity. Nancy
Simpson.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She'll be back.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. In Fairbanks - are you on Fairbanks?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: John Coghill.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He left.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, S. Thompson.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He left.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jeanie Williamson.
Number 2246
JEANIE WILLIAMSON: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright.
MS. WILLIAMSON: Okay, I've heard plenty of rhetoric these past few
months about the superiority of male-female relationships that
somehow society will fall apart if we recognize that love between
two adults of the same sex is (indisc.). Whether recognized or
not, gay or lesbian couples still love each other as deeply and
remarkably as straight couples do. We fall in love, create
families based on mutual consideration, respect, and (indisc.)
unity. Some of us have children. As any family, we want the best
for our loved ones, we hope to provide for them in sickness and
health, to protect them and (indisc.) them. We have jobs, pay
taxes, work and volunteer in our churches and communities. We get
involved in our children's education. Our families face the same
societal pressures as any, only we experience the extra burden of
homophobia and the denial of the economic and legal securities
married couples take for granted. While the special rights
bestowed on those who are allowed to married are too numerous for
me to articulate, our denial of them adds extra emotional and
financial stress to our household. I fail to see how our burden
strengthens heterosexual marriages. I also fail to understand how
legislating this or any discrimination against some Alaskan
families benefits the state in any way. Non-traditional Alaskan
families and their children deserve the same special rights and
protections every other family in this state is entitled to. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Is Patty Kearon there?
Number 2316
PATTY KEARON: Yes I am. I oppose SJR 42 because of the
testimonies that I've heard of those who support this bill. They
are calling gays and lesbians child molesters, involved in incest
and bestiality. And these are lies based on misinformation and
fear. There are many outstanding citizens in this great state of
ours who happen to be gay or lesbian. They are school teachers,
counselors, social workers, police officers, et cetera. And I
happen to be lesbian and I am also a highly respected youth
counselor working with severely emotionally disturbed youth. If
you support this bill, you're going to be sending a message to the
families that I work with and all Alaskans that I am a bad, immoral
youth counselor, and this is just not true. As a youth counselor,
I have read many case files on children who have been molested, and
I've never come across a case file that said there is a child that
was molested by a homosexual. Every one of the molestation cases
that I have seen have reported them being molested by a
heterosexual male, either the mother's boyfriend, the stepfather or
the child's natural father. And what about the gay and lesbian
teenagers? (Indisc.) as said earlier, gay youth (indisc.) 30
percent of (indisc.) youth suicide. Twenty-eight percent of gay
and lesbian youth drop out of school because of the harassment in
school. And gay and lesbian youth make up 25 percent of youth
living on the street because of the wrath that they get at home.
By supporting this bill you're only going to increase the
statistics because you'll be sending a message that gay and lesbian
youth are bad people and do not deserve the same civil rights as
everyone else. These kids don't need condemnation. What they need
is support.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Patty, we need to wrap up.
MS. KEARON: Okay, I just have one more line. These kids do not
need condemnation, what they need is support. Please oppose this
bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Mari Galereave.
Number 2383
MARI GALEREAVE: Yes, I'm Mari Galereave. Recently, Representative
Ramona Barnes said that she refuses to make second class citizens
out of a group of her constituents. She was speaking of
subsistence. Yet I say that if you vote for SJR 42, you are
making second class citizens out of a group of constituents. In
this case, gay men and lesbians. Now listen to Senator Robin
Taylor, "Under no circumstances will I hold office and violate the
equal protection rights of our constitution." Now that's
interesting, then why did he vote in favor of SJR 42? Senator
Taylor is not one to violate equal protection to solve the
subsistence issue, but he is willing to violate equal protection to
deny same-sex marriage. If we give special privileges to a
minority group such as Natives in compensation for the land that we
stole, I have no a problem with that. But notice that SJR 42 gives
special privileges to a majority group and it asks the majority
group to ratify these privileges in the constitution. This is
outrageous. Equal protection is intended to protect minorities
from the tyranny of the majority. SJR 42 undermines equal
protections and opens the way for any majority group to give
(indisc.) special rights. SJR 42, when compared to the rest of the
constitution, is unconstitutional. The place to stop the erosion
of equal protection is here in the House Judiciary. I urged you to
vote no on SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Mari. Back home we have Elizabeth
Andrews.
TAPE 98-72, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN GREEN: ...I guess not. How about Amy Skilbred?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to go pick up her kids.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Sara Boesser.
Number 0011
SARA BOESSER: I'm Sara Boesser with the Committee for Equality and
I, too, am against this bill because I believe there is no need to
interfere with the constitution while this issue is still in the
courts, especially for implied religious reasons. You know it's
really awful sitting through hearings on this issue and to the
question as to why not send it to the people, I say that these
hearings prove that this ballot campaign would just declare open
season on lesbian and gay families, and our straight families, too
- all our relatives. For example, at a Senate Finance hearing
recently, a pastor declared the Bible says that homosexuals should
be stoned to death. How would you feel if a back-woods minister
was saying legislators should be stoned to death? I think you
would take that as a warning that you weren't safe, and I don't
feel safe with this going to the ballot. I personally am a lesbian
and I realized I was when I was 16. This kind of talk scares me.
I'm also a minister's daughter and I know the Bible can be used pro
and con on just about any issue. But I'm born and raised, and
baptized, and confirmed Christian, and I disagree that this is what
you should do with religious differences. I think they should stay
in the courts and I don't think they should go to the public. I
think sending this to the ballot is premature and is an unnecessary
tear in the social fabric. Speaking of social fabric, I just want
to say your vote no can prevent pain within families. We've heard
some of that earlier. But speaking for myself, I have two nieces,
they're young, who would hear so many untrue and hateful things
about me and people like me if this goes to the ballot. Why should
they have to endure this grief? And more at risk of permanent
damages, are those young people my nieces age who are just now in
junior high and high school, like I was, first realizing that they
are lesbian or gay. Think of the pressures this ballot measure
will place on them, what intense fear they're going to feel, what
horrible things they're going to hear, what despair they'll suffer
listening to this bombardment of rejection at their vulnerable
ages. It's going to be imprinted for life, I promise you. It's
going to do damage. These youth and their families will suffer
more than you can imagine. Talk to any of us who are gay and
lesbian, we'll tell you stories forever. This bill should die in
committee. The constitutional debate should stay in the courts and
the religious debate should stay in the churches where churches are
free to differ. But we only have one constitution. I really want
you to protect it, I want you to protect me, I want you to protect
all my family members. So please vote no on this bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Angela Mu$oz. You think she'll be
back?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Genia Collins. Aimee Glejasz.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's not here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Elaine Schroeder.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to pick her kids up.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Fabienne Peter-Contesse.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Be back at 5:00 [p.m.].
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Shelly Owens. Mary Graham.
Number 0135
MARY GRAHAM: I'm here. My name is Mary Graham and I live in
Juneau. Thank you, Representative Green and members of the House
Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. I'm here to speak against the passage of SJR 42. I think
we should let the Supreme Court issue a ruling on this matter
before we even consider voting for a constitutional amendment.
Amending Alaska's Constitution is a very serious matter. After
listening to the debate on this issue in the Senate, I still find
no logical reason for amending Alaska's Constitution to allow
discrimination against a portion of Alaskan citizens. I don't see
how my choice of a life partner can affect anyone else's marriage.
It is not like love is a nonrenewable resource or there are a
limited amount of marriage licenses for the state to issue. Most
of the reasons I've heard for supporting this amendment are based
on personal religious convictions in an attempt to keep the status
quo. Well, it is time for Alaska to move beyond the status quo.
There are many couples who are granted marriage licenses now whose
marriages I personally don't approve of or agree with, but that
doesn't give me the right to say they shouldn't be granted a civil
marriage license. If this measure goes to the ballot, there will
be months of divisive debate filled with hate, lies, and
stereotypes. We don't need that to happen in Alaska. Please let
SJR 42 be put to rest. I have one slight addendum because Senator
Leman has said this a number of times that there is no country in
the Western world that has same-sex marriage. And in January 1998,
the Netherlands created registration of partnerships, which gives
same-sex partners all the same civil legal rights, benefits and
responsibilities as married heterosexual couples, including child
custody and adoptions. And so it's not unheard of and I agree with
someone else earlier who said if this gets passed now, somewhere
down the road the legislature will have to turn around and change
it anyways. And I thought I was a pretty strong person, but it
gets harder and harder to hear these hearings and not have it
personally affect me. I thought living in Alaska I really didn't
have to be afraid, but that is not so true any more. And it makes
it harder for me to be an out - lesbian, which I am, who does a
good job and has friends and family who supports me. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Mary, thank you. Tom Gordy.
Number 0235
TOM GORDY, STATE DIRECTOR, CHRISTIAN COALITION OF ALASKA: Thanks
Chairman Green. It's a pleasure to be with you today. My name is
Tom Gordy, I am the state director of the Christian Coalition of
Alaska. I am one of those Baptist preachers that was mentioned
about awhile ago, but I will not preach to you today because this
is an issue that if you remember - getting this thing back in
context of what we're dealing with here - is the court said that
the state had no right to tell a person who they can and cannot
marry. And when you look at that, that means basically all of our
statutes regarding marriage are null and void. We also have laws
against bigamy, polygamy and incestuous marriages. Now to say that
-- to take away the definition of one man and one woman as being
constituted as a legal marriage, we are offering up the opportunity
for these other types of things to creep in as well as same-sex
marriage. Now are we, as a state, prepared to have a father marry
his daughter? Are we, as a state, prepared to have a mother marry
her son? By this decision this is exactly what the courts have
opened up as a possibility in our state. And, again, our -- this
-- if these -- if the definition of marriage in Alaska changes, it
will be against the -- it will go against every state law that is
in our country. It will also go against our own federal law which
defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. And many
other states have passed similar other actions in their own states
regarding this. And so with that said and I've heard a lot about
the divisiveness in the debate, I think the debate has been going
on a very long time on this issue. I mean you watch T.V., in any
of the sitcoms there is at least one gay or lesbian in the program.
And if this is a very popular theme, then it is time to bring this
out for public debate. In fact, public debate was held last week
in Anchorage - or maybe two weeks ago - between a gay man and a
person who represents the Christian Coalition. Had a very cordial
debate in a gay bar, a very cordial debate. And this is the time
for us to come to terms with what are we going to do? What are we
going to allow? Let's get the debate going, let's talk, let's
exchange the ideas and do it in a way that is cordial. And there
may be people who are not going to do it on both sides, but a
person like me and I know many of the people in here, we will all
be cordial to one another because I understand that this debate is
about ideas and not hatred towards people. And as a Baptist
minister and as a leader of the Christian Coalition, that will be
my very strong message to the people of this state during the
debate that this is a debate on ideas and not a tearing down of
people. And we will get that message out and -- but this is time
for the debate because it is here and it is now.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Representative Croft.
Number 0368
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Tom, have you read the decision?
MR. GORDY: Yes, I have.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Because it surprised me to hear you say it
invalidated a lot of state laws. It doesn't yet, correct?
MR. GORDY: Well, no it doesn't yet, but I'm saying it's opening up
the possibilities. Using the right to privacy clause in our
constitution, he is saying that the state doesn't have a compelling
interest telling a person who they can and cannot marry. Now
eventually -- I mean that does not legalize same-sex marriage, but
it could possibly open the door for -- even with the same-sex
marriage putting that aside, eventually -- this is a very slippery
slope that we are approaching and we've got to find out do we want
to go down that slippery slope or not. And so these things --
those are opportunities that are out there that - that may come up
and it is something to definitely think about.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Tom. Melissa Howell. Karen Wood.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She is going to be back at 5:00 [p.m.] too.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Liz Dodd.
Number 0420
LIZ DODD: Thank you, Chairman Green. My name is Liz Dodd. I
think I'll testify on my own behalf today as the Alaska Civil
Liberties Union law clerk did testify earlier on behalf of the
affiliate, but I am the president of the board of directors of the
Alaska affiliate of the ACLU as well. A couple of things have been
said that I just wanted to clarify a little bit. One has to do
with the Hawaii case. I believe that what's on the ballot in
Hawaii is an advisory vote as opposed to a constitutional
amendment. Hawaii so loved our constitution, I believe they
patterned a lot of theirs after ours. And they apparently love it
a little more than we love ours. They haven't tried to amend it to
deal with this situation that they're coping with down there. They
did have the compelling state interest hearing down there and
couldn't show a compelling state interest of course. So that's
what's happening there. Also, there are other lawsuits pending
around the country on this very issue. The one I know of is in
Vermont. If anyone is interested, I could get more information on
that. Also, the idea that this is just totally off the map in
terms of - that these rights should be granted and that Alaska will
just be this abhorrent state if the court decision does hold in
Alaska. I don't know if members know that a couple of days ago in
Canada the highest court there ruled that the Canadian Tax Service
can no longer discriminate against same-sex couples. So they get
to file jointly now. So I think this change is coming. Where
will Alaska fall in this historic change is, I guess, the question
before you all today. State sponsors of SJR 42 have argued that
the people rather than the court should determine such important
social questions as who should be granted a marriage license. "Why
should one unelected judge or five unelected judges be allowed to
decide such an important issue?" Senator Leman asked here just
today.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Need to wrap up.
MS. DODD: Okay. Well, the answer is that because judges are not
elected, they constitute the branch of government least susceptible
to political pressure. As such, the courts interpret our
constitution's explicit mandates solely on the basis of those
mandates aside from any political controversy that may arise from
a ruling that protects an unpopular group. That is why in our
nation's history the courts often have led the people and their
elected leaders out of the dark realm of prejudice and fear. This
is the wisdom in both our state and federal constitutions.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: You need to wrap up, Liz.
MS. DODD: That if adhered to, the constitution's instructions
eventually illuminate the path of liberty for all people.
Representative Green, respectfully -- you know it's hard because
Senator Leman came in and gave a very long presentation
representing his side of the issue. And I may be the self-anointed
spokesperson for our side, but nevertheless, I think our side
should get a chance to present something longer than a 3-minute
statement given that the sponsor was given a good 15 - 20 minutes
to lay out his side of it. It's very hard to make all points we
want to make in 3 minutes so...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Just a moment. With so many testifiers we have to
do it that way. That is the custom to allow the sponsor of the
statement to make statements and ask questions from the group and
then we take testimony, and because so many are there if we gave
everyone, then there would be people waiting until midnight and
beyond that would not have a chance to testify. And that's the
problem.
MS. DODD: I appreciate that sir, I guess I'm just asking for one
exception just so that one person can flush out some of the points
that he raised...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: We've heard several of those. Thank you,
Representative ...
Number 0592
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping you might be
able to give her a couple of more minutes. I've Ms. Dodd testify
on other matters and generally what she has had to say is fairly
illuminating.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: If there would be someone of the same who is
opposed to it that wants to give their time, I'll allow that.
MS. DODD: I will let other folks talk, sir. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you.
MS. DODD: And I want to thank you for having this full hearing
because I think this is an issue that is of fundamental importance
to the people of this state.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh I agree. Representative Croft.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT: Will you copy the statements you were going
to make for us and also any information you have about that Vermont
case, I'd be interested in.
MS. DODD: Alright, I can get that for all of you and I'll give you
a copy of my (indisc.) notes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: And if you would want to stay until the end, I'll
hear you then. That's a long ...
MS. DODD: Yes, I plan to be here until the cows go home or
whatever the saying is. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Lawrence Woodall.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He had to go back to work.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Susan Fry. Susan Margis.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She'll be back.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Susan Clark.
Number 0646
SUSAN CLARK, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA STATE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS:
My name is Susan Clark and I'm here representing the Alaska State
League of Women Voters. We met in convention last week in Kenai
and unanimously passed a resolution that urges you to oppose
SJR 42. And actually if it could be left in committee that would
be preferable so that it doesn't get out too much. The League of
Women Voters of Alaska considers the constitution of the state of
Alaska a model document. It is one of the most recent documents
and it is being used as a model throughout the United States.
Constitutions in a democracy exist in part to protect the minority
from the tyranny of the majority. Article I, Section 3, of our
constitution states, "no person is to be denied enjoyment of any
civil or political right because of race, color, creed, sex or
national origin." The legislature shall implement this section in
total. The league's national commitment to diversity embraces all
citizens regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, disability and
sexual orientation. And the league opposes a breach in anyone's
right to privacy based on membership in any one of these groups.
Restricted marriage has been found unconstitutional by our
superior court under Alaska's privacy law. The League of Women
Voters of Alaska opposes any legislative or other attempts to send
to the voters amendments to our constitution that would restrict,
defeat or make exceptions to rights and liberties in place in the
Alaskan Constitution. The League of Women Voters of Alaska support
equality opportunity for all citizens. It rejects amendments that
would make some groups of Alaskan citizens less equal than others
or that would deny whole groups of citizens the same rights and
responsibilities enjoyed by other citizens. The League of Women
Voters opposes SJR 42 and any law or ballot measure, of which there
are several currently, that is intended to undercut or overturn
court decisions which maintain a basic privacy rights of Alaskan
citizens. The State League of Women Voters is made up of various
local leagues. It is a nonpartisan organization. We have
Republicans, we have Democrats. I, myself, (indisc.) have been
married for 31 years, I have two heterosexual daughters. We feel
very strongly that the right of privacy in our constitution is a
model one. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Do you have a copy of the resolution?
MS. CLARK: I do.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: A copy for the record. Carol Anderson.
Number 0790
CAROL ANDERSON: My name is Carol Anderson. I have live in Juneau
all my life. I am opposed to SJR 42. It is a piece of unnecessary
and troubling legislation because it would prohibit same-sex
marriage. Marriage is both a civil and religious institution.
What we are talking about now is the civil institution of marriage
and the rights and responsibilities that go with that civil right.
It is a civil right. It is a civil right that people of different
races were denied less than 30 years ago in some states, until the
courts determined that that was unlawful discrimination. It is up
to each religious denomination to decide if they will marry same-
sex couples or not. I'm not disputing each religions right to
define their values. What I am disputing is the imposition of a
certain set of religious beliefs on civil matters. The United
States is not a theocracy. Europeans first came to this continent
to escape religious persecutions. Separation of church and state
is one of our basic tenants. We are not even a Christian nation.
We are a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists,
Buddhists, and other sects too numerous to mention. Traditionally,
people look toward their religion for moral guidance and
leaderships. Many churches in the United States do not ordain
women or let people of color hold all offices in their churches.
Although our constitution and its amendments prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sex and race, the state does not
interfere in the practices of the churches. In the same way, if
same-sex marriage were allowed, churches would not be required to
perform or sanction those relationships. I don't believe
religious arguments are pertinent to this discussion.
Discrimination against gays and lesbians creates economic, social,
and emotional hardship for all of us. A measure of this hardship
is the suicide rate of gay lesbian youth that you've heard about
earlier that's two or three times the rate of their straight
counterparts. If gay youth could dream of forming unions that were
sanctioned, celebrated and out in the public eye, then maybe they
would feel less isolated and devalued, and would be less likely to
end their lives. Same-sex marriage does not pose a threat to
traditional marriage. If anything, it would expand and support the
concept. Allow us to marry and many of us will provide strong role
models of committed and positive partnerships that both straights
and gays can emulate. I urge you to let SJR 42 die in committee
and not to cordially deny me my rights. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Beth Kerttula.
Number 0913
BETH KERTTULA: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My
name is Beth Kerttula. I've been an attorney for 16 years. I'm
here representing myself today. To decide this on religious or
moral grounds would be not only a distinct mistake, but also a
violation of our separation of church and state. As I know the
committee has heard today, we've got a lot of varying opinions on
just where those lines fall. As an attorney, and as Representative
Berkowitz previously mentioned, it worries me to see the
legislature reaching so far down into a case of a preliminary
ruling, one which has a long ways to go to really even get flushed
out and we have a very brief opinion on a very important topic.
And I would encourage you to wait for the courts to take its course
- the case rather, so that we can get the knowledge of the courts
behind it. I just want to briefly mention something that Judge
Michalski wrote in the case because I think it really focuses the
issue and that is, the issue really isn't same-sex marriage. Judge
Michalski recognizes that same-sex marriage isn't accepted or
rooted in the traditions and collective consciousness of our
people. But that rather the question that is there, is whether or
not the freedom to choose one's own life partner is so rooted in
our traditions. And that's the question he answered yes, that it
is. That's the fundamental right - the right to choose your
partner. In talking about the right to privacy, I think that each
of us values that right. As Alaskans we do indeed have a broader
right to privacy right in our constitution, and doing anything
against that erodes all of our rights to privacy. I know that I
wanted to choose my own life partner. I think that many here today
are speaking from the heart about that same choice. And I would
encourage you to allow the courts to take their time on this issue,
give their decision about what our constitutional rights really
say. In closing, I just want to quickly mention that I do not
believe that this case, in any way, would allow fathers to marry
daughters. If such were, in some way, the holding it would be very
easy for the state to show the interest that it has in prohibiting
such actions. Thank you very much. I appreciate the committee's
time.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Beth. Mary Hicks.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mary will be back. Moving to Sitka, are you
on Sitka? Sitka are you there? Craig - Craig are you there?
Valdez.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Valdez is here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, we have a William Essary.
Number 1078
WILLIAM ESSARY: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Go ahead William.
MR. ESSARY: My name is William Essary and I'm in support of
SJR 42. This nation is a nation that was suppose to be founded on
the word of God. The constitution was founded on Godly principles.
It's suppose to be one nation under God. We were founded on the
Bible. The Bible certainly states homosexuality is a violent sin
against our Good Lord and his word. How can we pass a law and make
something legal that is so obviously wrong and unnatural? Common
sense tells us that the idea of marriage existing between anything
other than one man and woman is ridiculous and blatantly simple.
Marriage is God's institution and I would be afraid of a change
(indisc.) marriage to the Holy Place the title of marriage. Man
has no authority to change what God established once and for all.
And nature has been telling us itself that everything was to be
male and female. And that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, William. Ray Halley or Hailey.
Number 1143
RAY HALLEY: It's Ray Halley, (indisc.). Good afternoon, Chairman
and committee. My name is Ray Halley, I'm a 23-year Alaskan
resident. I'd like to come down in support of SJR 42. The current
situation, as I see it, is expanding of the definition of marriage
to include homosexual unions is nothing more than an assault to
weaken the traditional view of marriage and ultimately the
definition of the family. The question of discrimination that
seems to be coming up I think is a little bit over (indisc.).
There is really no discrimination taking place. Homosexuals have
the same rights as anyone else to live wherever they want, to have
the relationships they want, the behavior they want and the
partnerships they want. This issue is about the definition of
marriage. And I'm coming down in support of that marriage being
between one man and one woman. And I call it discrimination in
situations where one judge can cause the definition of marriage
from statehood to this date to be changed. And I would urge your
support in moving this bill out of here today and support SJR 42.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Is Ray Macy there?
Number 1225
RAY MACY: Yes, I'm here. I'd like to go on record as supporting
SJR 42. I believe that we need to maintain the tradition of
marriage and we need to place it on the ballot. I think we owe it
to the people of the state of Alaska to decide on this matter and
I support it. Same-sex marriage is an attack on a Christian
marriage and a God-based Christian in eyes of the states. I think
if we don't stand for something, we're fall for anything. It's an
abomination under God. And I stand on the word of God in support
of this. I think that the state has a right to vote, every
individual has the right to vote whether or not they want to accept
this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Ray. Now as I understand it Bruce Van
Buskirk is the last one. Is that right?
MR. MACY: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Bruce go ahead.
Number 1266
BRUCE VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you, Chairman and committee. I would
like to go on the record supporting SJR 42. Issues discussed are
interesting, but I believe there's too many other biblical-based
issues essential in our fabric of morality, in not only Valdez
Alaska, the whole of Alaska. If we do not support SJR 42, we will
issue a key that will unlock many, many doors that will cause an
active landslide against our collective society. We have enough
problems resulting from homosexuality that I feel we have
connected criminal activity. If we don't stand against same-sex
marriage, we will (indisc.) so many issues and relations that we
won't be able to stop, not even to the extent of the military or
other parts of our government. It is simply an abomination that we
won't stand for. Thank you very much.
Number 1318
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: I just wanted to correct something that
the last speaker said. There is, to my knowledge, no connection
between a person's sexual orientation and the propensity to commit
crimes.
MR. VAN BUSKIRK: Certainly -- yeah, I'm going to address that.
I'm a witness to that. I just spent some time in relation to the
house of correction and I've seen many, many, many situations that
were criminal activities as the result of sexual immorality. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Darla Madden. Daniel Collison.
Number 1359
DANIEL COLLISON, CHAIRPERSON, SOUTHEAST ALASKA GAY AND LESBIAN
ALLIANCE: Yes. First of all thank you Representative Green and
members of the committee for the opportunity to take testimony. My
name is Daniel Collison. I'm the chairperson of the Southeast
Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance. And one of the things that
confuses me in this debate about same-sex marriage is the position
put forward by advocates of the legislation that somehow same-sex
marriages will undermine the institution of marriage in our
society. It's somewhat confusing because gays and lesbians have
been marrying as long as I know and living together in unions as
long as I know. These are private ceremonies that are done on
their own or in affiliated churches, but they lack the, I guess the
sanction of the state. But in -- I guess in recognizing a test for
discrimination the court typically looks at similarly situated
couples and in this case are looking at two men who might be living
together in a union and a man and a woman who might be living
together in a union, and they evaluate whether or not benefits come
to one couple as opposed to the other couple. And clearly, gays
and lesbians are on the outside of, I guess, accruement of benefits
in the area of marriages. For instance, I have two friends, two
women who live in Anchorage, and one of the women is an artist and
her partner, who she's been married to for about five years, is an
employee of the federal government. The partner, Lorie, who's a
member or employee of the federal government gets health care
benefits, but she cannot extend those benefits to her partner, who
is an artist. And so her partner goes without health care at this
point in time. One of the other arguments that the advocates for
this bill say is that we should leave this to the voters to decide
and I guess we're suppose to assume that the ultimate test of our
democracy is a popular vote of the people. But I guess it's my
opinion that this has never been the case. The majority are never
meant to abridge the rights of the minority. I think as an example
of that, in the mid-60s, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it was
wrong to make interracial marriages illegal. And many of the
Southern states had laws which made those marriages illegal. Can
any of us in this room believe that or doubt that if that issue had
been put before the voters in any one of those states that the
voters would have decided against interracial marriages? And
that's a classic example of how the majority cannot abridge the
rights of the minority.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: You need to wrap up, Daniel.
MR. COLLISON: Sure. And I would just encourage all of you to vote
no on this issue and to let the SJR 42 die in the committee.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. David Rogers. There he is.
Number 1541
DAVID ROGERS: Thanks. Mr. Chairman, my name is David Rogers and
I'm here on my own nickel today. I would like to thank you for
taking the time to listen to all of us. I'll get to the bottom
line, Mr. Chairman, I really don't like this bill, I just don't.
And the main bottom line reason is that it promotes discrimination.
No matter how you package it, this amendment would sanctify in our
constitution discrimination against fellow Alaskans in a big way by
preventing some of us human beings from exercising a fundamental
right, by making some of us human beings second class, permanent
second class citizens. And no historical precedent, no legal
theory, no religious doctrine, no constitutional amendment can
change that basic fact. And for me, that is unacceptable,
especially in a nation and a state dedicated to the proposition
that all human beings are created equal. In my book, Mr. Chairman,
you're either equal or you're not. Thank you. And one aside by
the way, I'm a married man. I'm happily married man. I'm a
proudly married man, and for the life of me I do not understand how
allowing same-sex marriage will affect my marriage or yours for
that matter.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is that what Caren told you to say?
MR. ROGERS: (Indisc.), thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Yes, you are. How are you, Caren?
Number 1641
CAREN ROBINSON, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY: Fine, and
again, I too thank you for having this hearing and really taking
the time to listen to all the citizens across the state and the
ones of you who had the opportunity to sit and hear the testimony.
As David said, you know, we are definitely a couple who had
cherished our time together. And, of course, we took 20 years to
make the decision to get married and have been one year and eight
months I just figured out, as of today, and feel very proud that we
have that. And I think it was kind of a joke at our wedding, but
about a day before we went to get married, I went down to pay my
car insurance. And I told the woman I said, "By the way, you know,
next week we're getting married." and she said, "Well, by the way,
you get a 10 percent discount." And so I think when we are talking
about what some of the benefits are, sometimes you don't even know
what they are. They just happen to pop up and then you find out
when you get married. Anyway, for the record, I am Caren Robinson
and I'm here today on behalf of the Alaska Women's Lobby. The
facts are clear here, the resolution sets the tone for Alaskans to
believe that it's okay to discriminate. That no matter how you
look at it, as heterosexual people we are saying that it's okay for
us to get married and share the benefits from marriage, but it's
not okay for our gay and lesbian friends. The facts are clear. We
get it, they don't get it. Yet they are just like the rest of us.
They eat, they breath, they have mothers, they have fathers, they
have sisters, they have brothers. They have jobs. They pay bills.
They have homes. They pay property tax. They do raise children.
They laugh, they cry, and just like us they fall in love and they
deserve the right to have the same benefits as we do. I believe it
is time to give our gay and lesbian sisters the same rights, the
same freedoms and the same choices that the rest of us as human
beings take for granted and would fight to death to preserve. The
facts are clear. The proposal supports discrimination and you
can't change that fact by trying to change the constitution. I
think the debate is good. I think it's great that we're starting
talking about it. I mean I've started talking to my own family and
I was so pleased when I talked to my mother this weekend and she
said, "Well, by the way you know right here Austin, Texas, the
Baptist Church has just decided they're going to allow same-sex
marriages." Again, let the churches make the decisions on whether
or not they want to have that religiously done in their churches,
but as a state, let's allow the same rights and let them have the
same benefits that the rest of us get. Thank you, I appreciate
your time.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Caren. Jean Findley. Later?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to go to work.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Theresa Miller. Later. David Jackson.
Number 1830
DAVID JACKSON: Hello and thank you for this opportunity to speak
before you. My name is David Jackson and earlier today I took the
opportunity to pass - a resolution passed by the united students of
the University of Alaska Southeast, around to each of you or to
your respective offices. As a student senator at the University of
Alaska Southeast, it is my duty as stated in our constitution as a
smaller student government, to protect the rights of all students
regardless of race, gender, age, social background, ethnic
background, or sexual preference or lifestyle. When a group of
students approached us and asked us to speak before the legislature
against Senate Joint Resolution 42 our body was somewhat - didn't
know what to say. We backed off. We all wanted to put it in a
committee. We didn't want to bring it up. We didn't want to talk
about it. We thought maybe we'd have a poll. The point of the
matter is it's something that people don't want to talk about.
It's a spotlighting bill. It's something that is so personal that
a lot of people don't feel comfortable expressing it straight out
in saying I believe in this, I don't believe in this. And I
believe we believe that it is not appropriate for the legislature
to be bringing this before the people, that it is skipping the due
process of the three checks and balances that our government is
founded on. When writing this resolution, there were several ideas
that we wanted to include in it that we left out in favor of basing
it completely on what all of our beliefs were and that was the
equal rights and equal protections of all students and of all
persons of Alaska. We believe that this resolution will create
ambiguity in the state legislature, or excuse me in the state
constitution by stating that people are equal, except for a certain
group. That undermines the privacy clause and that it tells
people who they can and cannot love. This goes against the
fundamental principles of our constitution because it does not
protect a single citizen. That's what a constitution if for is to
protect the people from the government should the government become
oppressive. You're never going to find a situation where if
somebody goes to court and says, "The government made me marry this
person, and I need to appeal this." This isn't something that
somebody is going say, "I have a constitutional right not to do
this," because then they wouldn't get married to begin with. At
this point I'll step down as a student senator because there is a
number of personal things that I've observed for this.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: We're just about out of time.
MR. JACKSON: Oh, if I'm just about out of time then that's about
what I have to say.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: You mentioned that you had, as I understood,
essentially a unanimity of a group. How big a group was that?
MR. JACKSON: The united students, we're a body of nine student
council representatives who represent the entire University of
Alaska Southeast, student population.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Now you're not suggesting that the entire student
body, but the nine representatives were unanimous on this
resolution.
MR. JACKSON: I'm suggesting that I'm in the same position as you
that I don't represent everybody who comes before me, I represent
who I was elected by and so do my constituents.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: No, my question was that you indicated, I thought,
in your resolution that you had other points that you were going to
make but that you confined it to those that everyone agreed to.
MR. JACKSON: Oh yes, we confined it to the points that all members
of our student council agreed to. And we struck things that
addressed specifically the issue of homosexuality and we believe
that this is not a lawful resolution because it undermines the
constitution, and that was one thing that we could agree on that it
undermines the constitution of this state.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Susan Fitzgerald.
Number 2170
SUZAN FITZGERALD: Good afternoon, my name is Susan Fitzgerald and
I'm the newest senator-elect at UAS. I've just come to tell you
guys that I'm against SJR 42 for the sole reason that all people
are created equally, and if this bill gets passed all people aren't
created equally. As a lot of people have said here today that
there is a lot of pros and cons, you know, what's going to happen
if it does get passed; what's going to happen if it doesn't. I
just basically want to keep it short, keep it simple. Don't pass
it, let it die here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Susan. Ann Northrip.
Number 2190
ANN NORTHRIP: Hello, my name is Ann Northrip and I came here today
-- and I wasn't planning to testify, but after listening to some of
the other testimonies of people, I couldn't sit and listen anymore.
I am a student in the Juneau school district. I have been all my
life. I've lived in Juneau all my life. I'm 16 years old and I
now attend Juneau Douglas High School.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Do you play basketball there?
MS. NORTHRIP: No. I'm part of the drama department. I have many
friends at the high school, some of whom include lesbians and gays.
And for those of them who came forward, they came to me because I
am one of the people who is more open to this idea, and it took
them a long time to talk to me, even me who they knew would accept
them. It was such a frightening thing to have someone else know
that about them for fear of discrimination and exile from the
school. There are gay bashings at the school sometimes. They are
not very prominent. They do have them. Things in the hallways --
you can walk through our school hallway and hear, "Oh that was so
gay." It's a term - faggot or dike. Being a student there, I
don't like hearing these things. They are discriminatory no matter
who you are talking about. SJR 42 does discriminate not only
against the citizens who can vote, but against students and against
anyone else in this state. And would like it not to be passed
through. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much.
Number 2341
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ: I just want to thank her for her courage
in saying out loud words of ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Sixteen years old, that's great. Thank you.
Rosezella Michalsky, later. Willie Anderson. Don't tell us you're
a 16-year old student.
Number 2359
WILLIE ANDERSON: A few years young, just a few. Thank you,
Representative Green, for the opportunity to testify. I'm here as
an individual citizen to testify against SJR 42. I have a unique
experience from those who have testified so far because I have
lived through an oppressive society. For all my high school years
I was prohibited from going to school with Caucasians in my
southern community. I lived under an oppressive society and I
lived there and I grew and I prospered. It was hard. It was
difficult. I have experienced the issue of the water fountain
issue where blacks don't drink here. I have been sent to the back
door to get a sandwich that I was paying for. I know what it is to
be oppressed. SJR 42 is an oppressive piece of legislation. SJR
....
TAPE 98-73, SIDE A
Number 0000
MR. ANDERSON: .... mentioned earlier. What if we had had a
referendum on integration in the South? Do you think that
resolution would pass in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Tennessee?
Do you think if we had the issue of the Loving v. Virginia case for
interracial marriage for it to be allowed, and that issue was put
to the people of the South and asked to vote on it, do you think
that issue would have passed? And so what would we have? We would
have the people - the majority of the people saying, "No, you are
a second class citizen." And I know what that is because I've
lived it. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Willie. Morissa Williams.
Number 0100
MORISSA L. WILLIAMS: Chairman Green, thank you for letting us
testify. My name is Morissa Lou Williams. I'm 40-years-old and
the descendant, as most Americans are, of immigrants. I'm Jewish
and most of my family perished in Nazi-occupied Europe. And I'm
not very good at speaking in public.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: You're doing wonderfully well.
MS. WILLIAMS: I owe my existence to the courage of Americans who
loved justice, compassion and mercy, which I believe are the
greatest gifts that God has given us, much more than they feared
the challenge of human differences. I thus feel that I've received
a mandate, not only from my religious tradition, but from the
tradition of the United States of America, to stop short at the
gates of persecution and bigotry. For some reason there is a
pretense and I think it's actually a lie, although I don't like to
assume bad faith, that there is something wrong or unusual about a
man loving a man, or a woman loving a woman. I doubt it very much
that there is a single person in this world who has never been
attracted to someone of their own gender. It is an entirely
natural thing that one child of God should find another child of
God worthy of love. I have studied religion and theology for quite
a long time. I received a BA [bachelor of arts degree] in biblical
studies from Wellesley College in 1978, which is a rather
conservative school, and I'm rather a conservative person. I've
studied Old Testament and New Testament theology not only in the
comfort of the academic classroom, but also in the more rigorous
classrooms of such places as Belfast, Northern Ireland, and other
places where racial, economic and religious historical conflicts
are slowly being resolved. In America, integration refers to black
and white. In Belfast, it refers to Catholic and Protestant.
Elsewhere, it might refer to gay or straight, Hindu or Moslem,
Moslem or Christian, Moslem or Jew, rich or poor, or God knows
what. I would not wish to see any bond injured between two people
who are the loved children of God, who have chosen to love one
another, who have the courage and the commitment to marry one
another, to show respect for one another, to care for one another,
to create families with one another. In Nazi Germany, the church
itself was scorned and defiled, along with gays, Jews, and anyone
who threatened the paranoia of the Reich. This kind of bill is
immoral. It's contrary to our constitution. It's a sad reminder
of times when love was considered dangerous. Love is not
dangerous. It is, most of all, I believe, as a woman of faith, an
insult to the God who loves us all. We do not need to suffer the
paranoia of people who are afraid of love. When our leaders have
lapses in judgment, we can guide them back through our own faith.
Let us do so, preserving both constitution and hope. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Morissa, thank you very much. Back to Anchorage
we have -- are you back on Anchorage or are you still off?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't believe Anchorage will be on until
5:00 [p.m.] Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. Nome are you on?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Nome is on line. We have three people here
to testify.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Our first one is Carol McDaniel. Is that right?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Carol is out of the room, you can take the
next one on the list which is (indisc.).
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Is what?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Carol has stepped out of the room.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Noma Stewart.
Number 0381
NOMA STEWART: Yes, and I just want to say you need to kill SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Well that's very succinct, Noma. Thank you very
much. How about Lyn Conlon?
Number 0391
LYN CONLON, PSYCHIATRIST: Hello, members of the committee.
(Indisc.) psychiatrist and have practiced in the community. I
(indisc.) my personal belief systems to be of real service to those
who are in need. It's not an easy task to be nonjudgmental and
accepting of all who seek my services. But if we truly represent
what is good in the human spirit and the goodness in each and every
individual, we allow every person their own moral compass within
the limits of humane conduct. Each individual has a right to
decide for themselves, and themselves only, how they will live
their lives. Alaska is the last bastion of personal freedom. I
must confess I'm shocked and amazed that one group's individual,
religious, scientific or political beliefs will be the setting of
the sails for the great ship of the state of Alaska, the direction
it shall go. Alaska, the last frontier of individual freedom? Or
a state who is in denial of their own sexual insecurities? I'm
opposed to SJR 42, and please excuse the blatant psychiatric
generalizations, but you folks (indisc.) to protect too much.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Did Carol come back?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She is.
Number 0476
CAROL McDANIEL: Yes sir. I'm Dr. Carol McDaniel and this is short
and sweet. To tamper with the separation or balance of powers,
just in order to make it legal to deny the civil rights of a
minority who happen to be Alaskan citizens, is sinister practice.
I want to go on record as opposing SJR 42. Please allow SJR 42 to
die in your committee and allow this civil rights issue to continue
in the court system, where it belongs. I'm just curious, what
rights will the majority be denied if homosexuals are eventually
allowed to marry?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Down in Kenai we have
(indisc.). I have on the list here, Elmer Overpeck.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Overpeck had to leave.
The only participants we have left are Ms. Wherry and Ms. Barry.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Ms. Wherry, are you ready?
Number 0551
CAROLE WHERRY: Yes I am. Thank you for allowing me to speak on
this important issue. My name is Carole Wherry and my husband Gary
and I have lived in Alaska for 15 years and have just celebrated
our 35th wedding anniversary. We have two children and five
grandchildren. I fully support SJR 42 and the constitutional
amendment introduced by Senator Loren Leman, to write the
traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution.
The sacred bond between man and woman has been since time began,
for the sake of bringing forth new life, which a same-sex marriage
cannot give. Society has a stake in this issue because it is
through procreation that new members will arise and ensure its
perpetuation. Laws regulating the contract of marriage enable the
creation of a stable institution, where a loving mother and father
bring up a healthy, contributing individual. Alaska, putting this
stamp of approval upon homosexual activity, does not encourage
moral greatness. It simply moves us further away from the laws of
nature and nature's God. I feel it's important that we, the
people, have a chance to vote on this issue. Please give us this
chance. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Carole. Beth Barry.
Number 0678
BETH BARRY: Yes, thank you. I'm Beth Barry from Soldotna. I am
the here in favor of SJR 42 today. Marriage as defined in four
different dictionaries written between 1828 and 1990, including
Black's Law Dictionary, states specifically that marriage is a
legal union between one man and one woman. Choosing a life partner
may be a right; however, legal marriage requires a state license,
so therefore, it's not a right but a privilege. Unfortunately, we
have to defend the obvious, and I'm grateful for the pursuit of
this amendment to our constitution for the sake of clarity, if
nothing else. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Beth. In Valdez - are you on Valdez?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I believe Valdez is off line, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Until 5:00 [p.m.]?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay. What about Fairbanks?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think they are on.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Fairbanks are you on?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Fairbanks is on line.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, is Mark Schubauer there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He had to leave. The next person we have on
the list is Patrick Marlow.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright.
Number 0732
PATRICK MARLOW: Hi, my name is Patrick Marlow and I live here in
Fairbanks. On behalf of the 15 or 20 people who are speaking after
waiting to testify, I'll keep my comments short. I want to thank
the committee for taking our testimony. I am opposed to SJR 42 for
many reasons, and I'll only enumerate one of them today. I urge
you to oppose this very divisive bill simply because you can. As
you all know, the courts have not yet ruled on this issue, but
(indisc.) is the state must show a compelling interest not to allow
same-gender marriage. By voting against SJR 42, you are in no way
voting to allow same-gender marriage; you are merely allowing the
courts the opportunity to make this whole thing quietly go away.
By voting for SJR 42, you are simply fanning the flames of a highly
emotionally charged issue, and encouraging hate speech
unnecessarily. I ask you, therefore, to vote against SJR 42 and
let the courts decide. Then, should the courts rule against the
current majority, the issue can be revisited in a future
legislative session. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Patrick. Is Nancy Kailing there?
Number 0809
NANCY KAILING: I am. I'm Nancy Kailing, a proud mother of a
lesbian daughter; retired elementary school teacher with 17 years
of service in the Fairbanks Northstar Borough School District; UAF
[University of Alaska Fairbanks] graduate in student and community
psychology; president of PFFLAG Fairbanks, Parents, Families and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays; deacon in the Presbyterian Church;
21-year resident of Alaska, married for almost 36 years. I am
definitely opposed to SJR 42. PFFLAG National with 70,000
household membership, many other state and local organizations and
many individual U.S. citizens have signed a marriage resolution as
follows: "Because marriage is a basic human right and an
individual personal choice, resolved: The state should not
interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share
fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of
civil marriage." PFFLAG Fairbanks has over 50 households as
members and many other fair-minded individuals as friends. We
support this marriage resolution and are against SJR 42. Thanks
for listening.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Nancy. Richard Collins.
Number 0894
RICHARD COLLINS: Good afternoon, my name is Richard Collins
(indisc.) from Fairbanks, Alaska. I want to testify against
SJR 42. I understand the hardship and heartfelt difficulty many
people have in accepting Alaskans who happen to be gay or lesbian.
I understand that this may be a majority of people in today's
Alaska. However, lesbian and gay Alaskans do form lifelong, loving
and committed families. I count myself lucky enough to have found
such a relationship and have celebrated it with my family and
friends in a religious wedding ceremony. Finding a man was not
what my family would have wanted me, but they've accepted it as
part of who I am, and what makes sense for me in my life. Changing
the state constitution essentially criminalizes gay and lesbian
Alaskans in perpetuity. I respectfully ask you to oppose this
measure. And for those of you with gay and lesbian family members
and friends, to recognize their humanity of the dignity of their
life partnership. For those of you who do not, to (indisc.)
prejudice and discrimination. I wish you all the best in the
reminder of this busy legislative session and thank you for your
attention.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Richard. Bill Brody.
Number 0960
BILL BRODY: My name is Bill Brody. I am the father of a lesbian
daughter. I am appalled by this move to prohibit same-sex
marriage. The state has no business regulating this very personal
contract between two people. There is no compelling interest by
the state in this matter. The proposal is divisive and attempts to
codify religious practice in violation of separation of church and
state. I urge you to vote against this discriminatory measure.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Bill, thank you very much. Is Dr. Jean Battig
there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to leave, she'll be back later
though.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Rowena Gross.
Number 0999
ROWENA GROSS: Yes. I'm Rowena Gross and I'm here to strongly urge
you to vote against SJR 42. I think this country was born on the
concept of religious freedom, and it's the responsibility of
leaders to protect the rights of minorities, not give the majority
the opportunity to take those rights away. I'm also a heterosexual
single woman, and when I choose to marry, chances are it will be a
male, but I want that to be my choice. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Rowena. Ruth Ewig.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indisc.). Mary Bishop up next.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright
Number 1042
MARY BISHOP: Hello, my name is Mary Bishop. I just attended the
recent state Republican convention here in Fairbanks this past
Thursday, Friday and Saturday, as an elected alternate delegate
from my district. And I attended virtually every event. Friday
morning breakfast at 8:00 [a.m.], a table of eight Lathrop High
School students being introduced. Three of these students asked
questions of the gubernatorial candidates. One question related to
the same-sex marriage resolution. Our Republican candidates
answered so negatively, with such rancor and malice, I was ready to
crawl under the table. And while this rancor was being spouted
from the podium, I glanced at a table to one side of me. Some men
were rising out of their seats, pushing their fists to the ceiling,
figuratively shouting, 'Go for it (indisc.).' One thing is for
certain, the Republican party lost virtually every student at that
table. Of course, all this made the front page of the local paper,
for two weeks it was news worthy. We're just lucky that the
photographer who was there didn't get a picture of those men
raising their fists, shades of the Ku Klux Klan. You, Republicans
will loose the young adult youth of today over this issue if this
kind of rhetoric continues. Surely each of you have homosexual
members of your family. Remember this, they are our sons and
daughters, our brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, aunts and
uncles. Sometimes they're our mothers and fathers. They are our
friends and neighbors. Republicans, remember imitation is the
sincerest form of flattery, the greatest form of compliment. Gays,
like Richard who just testified, want to marry are complimenting my
marriage - my marriage of almost 40 years with Richard,
complimenting our cultural and social values. We wish to
demonstrate to others that a committed, monogamous lifestyle is the
way to go. Please support them in this endeavor. Vote no.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Stephen Kailing.
Number 1170
STEPHEN KAILING: Stephen Kailing here. I'm against SJR 42.
Because this issue is so important to my family, I've attended all
the previous Senate hearings and listened while representatives
advocated putting discriminatory language against my own daughter,
into the Alaska constitution. What are their reasons that they've
given? The first one that comes out is that gay and lesbian people
are of no more value than dogs or cats, or even goats. I've heard
this in debate on our own Senate floor. I've heard from many
people throughout this state, "This is the way God intended that it
should be." In other words, my daughter's relationship is evil;
their relationships are great. And, "We've got to maintain the
status quo." I heard this from Rick Halford. Is it right to
maintain the status quo when the status quo is wrong? How do you
think I feel when I hear this ignorant, hateful rhetoric about my
own daughter? I feel hurt. I feel insulted. And I feel very,
very angry. And here is what I'm going to do about it. I'm going
to keep on attending these hearings. I'm going to keep writing
letters to the editor. I'm going to (indisc.) fight people like
those in the Republican majority until the day I die. I won't rest
until my daughter has the same rights and privileges as everybody
else. I might even live long enough so that I can drive around
Fairbanks without seeing mean, ugly messages against my daughter on
huge Bible Baptist church billboards. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Carolyn Peck.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to leave. We're down to Richard
Kemnitz.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright. Richard.
Number 1277
RICHARD KEMNITZ, SOCIAL ACTION COMMITTEE, UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
FELLOWSHIP OF FAIRBANKS: Thank you. My name is Richard Kemnitz
and I'm representing the Social Action Committee of the Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship of Fairbanks. We are urging you today to
vote no on SJR 42. In 1984 and again in 1996, resolutions were
approved at the general assembly of the Unitarian Universalist
Association, relating to ceremonies of union between members of the
same sex. I would like to share with you that 1996 resolution and
this is how it states: "Because Unitarian Universalists affirm the
inherent worth and dignity of every person, and because marriage is
held in honor among the bludgeons of life, and whereas the
Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) has adopted numerous
resolutions over the last 26 years supporting equal rights for
gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gender persons, including
support for ceremonies of union between members of the same sex,
and whereas the UUA board of trustees, and the Unitarian
Universalist Ministers Association have ordered their support for
the right to marry for same-sex couples, therefore, be it resolved
that the general assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association
adopts the position in support of legal recognition for marriage
between members of the same sex. Be it further resolved that the
general assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges
its member congregations to take an affirmative position in support
of the value of marriage between any two committed persons, whether
the same or opposite sexes, and to make these positions known in
their own communities." The Political Action Committee of the
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fairbanks, in accordance with
our Unitarian principles and these resolutions support same-sex
marriages. Our fellowship has performed a number of ceremonies
union between same-sex couples and we will continue to offer gay,
lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender persons a spiritual home. We
urge our legislators to vote no on SJR 42. Thank you
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Richard. Is Doug Duffett
there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, actually we're down to Marina Day,
(indisc.) had to leave.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Marina.
Number 1408
MARINA DAY: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, fellow
Alaskans, concerning SJR 42 - first and foremost I ask why should
the basic constitutional privacy rights for all Alaskans be gutted
in reaction to an ongoing court case? (Indisc.) from the word
"homosexual" (indisc.), people react emotionally. It is important
that the emotional (indisc.) surrounding this bill be cleared. The
real question is, can people's basic right to choose a life partner
mandated? Consider Section 25, it reads, "The legislature may have
additional requirements related to marriage to the extent permitted
by the Constitution of the United States and this constitution."
Every (indisc.) to be voter in this state should (indisc.) this
bill. Ask yourself, "What does HJR really say?" Once this
minority group is stripped of its constitutional right to
(indisc.) they choose. Who is next? I quote Martin (Indisc.),
Protestant Pastor, who has some experience with what happens when
basic rights erode. He spent eight years in a Nazi concentration
camp. "In Germany they first came for the communists and I did not
speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews
and I did not speak up because I wasn't a Jew. They came for the
trade union and I did not speak up because I wasn't a trade union.
Then they came for the Catholics. I did not speak up because I'm
a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was
allowed to speak up." Secondly, recent history has established
that it is wrong to put minority rights up to public vote. I quote
(Indisc.) German born, U.S. political philosopher. She speaks
about the fascist (indisc.) who became an instrument of great evil.
The trouble with -- oh, excuse me, (indisc.) was precisely that so
many were like him and that the many neither perverted nor
(indisc.) that they were and still are (indisc) and (indisc.)
normal from the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our
loyal standards of judgement, this formality was much more
terrifying than all the atrocities put together. (Indisc.) people,
I ask you to look through the smokescreen and realize the true
ramifications of this bill. Destroy SJR 42 in committee. It
limits your basic rights, and the basic rights of all your friends
and neighbors. Protect our Alaskan constitution, and let the
courts decide on this issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Excuse me, Marina. Could you give me your last
nameplease?
MS. DAY: Day.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Gay?
MS. DAY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: G-a-y?
MS. DAY: D-a-y.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, no I didn't mean that, I'm very sorry.
MS. DAY: No offense taken.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Now you weren't on the list and so
when the bridge mentioned they were down there -- how many are left
up there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: At this point we have - let's see one, two,
three, four, five.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, now Gray is not there - Ryan Gray is not
there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jeff Walters is not there?
Number 1550
JEFF WALTERS: Yes I am.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Jeff.
MR. WALTERS: Okay, thank you for hearing our testimony today and
I, too, wish to testify against Senate Joint Resolution 42. This
resolution seeks to legislate discrimination and is an attack on
the privacy rights of all Alaskans. It also affects me personally.
I am a gay man and I'm in a long-term, committed and loving
relationship. My family and the family of my life partner are both
wonder and effective. We spend holidays with them, we talk on the
phone often and we share great times when we can visit. Two
summers ago my life partner and I flew his mother and niece up to
Alaska for a visit and we had a wonderful time. When my mother
died of cancer three years ago, my 75-year-old father insisted that
my partner sit in the front of the church with my sister, my two
brothers and their families. To imply that my relationship with my
partner is not as honorable and loving as other relationships is a
personal insult not only to me, but also to our families. I have
not been willing to publicly testify before because of my job, but
I think it is important to state that I am a science and math
teacher at West Valley High School here in Fairbanks. In the past,
I've not been willing to come out and be open about my relationship
because of fear, and I do not want to live in fear. I treat my
students with respect for who they are, but I don't believe that
SJR 42 affords me, or many of my friends, a similar respect. I am
deeply troubled by the message that this resolution is sending out,
and should this pass, I see a dangerous and divisive seven months
ahead. I feel I have no choice but to seek my conscience and
follow my heart if this division continues. I urge you to defeat
the resolution. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jeff, thank you for your candor and your
testimony. Is Teresa Glendinning - Glendinning there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Actually, let's see here. Theresa, she had
to leave and Jana Peirce is next.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, Jana.
Number 1646
JANA PEIRCE: Yes, thank you. I am heterosexual and happily
married, and I'm also an active member of a local church. I oppose
SJR 42 because it legalizes discrimination, and it does so in our
state constitution. Our constitution should uphold equal rights
and the privacy of Alaskan citizens, as it now does so. I don't
believe it should be used as a weapon to limit the rights of some,
even if they are people whom we perceive as different from
ourselves. I know that many of you believe our constitution should
not be a document of prohibition or of preferences for some. I
urge you to vote against this punitive bill. As an aside, I know
that (indisc.) what this bill has cited religious reasons why it is
okay to limit the rights of gays and lesbians. For that reason,
let me just point out that although it is easy to cite isolated
phrases from the Old Testament to justify discrimination, it is
hard to ignore the overwhelming message of the New Testament, on
which Christian churches are based. When it said that our culture
is based on any common religious values, I believe it is the New
Testament teachings on love and acceptance of others, especially of
oppressed minorities and people who have traditionally been
ostracized or discriminated against that our culture is at least as
much based on, if not more so, than any Old Testament prohibitions.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jana thank you very much. Now I have - bridge I
have three more people there in Fairbanks. Is that right?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Now we have four. We had somebody come
back. Five actually - we had two come back.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, I'm going to come back then so that we can
have other sites. Is Sitka or Craig on line?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Sitka is on line.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have a Michael Jones.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Go ahead, Michael.
Number 1740
MICHAEL JONES: Okay, my name is Michael Jones and I do live in
Sitka, and I am here representing myself. Many of the arguments
that have been made in support of SJR 42 have been made on the
basis of religion and in the name of God. I am also a Christian
who opposes SJR 42. There are compelling religious arguments which
could support this amendment. There are also arguments with
religious origin and overtone which (indisc.) of this proposed
amendment. Whether we like it or not, the United States of America
was founded largely in the quest for religious freedom, and for
that reason we have a formalized and deliberate separation between
matters of the state and issues of the church. The Bible teaches
of the dangers of riches and responsibility to distribute the
wealth equally among all people, yet our society of classes praises
and supports capitalistic foundations. Christianity teaches us to
turn the other cheek, and yet we have good laws that protect a
victim acting out in self-defense. Catholicism, which I have
practiced, does not have room for divorce, yet the rate of failed
marriages is alarming high, and our state and our nation tolerated
it legally. The Bible refers to the evils of taxes, and places tax
collectors among the lowest members of a society, and yet we all
understand the role of paid taxes in our state and national
budgets. To use religious arguments in this legal, governmental
forum is not appropriate, no matter how strong and valid our
individual religious beliefs and convictions. Quite simply, my
opposition to SJR 42 comes down to matters of civil liberty.
Within Section 1, Article XIV of the Constitution of the U.S., it
is written, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." These words are reflected in Section 1,
Article I of the Alaska Constitution. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme
Court supported the (indisc.) declaring that marriage is one of the
basic civil liberties of man, and presumably a woman, and that the
freedom to marry is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.
To quote attorney, Thomas Doddard (ph), from a New York Times
editorial, "Those who argue that same-sex marriage would be anti-
family overlook the obvious. Marriage creates families and
promotes social stability. In an increasingly loveless world,
those who wish to commit themselves to a relationship founded upon
devotion should be encouraged and not thorned." Recognizing that
there are important and significant differences between a civil
marriage and a religious marriage, I urge you to oppose SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Michael. Craig are you with us?
Jennifer Taylor in Craig? Alright, back to Juneau. We have Ted
Deats.
Number 1887
TED DEATS, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY TO REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN,
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE: Good afternoon, my name is Ted Deats. I
live in Juneau and I've been here about 20 years. I'm asking you
to support SJR 42 out of this committee and also on the floor when
it makes it there. It amazes me that the special interests behind
this homosexual marriage idea want our state of Alaska to be the
first state and first country in the world to change the definition
of marriage. And they want our representatives to deny us the
right to vote on it by a ballot of the people. I know that these
people are my fellow Alaskans, and some of them may be my friends.
Some of them buy halibut and crab from us in the summer.
Nevertheless, I believe they've made the wrong moral choice to
pursue a homosexual lifestyle. I'll still remain friends with
them, but I don't want this social experiment to take place in
Alaska without a vote of the people. I believe that these folks
want the same privileges that come from a legal marriage, such as
insurance benefits. But even more, they want society to say that
their moral choice is okay, by being promoted and elevated to
public, legal marriage. I ask you not to ignore our democratic
rights by allowing this extreme change to take place in Alaska
without a vote from the whole citizenry.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Ted, very much. Now have we got any of
these people back yet? Lauren Champagne? Oh, not back yet. Okay,
Mildred ...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She testified.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, she did, I'm sorry, yes. Jennifer Mannix?
Jason Nelson - oh he testified, I'm sorry. Kim Poole - she'll be
here any minute, okay. Nancy Simpson? Okay, we'll go to
teleconference land then. In Valdez, is Brad Sinyon there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Brad is here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, we have Brad and Dee Sinyon.
Number 1986
BRAD SINYON: My name is Brad Sinyon. I support this bill, SJR 42.
I do not want our people now, and our future people, to think that
it's okay to be gay. I don't think any sound-minded person wants
their relative to be a same-sex marriage statistic. I believe only
some of these people that got caught in this predicament are only
thinking only of themselves, and not thinking of the future
generations that may come. I don't think its -- should go against
God's plan for his creatures to be with same sex. All earth's
creatures naturally knows to not to do -- to go with same sex, but
to (indisc.) of people. I don't think God wanted people to be
married under his eyes. I support being married to a man and
woman. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Brad. Is Dee Sinyon there?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't have anyone left here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, so you're signing off?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Pretty quick.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright. Anchorage we have Dan Carter.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Jeff Carter isn't here any longer. We just
have Noel.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Noel Heaton.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: That's the only one left?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, he's the only who came back so far.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Noel.
Number 2083
NOEL HEATON: Good afternoon, I'm an Anchorage artist and I'm in
favor of resolution 42. A straight forward vote of the public is
called for here, drawn-out expensive trials or not. The opponents
of 42, who already legally have equal rights, are acting as a
minority. They would like to remove the rights of the majority.
And that is a right to preserve and uphold the sacred sanctioned -
a sacred and sanctioned union of man and woman by God. The civil
licenses, founded in morals just as other laws are, should be
defiled just as other laws are, and should not be defiled or
homogenized to break down boundaries that are necessary for a
healthy society. I don't want my marriage to be legally aligned
with behavior that is not only -- that I find repulsive, but
encroaches upon my pursuit of religion and moral aspirations of a
free American. I'm not debating the right to free preference of
human sexual behavior as a private institution. I'm merely seeking
clarification of the boundary between traditional marriage versus
institutionalizing of a public state of depravity. May God help us
if the public decides. Vote yes on 42. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Noel, thank you very much. We'll give a few more
minutes for the Anchorage -- Juneau people to come back. Are you
all back? Alright, Rosezella Michalsky? Theresa Miller? Jean
Findley? Darla Madden?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indisc.) they're waiting?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Well let's get rid of these teleconferences then
we'll -- Susan Galereave in Fairbanks? Fairbanks are you on?
Number 2155
SUSAN GALEREAVE: Hello, my name is Susan Galerave and I'm here
today to testify against SJR 42. I'm opposed to this
constitutional amendment because it singles out a minority group as
not being worthy of the benefits to which the majority is entitled.
I believe that if passed and when challenged by the court, SJR 42
will be found to be unconstitutional just as was the (indisc.)
legislation of two years ago. It violates the right to privacy and
our equal protection under the law that applies to all citizens.
I'm a member of that minority. I consider myself married to my
partner, who is a woman. We are living out the essence of what
marriage is, even though the law does not recognize that. We are
committed to cherish and support each other for the rest of our
lives. We support each other financially and emotionally, which
enables us to be productive, contributing citizens of this town and
state. Whether or not you are comfortable with my lesbian union,
it is what makes sense for me. I was raised to be heterosexual and
used to be married to a man. While my former husband and I were
friends, we felt loving toward each other, it was not an
emotionally satisfying union for me. It was a union that looked
good in the eyes of society and in the eyes of my parents, but
ultimately did not support my yearning for a companion with whom I
could establish a nurturing, loving home. I have that and will not
give it up for anything. The institution of marriage, up until
now, has been defined by society and by the law, as between a man
and a woman. It is time for that to change. It is time for the
laws and people's attitudes to honor and reflect the reality that
has existed since people came to be. Homosexuality has always been
the true expression of a minority, and always will be. This
legislation proposes to write discrimination into our constitution.
It reminds me of the time when African-Americans were considered
three-fifths of a human being. Can't we skip that step? Haven't
we learned from the civil rights movement? Discrimination is
harmful to everyone. Broaden your view. See what is true for a
large number of Alaskans. Human beings are rich and complex, not
limited to what we have been able to imagine and tolerate up until
now. I urge you to vote no on SJR 42. Let's maintain what we know
is right, the conscience of the people, as expressed in the
constitution. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Susan. Cecelia Hunter?
Number 2254
CECELIA HUNTER: My name is Cecelia Hunter. I have lived in Alaska
for 50-some years. I've (indisc.) state, and I am thoroughly
opposed to SJR 42. I know far too many friends who are lesbians
and gays, and who have loving, committed relationships, and they
deserve to have the protection -- the legal protection afforded by
marriage as much as any of the majority population does. I also am
a member of the Friends meeting here in Fairbanks. Quakers are
consistently opposed to discrimination of all kinds. They have led
the fight against discrimination against people of different races,
and they are leading in the fight to recognize the validity of
lesbian and gay and bisexual and trans-sexual human beings. The
Pacific yearly meeting of the Society of Friends, which includes
the whole Pacific Coast, all the way from California through
Alaska, has gone on record as - as being in favor of same-sex
marriages, and many of our meetings have carried out ceremonies of
commitment among their members who are gays and lesbians. The
Seattle (indisc.) university friends being in Seattle (indisc.) is
a sponsor of the American (Indisc.) Service and they also sponsor
of the (Indisc.) Coalition in Seattle which has been - been
organized to protect gay, lesbian and bisexual children in school
from being discriminated against and being ridiculed and so on. It
is a very -- it's a set up (indisc.) our network there to protect
students. The (Indisc.) Conference is the annual national meeting
of the American - of the Friends meeting, and it recognizes a
little bit of (indisc.) of gay and lesbian members that I have
personally participated, as an elder, in ceremonies of commitment
for lesbian friends of mine who were married by ministers of
various faiths. I think that the attempt to say that this is
depravity, that this simply -- I can't quite conceive of people who
are so ignorant or people who have failed to -- to become
acquainted with the people in their communities who are lesbians
and gays enough to know that they are perfectly honorable citizens,
that they the same ambitions. They're willing to have the same
responsibilities and the same sense of commitment in their
relationships as any man and woman entering those relationships.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Cecelia, we need to wrap up
MS. HUNTER: Okay, I'll wrap it up and I'll just say I'm opposed to
SJR 42 for all those reasons.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Lisa Slayton? Do we have a
Lisa Slayton.
Number 2387
LISA SLAYTON: Yes, good afternoon. I'm Lisa Slayton, I'm a well-
respected educator in the Fairbanks school system, a community
volunteer, a spiritual person who believes in God. I'm the girl
next door, and I'm a lesbian. (Indisc.) to testify against SJR 42.
My voice was not heard by the majority of the Senate; I pray that
that's not the case in the House. In assembling an agenda
(indisc.) against this discriminatory amendment that I find it hard
to prioritize them in order to speak on them for just three
minutes. (Indisc.) of a personal account of what it's like growing
up lesbian in a fearful, hateful, homophobic atmosphere, an
atmosphere that unfortunately continues to exist for most of our
gay and lesbian youth, (indisc.) gay measure such as SJR 42. I've
heard a lot of talk about sexual orientation being a choice and,
therefore, cannot be afforded civil rights. I'm 35 years old, I've
been a lesbian for 35 years. I did not choose a lifestyle when I
was born. I did not choose to be made to feel alone and afraid in
high school for far more serious reasons than the usual teenage
hangups. I did not choose to be kicked out of my home when my
family finally did find out about my sexual orientation. I did not
choose to be physically attacked by her mother and sister and then
sent to a psychiatrist for being perceived abnormal. And now as an
adult, I do not choose to be constantly afraid of losing my job.
I do not choose to ....
TAPE 98-73, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. SLAYTON: ....(indisc.) as my true self in this world. And I
do not choose to find myself in a position where a majority of
people may possibly have the right to decide who I can legally
marry and build my life with. Gays and lesbians do not choose to
be feared, hated, treated with disrespect, denied civil rights.
They're not asking for special rights. We're asking for the same
rights as everyone else because we are everyone else. We are
people. They're your teachers, your doctors, personal (indisc.),
social workers, police, lawyers, and check out clerk at Fred's.
And make no mistake we are your uncles. We are your aunts, your
cousins, sisters, brothers, children and your grandchildren. I
promise you that you have gays and lesbians in your own family.
When you vote on this amendment, take into consideration just who
you are affecting. Please keep in mind that voting no on SJR 42
hurts no one, voting yes hurts many. Do not continue this cycle of
fear and hate. Please oppose SJR 42. Thank you for listening.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Does that complete the list in
Fairbanks?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, Mr. Chairman, we have three more people
to testify.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, who are they?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We have Dena Ivey, S. Thompson and Geraldine
Smith.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, we don't have them on the list, but if they
could come up one at a time and give their name.
Number 0069
SHELDON THOMPSON: Hello, my name is Sheldon Thompson. I was here
from 12:45 [p.m.] to 2:15 [p.m.], sorry I had to leave then I came
back just recently. I just came to say that I am for SJR 42. I
was born and raised in Juneau, I just recently moved here. I
realize it's my right as an American to testify. Of course, I have
not been as active as I should have been, but I feel like it's my
responsibility, as an Alaskan, to come in today. About 20 years
ago or so Billy Crystal on T.V. on (indisc.) exposed himself as
being a homosexual and it kind of shocked us and our friends. We
really didn't think that much of it because it was just T.V. and it
really wouldn't affect us. But today I've had to take off quite a
time off of work and come down here. And I didn't really realize
in the 20 years how much it will and has been affecting me. And
I'm not for homosexual, bisexual or transvestite marriages. And I
know that everybody in this room, everybody in that room there - I
see you guys on T.V., in the state and the whole world were created
by a union between a man and a woman. I believe that's the way it
should be. I think that to eliminate any more wasting of time, and
especially my own, I'd like to see you have this constitutional
amendment put on the ballot. Let Alaskans decide for themselves by
a majority vote. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Sheldon, thank you very much. Who is next?
Number 0120
DENA IVEY: My name is Dena Ivey and I'm here to testify against
SJR 42. I was born and raised here in Fairbanks, graduated from
Lathrop High School in 1989, and joined the Air Force in 1992. I
served our country proudly and honorably for four years, then
returned to Fairbanks to pursue a higher education. I'm also a
Native activist, and I'm also here to speak in defense of my
fellow Alaska Natives and non-Native homosexuals who desire be a
part of this same fundamental rights of all other Alaskan citizens.
For me, as with all other homosexuals, being gay was not a choice
I made. And in his (indisc.) wisdom God made that choice for me
when I was born in the same manner that he decided I would be
female with brown hair and brown eyes. The only choice I made with
regard to my sexual orientation was to accept and celebrate it as
the only lifestyle that would make me truly happy. Unfortunately,
in Alaska this happiness is conditional. For four years, I lived
with unbelievable paranoia and fear while in the military. I can't
walk down the street holding hands with my significant other
without fear of being physically or verbally assaulted for such
public displays of affection; affection which I see among
heterosexuals every day. I'm denied the opportunity to share the
rights and responsibilities of marriage, a basic human right which
the heterosexual members of my family currently enjoy. Whose
responsibility it is to question and (indisc.) the decisions of
God? There are those who would say that it would be (indisc.) for
me to live a lifestyle that was not mine to begin with. Since when
has God condoned living dishonestly - living a lie? Jesus said
love thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus did not say love thy neighbor
as thyself, but only if he is heterosexual. For Jesus, love is
unconditional. Jesus was (indisc.) compassion in love, not of hate
and fear. Hate and fear is (indisc.) of his adversary. I think
Jesus would be appalled to witness the amount of hate and fear
which has arisen against human beings such as myself, hate and fear
which is invoked in his name no less. This hate and fear rooted in
ignorance, the premise of legislation such as SJR 42. It is
interesting to find in this great state where individual freedom is
emphasized and regulation is resistant that such regulation should
be imposed upon people like myself. People whose only desire is to
be productive members of society to work and raise healthy families
and reap the benefits of Alaska. It is disheartening to note that
Alaska is willing to accept our contributions, but not willing to
acknowledge us as legitimate human beings. Thank you for your
time.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Dena and we have one more.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Actually, Mr. Chairman, we have two more
people. Jean Battig had a chance to come back (indisc.).
Number 0264
JEAN BATTIG: Hi, this is Dr. Battig speaking. Who is left with us
as far as legislators?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Right now we have just two in here. There will be
three more coming back, maybe five more coming back. I know three
are in committee meetings, and two are in a caucus.
DR. BATTIG: And who have we got with us?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: We have Porter and Green.
DR. BATTIG: Oh terrific. Well thank you very much. I didn't know
that was funny.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Well, it's pathetic actually. It's sad that you
feel that way.
DR. BATTIG: That I feel which way?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: That it's just a shame that there is just the two
of us.
DR. BATTIG: Well, actually I didn't mean ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Who else -- who is there?
DR. BATTIG: Just wanted to know who was with us.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Who is speaking?
DR. BATTIG: This is Dr. Battig. I was here earlier from 1:00
[p.m.] to 3:00 [p.m.].
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh, I see. Okay.
DR. BATTIG: And I had to leave to conduct some business.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, go ahead doctor.
DR. BATTIG: I wanted to thank you all, at least the two of you
that are left, for sitting through thise long arduous proceeding.
I can appreciate that it's not an easy (indisc.). This morning
when Senator Leman was talking, one of your representatives - they
asked him if he could come up with a compelling interest in the
courtroom against what the judge had decided. And in my thinking
about working it out he had responded, he seemed a very weak
response. To me, there's nothing more to fall back on than the
rhetoric about keeping the status quo. It's always - always the
way we've done it, we've done it this way for a 100 years. Well,
heck we might not have been doing it right for a 100 years. I
think that his wanting to take this to a public vote is -- the
reason he's doing it is because he doesn't have a compelling
interest. Now the interest that people have, especially for
SJR 42, is mainly moral and religious in flavor. And I think aside
from somebody's personal feelings and their moral convictions, they
have no right to decide what the constitutional rights of a
minority will be. This doesn't come down to who is right or wrong
- whether homosexuality is right or wrong, it comes down to who's
going to determine the rights of a minority individual. And to me,
it's wrong to allow a majority to decide what a minority is allowed
to do. Thank you, please vote no on SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Dr. Battig. The last person is ...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Geraldine Smith.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Geraldine, go ahead.
Number 0338
GERALDINE SMITH: Okay, I'm here with (indisc.) ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Can you speak up a little closer to the
microphone?
MS. SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: There, that's good.
MS. SMITH: Okay, got ya. Okay, I have friends that are
homosexual. I didn't even know it (indisc.) time at the time, and
I found them to be delightful people - most of them, and
compassionate as most other people I can think of. And just to see
what they have to go through and how they have to live their life
and the pain which, you know, just with me sitting here today
having to listen to this just really offends me. And I would like
to hope that this legislature would take a lot of that into
consideration. And hopefully, if you ever do have any homosexuals
in your household or amongst your relatives, that you will treat
them with compassion, also. Thank you and please vote no.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Geraldine. I think -- are there any
teleconference sites that still have some people that have not
spoken? Okay, we're back to Juneau and thank you very much for
this abbreviated list. Elaine Schroeder.
Number 0416
ELAINE SCHROEDER, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Yes, my name is Elaine
Schroeder and I'm a psychotherapist in private practice in Juneau,
Alaska. And during my over 20 years in clinical practice, and in
teaching at the University of Washington, I have worked with
hundreds and hundreds of heterosexual and homosexual families; one
of my clinical specialties is family and marital therapy. As a
matter of fact, during my doctoral program with the University of
Washington, I was peripheral in working on some research concerning
the impact of gay parents or gay parents compared to heterosexual
parents on the development of children. And also when I was there,
I worked with some specialists in human sexuality in the psychology
department, who were working with people at John Hopkins
[University] to uncover the basis of sexual orientation, not just
why people are homosexual, but why people are heterosexual. And
the empirical results from this research on sexual orientation seem
to agree on at least two things. First, that behavioral scientists
are not sure exactly what determines sexual orientation, either
heterosexual orientation or homosexual orientation. In other
words, a person can't simply choose a sexual orientation. One may
choose to be celibate as in the case of a Catholic priest, or
choose to be sexually active, but a gay man or a lesbian cannot
choose to be heterosexual in orientation any more than a
heterosexual can choose the reverse. My clinical experience here
in Juneau and in Seattle also seems to confirm the research on gay
parenting that children who are raised by single or couple gay or
lesbian parents develop normally, shall we say, or as well, they're
as well emotionally adjusted as children coming out of single or
couple heterosexual families. The reason I feel that this
amendment would be harmful to the emotional well-being of many
people, and by many people, not just the gay or lesbian couple, but
also their children and extended family, is because if an
individual -- if a couple is forbidden by law to sanctify their
marriage, forbidden to legalize their marriage, it makes for a less
stable family environment. And so, if gay or lesbians are allowed
to marry, that will be to the benefit of many, many people in the
wider society. It won't mean that more or less gay homosexual
people choose to pair-bond, but it will mean that the bonds that do
occur will have more stability, and the children that come from
those unions will be healthier. So I ask you to vote no to this
amendment.
Number 0576
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, I thought
I heard you say that your data did not establish and you do not
know what caused sexual orientation.
DR. SCHROEDER: Right. It's the nature/nurture debate. Is it
family background? Is it genetic?
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Right, but then you said ...
DR. SCHROEDER: Is it neurological?
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: ... but then you said that you can't choose
one or the other.
DR. SCHROEDER: A person who has a sexual orientation that is
heterosexual cannot willy-nilly, at the age of 15 or 25 or 50,
choose to be homosexual or vice versa.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: If the data doesn't establish whether it's
predestined or a choice, then how can you say ...
DR. SCHROEDER: Oh no, the data wasn't about choice, the data was
why some people identify in one particular sexual orientation or
another. It wasn't about whether or not people can make choices.
It was whether -- why people are straight - heterosexual, or gay -
lesbian, homosexual.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER: Did your study exclude choice for that
causation?
DR. SCHROEDER: It wasn't my study, but it was a study done at John
Hopkins, looking at the origin of sexual orientation. And that's
a good question. Though it's not my area of research, I would
conclude from the research I've read that most specialists in the
field - most any one I've read - say that it isn't a matter of
choice; one is or one isn't.
Number 0649
CHAIRMAN GREEN: It can be either, it can be either a physiological
thing that creates this, or it can be an early development. What
I'm getting at is that sometime back there was this brain scan that
showed the lobes. And then they said, "Well that was only on 50
people, it really wasn't conclusive." From your study or from the
studies that you've read, is it primarily a result of genetics or
is it a mix between some cases genetics, some cases because of the
early childhood development?
DR. SCHROEDER: The jury is out on that, and some people believe
that it - people become heterosexual for example, because they're
including heterosexuality as well as homosexuality. And John Money
(ph) is one of the primary researchers at John Hopkins. And there
may be a different track for different people. In other words,
just like people develop cancer. Some people may develop cancer
because they're genetically predisposed; some people may develop
cancer because of environmental toxins. Some people may be
heterosexual because of family environment or homosexual because of
family environment. So there may even be different reasons for
different people, rather than a blanket cause of sexual
orientation.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: I have one other question. I think you said, in
answer to Representative Porter's question, that you wouldn't
indiscriminately change at 15 or 25 or something like this, this is
an early on sight.
DR. SCHROEDER: No, no. Everyone -- that there may be different -
different experiences for different people. So that indeed, there
may be individuals who were - had a primary sexual orientation or
at least they felt that. It's very complex because I've worked
with -- I mean I've been a therapist for decades, so I've worked
with everything under the sun. And every one I know has a somewhat
different story, and ... a different life path. So it may be that
an individual felt they were primarily heterosexual until -- an
example was a client I had in Seattle, who was a 50-year-old widow
and who had been in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage her whole
life and had many, many children. And after widowhood, she fell in
love with Betty - and I'm changing the name of course - but she
fell in love with Betty. And I remember working with her because
she was totally distraught. She came from a religious background
that did not approve of this event in her life, but it was real to
her - very, very real. And so she came in questioning herself.
She said, "I'm in love with Betty. Does that mean I'm gay?" So
that was one person's experience. And so it's very, very complex
and it can be very different for different people. So what we all
try to do, like we like to put everything in little boxes - gay,
straight, bi - but the world doesn't work that way. And it doesn't
work that way cross-culturally either. I've lived in Asia for six
years, so I got to see a different - a different tilt on sexual
orientation there.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: One last question. The reason that I'm asking
these kinds of questions is I'm concerned that by adopting this as
an alternate lifestyle, are we promoting that there would be some
time in the development of our children, a tendency to not really
understand which way? Are they -- for example, if it's a male, he
doesn't feel that he can compete in the male world, he's just not
really sure yet because of the very difficult prepuberty and early
puberty development, you're really in kind of a la la land for
awhile. And that, as an acceptable alternate lifestyle, would we
have a tendency to maybe move more people into this realm or does
it make any difference?
DR. SCHROEDER: This is my hunch, clinically, that it would not
even be a thought for a teenager to know - to have any connection
between the legality of gay marriage and their own sexual quest.
But I do feel if we look at the bigger issue of discrimination
against gays and homosexuals, I do feel that if there is less
discrimination fewer homosexual teenagers will be depressed or
commit suicide. That I know for a fact that the more
discrimination, the more psychological distress.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Doctor.
DR. SCHROEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Nancy Simpson
NANCY SIMPSON, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST: Hello, my name is
Nancy Simpson. I'm a marriage and family therapist in Juneau.
I've had a practice here for about 12 years, and today I'd like to
just talk mainly about systems and what I know about them. I
mainly work with systems around families and couples, and in a
system we know that cooperation, and acceptance, open
communication, things like that are very important to make the
system work. That's what family therapy is based on now, is having
that cooperation, and that openness, and acceptance and respect.
We also know, through research, that there are other systems that
we live in every day. We live in a community that's a system, a
society that's a system and we live in a state that's a system.
These same things apply to other systems beside families.
Acceptance, cooperation, open communication, respect, all of these
are integral to healthy relationships, and this is also true of
systems. And as Alaskans, I believe that all our goal -- we could
say that everyone's goal is to have a healthy state and to have
healthy communities. And long term if we ... advocate
polarization, if we advocate discrimination, if we give -- if we
dredge up hatred by just bringing this more to the forefront, it
downplays all of the things around respect, acceptance, open
communication. And like I said, that's what makes systems work,
and so I'm here today to just state that and to ask you to please
vote no on this bill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Doctor. Amy Skilbred.
Number 0938
AMY SKILBRED: Hi, my name is Amy Skilbred and thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I'm here to urge you to
vote against SJR 42. I've been listening to the testimony and have
thought about it for quite some time, and there seems to be no
economic reasons, no social reasons, no civic reasons and no safety
reasons that have been put forward to justify this resolution. In
short, there seems to be no particularly overwhelming governmental
interest in passing this resolution. On my way here the first time
earlier today, I was dropping off my son at preschool and a parent
asked me why I was so dressed up and I said I was coming to
testify. And they said what are you testifying on? And I said on
the marriage bill. And after a little discussion they said, "Well
where are we going to draw the line on government interfering on
our private lives?" And I believe that this is where Alaskans must
draw the line. Some people have suggested that without this
amendment to the constitution my marriage will be diminished.
Since our marriage, my husband and I have lived in Juneau. We have
two children that we're raising here. And it's hard for me to see
how the standards of the Alaska Constitution, that they've set
forward for protecting privacy rights, has had or will have any
affect on our marriage. Alaskans have lived with the privacy
clause of the Alaska Constitution for several years now, and I
don't believe any of our marriages have the been worse off pr
suffered because of the constitution as it's written. My son's
preschool has a favorite song and it's called "Heron (ph) Bay" and
it means pulling together, and the refrain for this song is, "We
are all pulling together." At a time when Alaskans need to be
pulling together to focus on some very difficult issues that are
facing us including education, health care and subsistence, we
should not move forward a resolution that's purpose is to split
Alaskans against each other based on religious reasons. This
committee must be prudent and provide the leadership and put this
resolution aside so we can all pull together and focus on these
other issues together. Let the courts rule rather than having a
bitter or divisive ballot issue go forward on this. This is a
representative democracy and just as I've sat here I've heard a lot
of people state how the majority shouldn't vote on the rights of
the minority, and others have said we should let everyone vote and
decide how we're going to move forward. But we are a
representative democracy and the reason that we are, in part, is to
protect us from the tyranny of the majority. I believe we should
not have a popular vote on the civil rights of a minority of our
population and I urge you all to vote against this bill. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Shelly Owens.
Number 1148
SHELLEY OWENS: Chairman Green, Representative James and Porter, I
thank you for the opportunity to give a little testimony today, I
know it's been a long day and I appreciate that you've put in extra
time for us. I submitted a letter on March 20, in which I laid out
some thoughts and I don't think that there is anything that I can
add today to what I wrote and what has been said. And I just urge
you to vote against the resolution. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. We'll go to Dillingham. We
have but one person there. Which one is that of the four that are
listed? Dillingham?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Dillingham's here.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: I understand one person there to testify.
Number 1188
KATHRYN SCHUBECK: Yes, my name is Kathryn Schubeck and I live in
Dillingham, Alaska.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, go ahead Kathryn.
MS. SCHUBECK: Please do not contribute to the efforts of some to
polarize the Alaskan electorate with SJR 42. It will hurt so many
people if this bill is allowed to be used by those who demonize
gays and lesbians. SJR 42 is hurtful. Please oppose it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Kathryn. We have some more
people in Anchorage now. Karen Konopacki, I'm sure I messed that
one up.
Number 1229
KAREN KONOPACKI: My name is Karen Konopacki. I wish I could
testify from a legal standpoint, but the only expertise I have is
from my art, so hopefully you folks down in Juneau will let me
(indisc.). Why should you vote no on Senate Joint Resolution 42?
Because you really don't know me, you really don't know me, and
until you spend some time getting to know me, you're really not
able to judge who I am or what I'm entitled to. So maybe if you
just look for a moment - maybe if you walk in my shoes for a
moment, you'll get to know me a little. You might stop pretending
I'm not here, might stop trying to make me go away because I'm not
going away. So who am I? I grew up as the oldest girl in a family
of five children, raised and treated no differently than my
siblings as my parents will (indisc.). Growing up with 12 years of
Catholic education, (indisc.) and encouraged that some day I would
marry a man and raise a family. But that day never came, it just
wasn't me. So you see it really can happen to anyone, it may even
happen in your family. But who am I? I'm many things. I'm the
gal next door, your neighbor, the one who shovels your sidewalk,
tips the newspaper carrier, buys your daughter's Girl Scout
cookies. I'm the one who has a good job, pays her bills and gives
to charity. If you need help, I'm the one who will stop and give
you a hand. I'm really no more special than anyone else. So
really, I'm not asking for anything more special than anyone else,
just to be treated fairly and with respect because I am sincere and
my love is sincere. And just because my love is for a woman
doesn't mean I should go away, nor does it mean I'm less of a
person. So if you really knew me, if you really open your heart to
get to know people like me, you'd understand that voting no is the
only thing to do because it's the fair thing to do. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Karen, thank you very much. Cynthia Dodge.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to leave.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, Connie Faipeas.
CONNIE FAIPEAS: My name is Connie Faipeas. We live in a country
based on separation of church and state, and freedom from religious
persecution. Now a group of people want to base state law on
Biblical passage. In some countries where religious
fundamentalists run the government, women can be stoned to death
for not covering their heads. Do you want to hand our government
over to religious fundamentalists? Do you want one group to
control the lives of others? Don't let this start here. If a
person's guiding principles are determined by the Bible and the
Bible tells them that loving someone of the same sex is wrong, then
that applies only to them, not anyone else. It would be wrong for
them to love someone of the same sex. But what do their personal
guiding beliefs have to do with anyone else? If I were allowed to
serve in the military, I would defend to the death their right to
their religious beliefs, but not their right to force others to
live by their beliefs. Please don't allow this divisive issue to
tear our state apart. This measure is bad law, you know that. The
state of Alaska can not sanctify a relationship. This is done by
the religious institution of your choice. The state of Alaska's
job is to apply licensing standard impartially. This license will
allow me to make medical decisions for my partner if she's hurt,
allow us to file taxes jointly and share retirement accounts and
other such things. I find it impossible to believe that God is
concerned with hospital consent forms and the IRS tax codes. This
law, or any other law, cannot make me stop loving my partner. That
already exists, it is real, our relationship and our love for each
other will not go away because some people want it to. Please vote
no.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Connie, thank you very much. Sharon Rudolph.
Number 1460
SHARON RUDOLPH: Yeah, hi. I'm speaking as a resident of the
United States, the state of Alaska and the city of Anchorage. I am
an outstanding citizen and meaningful contributor to the community
of Anchorage. Most of my colleagues that are heterosexual might be
quite surprised that I am not. So you see they have determined
that I am a quality human-being (indisc.) morality without
addressing sexuality. Most people don't dwell on a colleague's
sexuality. My family of origin knows how much I have been able to
contribute on a (indisc.)society, despite the fact that I've
experienced a constant bombardment for 25 long years about how
unproductive I am because I am not heterosexual. Give me a break,
it's really not about that. While the bombardment is (indisc.) by
(indisc.) entitled to opinion and his lifestyle. It is time to get
beyond (indisc.). It is not right for the majority or someone with
particular religious convictions to force their viewpoint on me or
anyone else. It's not someone's responsibility to judge equality
or happiness, or productiveness of my life. Let our God speak just
that. Please vote no on SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Sharon, thank you. Dan Carter.
Number 1537
DAN CARTER: My name is Dan Carter and I'm a long-time resident of
Anchorage, moving here 22 years ago with an (indisc.) job. I'm a
Christian, I serve on the board of my church and also serve with my
church treasurer. I'm concerned about my community and fate. I
serve on several boards and community organizations. I work hard
and pay my taxes and I'm also gay. To some of you (indisc.)
colleagues that last statement negates all the others. Ask
yourself why. My partner and I moved to Alaska 22 years ago, and
on March 21st of this year we celebrated our 29th anniversary
together. We keep hearing that things like marriage will somehow
destroy marriage. I continue to ask this question to anyone and
everyone, so now I ask this committee, "How does my 29-year
relationship with my partner specifically affect your relationship
with your spouse?" It seems like a simple question to me but so
far no one has given me a direct answer. They talk about cultural
(indisc.), and traditional marriages and family values ad nauseam,
but when it comes to the value of my family these same people are
ready to keep (indisc.) on my partner and I even though they don't
even know us. For those of you who favor putting this measure on
the ballot, stop and think what the campaign will be like. Even
the testimonies during the Senate hearings should have given you a
taste for things to come. (Indisc.) do they bring Alaskans
together, or is the true intention of SJR 42 is to create a
divisive campaign in order to garner a few more votes in the
November election. If you have any doubt of the rhetoric you will
unleash by putting this on the ballot, since we remember the
comment made by Senate Jerry Ward during the Senate debate
preparing us to go to hell. And if that's not enough, read page B2
of the Sunday edition of the Anchorage Daily News. In a debate
between the Republican candidates for governor, Senator Robin
Taylor said, "None of us are going to denigrate marriage to that
level." And Wayne Anthony Ross refers to his relationship of 30
years with his wife by saying, "To have some judge tell me and tell
you that a homosexual relationship rises to the same standard as I
have with this woman is outrageous." I don't personally know Wayne
Anthony Ross or his wife. They may have a great marriage or they
may have a terrible marriage. However, Wayne Anthony Ross also
doesn't know my partner and I. For him to diminish our 29-year
relationship in order to bolster his election chances is nothing
more than gay-dubbing and gay-bashing. The problem with those of
you that support this statement is that the state (indisc.) doesn't
care what kind of relationship Wayne Anthony Ross or Robin Taylor
or Jerry Ward have with their spouses. Marriage licenses are
granted every day for people who, in some cases, probably don't
have any feeling for each other at all. Why is that considered
good for the state while denying that same right to an entire group
of people based on outdated serious hype and outright bigotry.
Thank you, I would appreciate your vote against SJR 42.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Dan, thank you very much. And that brings us to
Elliott Dennis.
Number 1740
ELLIOTT DENNIS: My name is Elliott Dennis. Thank you for letting
me testify here. I am the father of two daughters; one of whom is
gay and the other who is straight. And this bill, if it is ...
passed will end up causing my daughters to be created unequally.
That's inherently wrong. My daughters are both fine citizens and
no two siblings should be treated differently. I'm also a long
time Alaskan. I've lived in this state since I was nine years old.
I've always been proud of the fact that the Alaska Constitution
guarantees us the right, a greater right than the United States
Constitution guarantees the citizens of the United States. And I
believe that it is terrible public policy for any rights to be
removed from citizens of this state. And I do not believe that the
legislature should be leading the charge to limit the rights of the
citizens. I also believe that this is a very basic civil rights
issue. If you look back in the 1960s and the civil rights
movement, there were lots and lots of prejudices, well established
were (indisc.) society against black people at that time. There
has been a movement -- well there was laws passed, people died,
marches were held, and we now live in a society which not free of
discrimination - certainly recognizes that discrimination based
upon color is inappropriate. We are in another civil rights
movement - the gay/lesbian civil rights movement. These folks are
coming out of the woodwork. They are our neighbors; they are our
friends; they are our family and there is no reason for the
straight members of our society to be discriminating against these
people who are good decent people. They pay their taxes; they
work; they take care of their yards; they're our neighbors. And
too frequently, we suffer from homophobia because we don't know
these people. I speak from the heart. I had to deal with my
homophobia. We live in a society where it's random, but after you
know people that -- it's very hard to dislike them because -- or to
treat a homosexual person any different than a heterosexual person.
They are people and we should not be amending our constitution to
legalize discrimination against one group in our society by a
majority vote. Thank you, please vote no against this.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Elliott. That brings us back to Juneau
and Fabienne - no, Fabienne Peter-Contesse.
Number 1951
FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE: Not bad. I'm Fabienne Peter-Contesse.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, excuse me.
MS. PETER-CONTESSE: Thanks for staying all day, I know it's been
a long day and there is more to come. I'm not going to take up too
much time because most of the arguments that people have brought
forth against SJR 42 I agree with. The biggest argument that I
have against it is I'm afraid for myself, I'm afraid for my
partner, I am afraid for our house, I'm afraid for my friends and
family here in Juneau. I'm afraid for people in this state that I
don't even know. Putting this constitutional amendment -- passing
this constitution amendment and putting it to the vote of the
people will tear this state apart. We've seen it in Oregon. The
violence and hatred that was generated when Proposition 9 came
before the vote of the people. It will happen here, and I don't
want to see that happen to our state. I don't want to see that
happen to me. I don't want it to happen to your friends and family
because you have gays and lesbians in your friends and family and
co-workers, they're there. So I urge you to vote no. Do the right
thing, let the courts decide, that's what they're there for. And
thanks again.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Fabienne, what was Proposition 9? Was that
similar to this? Was it a constitutional change or ...?
MS. PETER-CONTESSE: Proposition 9, and I don't know the whole
details of it, but it was a law passing - a law stating that you
could discriminate against gays and lesbians ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: In the workplace or ....?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was a constitutional amendment declaring
homosexuality as abnormal and perverse in Oregon 1992.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was legal to discriminate on any basis.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Did that pass?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It did not.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Karen Woods.
Number 2122
KAREN WOOD: Hi, my name is Karen Wood. Thanks for allowing me to
testify today. During this legislative session, I've listened with
great frustration and sadness to the attempts to pass SJR 42, the
bill banning same-sex marriages in the state of Alaska. During
these last few months, I've also been wondering how many of
Juneau's citizens recall what happened in the state of Oregon
during the 1992 election year. Does ballot measure 9 ring any
bells? If not, ballot measure 9 was a bill to amend the Oregon
State Constitution declaring homosexuality abnormal and perverse.
I vividly recall that year. I remember watching and hearing about
heated debates between those who oppose special rights for one
group of people and those who felt that ballot measure 9 was an
oppressive, discriminatory and hateful piece of legislation. I
remember hearing about the 100 percent rise in hate crimes during
and after the campaign, not only against gay and lesbian people but
against people of color, religious minorities and women. I
remember the story of the Catholic church that was vandalized.
Large swastikas spray painted throughout the interior and around
the exterior of the building. Beautiful stained glass windows
smashed and the words, "No spics (ph), Jews or gays. We hate
Catholics and gays, yes on 9, no on special right, kill Catholics
and gays and ironically yes on family values," covering the walls
of that holy sanctuary. I recall crying when I heard the news
about the two roommates, and African-American lesbian and a young
gay man who were burned to death when their apartment was fire
bombed by racist skinheads who supported ballot measure 9. I also
remember the story of the young gay man who was beaten to death by
a group of teenagers after leaving a night club. These were only
a few of the acts of intimidation and terrorization that occurred
in Oregon during 1992. Imagine this kind of violence taking place
in our state and even in our own community. It seems so unlikely,
so horrifying. I can assure you that if SJR 42 goes to the ballot
this fall, we will see similar incidences of violence and hate
crimes take place in Alaska. Each city and state in our nation
that has experienced this sort of discriminatory legislation has
seen violence increase. Not only will gay and lesbian Alaskans be
at risk of being victimized by hate crimes, all minority groups
will be at risk. Putting this kind of bigotry and hatred on the
ballot only gives permission for those with the most anger and
hatred toward any oppressed group to act out that anger and hatred
in the form of violence. When some of our elected leaders propose
legislation that simply feels bigotry, how can we expect anything
positive to result from it? I encourage all of Juneau's citizens
to think about what this might mean for our community and our state
as a whole. Do we want to see this divisive bill on the ballot?
I encourage all members of the House of Representatives to think
about this when it's time to vote on SJR 42. Additionally, I
encourage all Juneau residents to consider the impact that this
could have on each of you, and each of your friends and family
members should this bill be passed. We must remember the famous
works of Emma Goldwin who said, "The most violent element in
society is ignorance." Finally, for those of you who truly believe
that allowing same-sex partners to marry is a special right, please
consider this: When you haven't had the right to be there in the
first place, how can opening the door be a special right? Let us
be a model for the rest of the country and show how we Alaskans can
work to unite our state and its citizens rather than divide it.
Please vote no on SJR 42. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Karen. Sandy Hargis.
Number 2436
SUSAN HARGIS: I am Susan Hargis ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Susie?
MS. HARGIS: Susan. And again, I'd like to say thanks for staying
here all day. I know this is quite a tedious process, but I
appreciate it. I'm opposed to SJR 42. I urge you to let this bill
die in committee. I'm an Alaskan resident and I oppose this bill
for several reasons. First, I believe the bill is unnecessary.
It's currently before the courts in Alaska and I believe that
that's the proper ...
TAPE 98-74, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. HARGIS: ... to cross country, everybody has talked about that
already. And I could tell you that here in Juneau, I've had the
opportunity to staff the phone line for the Southeast Alaska gay
and lesbian lines for a couple of years now. We do receive a
significant number of hate calls and threats. They're really
scary. I tell you when I listen to one, I don't want to answer the
phone line for another month because I'm so shaken up. I don't
consider myself a victim; I consider myself a proud, wonderful
member of society. But those kinds of things shake me up - when I
hear somebody say he wants to go take a blow torch and a pair of
pliers and go out and find some fags. That's not fun to listen to
and that's scary, and that's Alaska. That isn't Oregon and it's
not other states, that's right here. And so I could tell you that
that is a possibility here and anyway -- and one other thing that
I want to relay about that, is that this winter we had a gay youth
from the high school who was chased up and down the streets by some
other kids from the high school, all the time screaming and keeping
this kid from getting out and getting away from them. And I can
imagine how terrifying that experience was for that kid, and I just
wanted to pass that along. The third and most important reason
that I oppose the bill is that I believe that passage of the bill
is the wrong thing to do. I believe that you, as legislators, bear
the responsibility to support the rights of all Alaskans. And I
don't think that you have to agree with same-sex marriage or even
support homosexuality to do that. I think that that's not part of
the issue, but that what it is, is as legislators, to support the
rights of Alaskans to make their own choices. I don't believe it's
an issue for a popularity vote. Putting the bill on the ballot and
even possible passage by a general vote will not make families go
away. We are American families, we absolutely are. What it will
do is continue to foster the misconception that somehow gays and
lesbians are responsible for the decline of American society,
rather than recognizing and giving all stable, long-term
relationship the dignity that they deserve, this bill seeks to
pretend that those relationships don't exist, or if we legislate it
then they won't. Somehow is just doesn't resonant as true to me
that individuals in long-term relationships will threaten
traditional marriages. I -- one point that I just want to make is
that I hear fear as the reason to deny same-sex marriages, and I
think society is changing. And I think every one of us is afraid.
You know, all of us are afraid. Society is changing, we don't know
where it's going to go. But the question is, "Do we pass laws out
of that fear?", or do we say, "Okay, let's wait and see where it
goes and proceed down the path of changing society together?" So
that's kind of the baseline. I urge you to exercise your
individual freedom as legislators to vote your conscience on this
bill. It's absolutely not what either political party is about.
Let Alaskans live their lives and let this bill die. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Susan, thank you. Mary Hicks.
MARY HICKS: This is a long day. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Well it's an issue that needs some debate.
Number 0230
MS. HICKS: My name is Mary Hicks, for the record. I've been a
professor and a mother. I am the daughter - fourth daughter of a
Presbyterian minister, and I'm also the proud partner of an
attorney that you counsel with daily. And I'm just here to tell
you that I think it's an abomination, not only because I'm a logic
professor and a writing professor, but because I am this marvelous
woman's partner for five years now, it's a great union, and it
would be a great marriage if I were allowed and if she were
allowed. And I find it so ridiculous that she confronts you daily
without even the law for her to join in with. She is entitled to
marriage just as you are entitled to her answers that you beseech
daily. I wish she could have been with me in the hospital when I
went in for my heart screen, it was very frightening, just as
frightening as this is. But she wasn't allowed in because I merely
said, "Yes, she's family, she's my partner." Well they didn't
hear, "...my partner," but when she reached down and kissed me as
they were racing me to my operation, I heard the doctor and nurse
in the hallway say, "Pardon me, I didn't understand, please wait
for her right here." And they said to me later that they
apologized for not allowing her in the presurgical room, but they
just didn't realize who she was to me. And I don't think you
realize who she is to me either. I was asked when I came into this
room to wear this on my lapel, but I'd like to stand here and ask
you to wear it on yours. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Mary. Aimee ...
AIMEE OLEJASZ: I think that's me.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, thank you. Yes, well it's -- I may not have
it. How is spelled?
MS. OLEJASZ: Olejasz, it's O-l-e-j-a-s-z.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: That's the way it's spelled, okay, Olejasz, okay
thank you.
MS. OLEJASZ: You can thank my father for that one. I'm here to
express my concern for SJR 42. I feel that this bill is
unconstitutional. The arguments for this range ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Take your time.
Number 0410
MS. OLEJASZ: The arguments range from the destruction of marriage
to confusion of our youth to religion. As I see it, allowing gays
and lesbians their constitutional right to choose a partner and to
make a life-long commitment to each other will only enhance the
family. Sorry, I'm allergic to that. I thought it was water.
Marriage between two adult people who love and care about each
other will only set an example for others to follow. This bond can
be between a man and a woman, a man and another man, or between two
women. Unfortunately, in today's society a lot of couples do not
consider marriage as a life-long commitment. I personally know of
several marriages which were given God's blessing through a church,
that have ended too quickly or are filled with violence and abuse.
It is sad for me to look at these marriages knowing that society
approves of this union only because it is between a man and a
woman. The decay of marriage is already happening and it will
continue to occur with or without gay and lesbian marriages.
However, I know that my commitment to my partner of eight years and
counting, will help turn the tides in creating a staple, concrete
build up of the reconstruction of marriage. Some of my
heterosexual friends have looked toward our relationship with my
partner as a role model, making the statement, "Your relationship
is the most normal I've ever seen in any marriage," or "God, I wish
my husband and I communicated as well as you two." As for
confusing our youth, well our youth can be pretty intuitive. Gay
and lesbian youth know that there is something different about them
because it is inside, it is within them, it is not a choice. They
may not know what or be able to find it in words right away, but
eventually they will realize who they are. At this point, they
will either try to hide it or they will follow their heart.
Unfortunately, the church will refer to them as sinners and evil.
I know this because it has happened to me. Those gays and lesbians
who are devout Catholics and Christians may either abandoned their
faith in order to survive - which I feel is a shame being a
Catholic - or they may commit suicide because they can't deal with
it. It's no wonder that the suicide rate is highest among gays and
lesbian teenagers. The churches need to reach out and love thy
neighbor, thy sisters and thy brothers, not push us away. We are
not going to go away. Please do not support SJR 42. It is
unconstitutional. Thank you for your time, I know it is valuable.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Aimee. We have one more
person in Anchorage, Kevin Sampson.
Number 0685
KEVIN SAMPSON: My name is Kevin Sampson and I am against SJR 42.
I've come to you here today as an Alaskan, born and raised, as a
veteran with eight years of honorable military service, as a
taxpayer and property owner in Anchorage, a voter and a gay man
with AIDS. (Indisc.) my feelings because of what society would
think, but I came out as a gay man in 1981. I was determined to
live my life honestly and freely, come what may, as I perserved my
own personal happiness. What came after many years was a love for
a man who loved me back equally. My life included candelight
dinners, eating out, dancing at the country bar, hiking, camping
and roller-blading together and some of the happiest Christmases of
my life, perhaps not much different from your own. After sometime,
(indisc.) fighting illness, requiring (indisc.) treatment over a
lengthy period each night. My life partner was an I.V.
[intravenous] nurse. Each night for those weeks, I would come home
from work early, we would begin an I.V., cook dinner, we would
watch a video together, and then would do the dishes, unhook the
I.V., we would go out two-stepping. We both found it quite
romantic under the circumstances. Eventually, the tables turned
and I became his nurse. He was hooked up to I.V.s for eight hours
at a time, merely for sustenance as his body failed him. In the
end, I had to carry him to his car and the bathroom. He died
December 12, 1993. Some day his ashes will be mixed with mine and
scattered in the mountains of Alaska. I'm left with some wonderful
memories and the certainty that we loved each other for better or
worse, in sickness and in health, until death did us part. And in
the age of the AIDS the state should do all it can to encourage
monogamous relationships, even though heterosexual statistics
relating to marriage and fidelity are hardly encouraging. It is
hypocritical to condemn homosexual promiscuity and then deny them
one legally recognized relationship. The constitution promises me
freedom from the (indisc.) [The following sentence was
indiscernible]. The fact that I'm not a Christian does not mean
that I am not a good citizen, nor I am not entitled to benefits
afforded to all Americans. Nor is the fact that you may be a
Christian entitle you to forego your sworn oath to protect and
defend the constitution for all citizens. Traditionally, we have
made gay people suffer by taking away their housing, taking away
their jobs, taking away their children, taking away their dignity
and sometimes taking away their life. Today's legislation aims to
take their right and freedom as well. Those who vote for this
legislation are on the wrong side of history.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Kevin, thank you for that very poignant testimony.
Larry Woodard back here in Juneau.
Number 0860
LARRY WOODARD: I'd like to thank you for the fair and just
treatment in the course of this legislative investigation of
SJR 42. I realize that this legislature has already wasted much
time and expense pushing this issue in the wrong direction. This
issue arose a few months ago when Judge Peter Michalski ruled that
SB 308 was unconstitutional and asked the state to provide a
compelling interest for the law. Now if Senator Loren Leman is
correct that gay marriages will inevitably devastate our society
then there much be hundreds of proven compelling reasons for
denying gay and lesbians the right to marry. Just give one of
these reasons to the judge and it's all over. Then the state will
have fulfilled the legal requirement for the statute to become law.
If the state cannot come up with a valid compelling interest, then
there is no reason to be messing with our constitution. The Senate
Republicans sure thought they had some good reasons during their
floor debate, but apparently they were afraid to submit their
reasons to the constitutionality test by the Alaska courts. They
would rather leave the decision to the voters who can be influenced
by their homophobic rhetoric. Ironically, this ballot amendment
will most likely also be declared unconstitutional and thrown out
by the courts. Marriage is a civil right that cannot be determined
by popular vote; it is a fundamental right to family and
fulfillment that must be available to all members of our society
equally. How would you feel if your marriage was on next fall's
ballot? Please let the courts complete their work on this issue
and do not allow constitutional amendments without reason. I urge
you to allow this resolution to remain in committee. And kind of
off of my text for tonight, I know that earlier there seemed to be
a lot of concern about whether homosexuality was a choice or not,
and I can assure you it is not a choice, but even if it was a
choice, it should be my choice, not your dictation as to how I
should live. And I hope that you will protect the freedoms that's
guaranteed to Alaskans in the constitution, and allow us to have
our own choices in our lives rather than have the legislature
dictate how we should live and what is legal in our lives that does
not affect other persons of society. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Larry. Gina Collins.
Number 1020
GINA COLLINS: Very quickly, thank you very much for your patience
today. It's been a very long day. I just wanted to say I'm
opposed to SJR 42, and I really believe the courts should go ahead
and figure it all out. If after they decide and you want to bring
it back up to the people, then that's the proper course and that's
the check and balances of our democracy. And again, thanks for
your time.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Gina. Kim Poole.
Number 1056
KIM POOLE, PASTOR, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: Again, thank you for
staying with us for such a long day. My name is Kim Poole and I'm
a United Methodist pastor, I am a minister in charge of one of the
congregations here in town. I have every reason probably to speak
in favor of this. I'm from Texas, born and raised with rednecks,
grew up ten miles away from the final assembling point of the
nuclear warheads in (indisc.), but I was also brought up that it
is wrong to discriminate against people. The church that I serve
is not a blocked mind. The denomination I'm ordained in is not a
blocked mind on this issue. But we are of one mind on the point
that we should not discriminate against any group of people. I
truly think from the way I was brought up that discrimination is
based on fear. Growing up near Pantex (ph) I remember the
blackouts when we had to dim all our lights because we were afraid
during the Cuban missile crises. I was taught to fear Castro; I
was taught to fear the Cubans. I knew how to duck under my desk to
protect myself from nuclear holocaust, as if we thought that would
help. When that situation was resolved, I was taught to fear a new
people - the communists. As a pastor and minister, I've watched
the Berlin Wall come down; I've watched the formation of the
commonwealth of independence states. We lost that group of people
that I was taught as a child and as a teenager to fear and to hate.
And from the pulpits across the United States, we didn't have
anyone to rail against any longer because we're not afraid of the
communists, they have fallen. As soon as that demise began to
occur, the people needed a new group of people to fear, and the
group that was chosen was the group that is homosexual, (indisc.--
coughing) gender. It was almost as if they were next on the list.
My question is if this is allowed to go to popular vote, and the
people vote it in, because the state is not of one mind either, and
I think you'll find that we are really very varied in this state
about what we believe on this. Let's say it passes, what's the
next group that we're going to fear? Will we go back and fear
another ethnic group? I really would like to see the day come when
we live in a world without fear, when we don't pass laws because
we're afraid we might get something from someone, this is not
catching. I don't care where you think the orientation comes from,
you don't get it from touching one another, you don't get it
necessarily from being around people. I long for a fear-free
world. I think passing this will just keep perpetuating the theory
that as long as we have someone to be afraid of and as long as we
can regulate someone, we'll always be one up. We should be one
equal, rather than one up. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Kim. Elizabeth Andrews.
Number 1233
ELIZABETH ANDREWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, I
appreciate this opportunity to be here. I am opposed to SJR 42,
and I urge you to also oppose it. I don't think we have any
business messing around with the privacy of people's lives, and
especially about a serious decision that people might want to make
regarding marriage, and it's an individual decision and a private
one. And I urge you to vote no on that. I'm a resident of Juneau,
registered to vote. And I think you've heard some tremendous
testimony here today, so I won't repeat it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much. Angela Mu oz.
ANGELA MU OZ: Thank you for having us here. My name is Angela
Mu oz. When I was very young my mom told me, "You are a girl.
Some people think we're weak and incapable, but don't be afraid to
believe strongly enough in yourself and your abilities, you will
have the opportunity to succeed." A little later my dad told me,
"You are Mexican-American. Some people think you are dumb and
lazy, but don't take it to heart. You could take pride in who you
are and work hard. Your uniqueness will be recognized and valued."
I am also a lesbian and I don't need to be told that some people
think I'm incestuous and inhuman. SJR 42 will officially authorize
these ignorant beliefs and legalize discrimination against
society's present target - gays and lesbians. Even if you think
that's what we deserve, you should still be concerned about this
proposed constitutional amendment. It is setting precedence and
opening the door for future legislation based on fear and short-
sidedness. Will marriage be denied senior citizens, differently
able persons, carriers of congenital disease, sterile couples or
even Mexican-American women next? With this document you are
saying that some have more civil rights than others, then there are
no civil rights and that is the bottom line. It cannot be veiled
by scare tactics ... and so called moral rhetoric. What is it that
I have to do to show you that I can and have contributed to this
community, that I am no less human than you? SJR 42 says there is
nothing I can do. What do you say? Please vote no on SJR 42.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Angela, thank you. I had made a statement earlier
to Susan that we would give you some additional time, that you said
-- Susan Clark.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Liz Dodd.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think there may still be a couple of
people who signed up earlier. Is that right?
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Oh.
MELISSA HOWELL: I was on the list, but I ...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Left and came back, okay what is your name?
MS. HOWELL: Melissa Howell.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Howell, H-o-w...
MS. HOWELL: e-l-l.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay.
Number 1403
MS. HOWELL: Okay, well I was here when the proposed amendment was
first talked about today and I heard the gentleman say that the
purpose was to defend the institution of marriage and protect the
status quo. And it just really struck me because when I think
about the status quo I think about a society that used to burn
women at the stake and the society that condoned slavery and a
society that not too many years ago had separate water fountains
for people and I just think that ... it's not a very good reason to
... propose an amendment because it's what the status quo wants
because so frequently we look back at the status quo and it's not
just, and it's not fair, and it's not equitable. And I feel really
passionately about this issue because I am a lesbian and I grew up
with a father that was a minister and I was a model child, and I
went to college and I found out that I was gay. And so my father
has never let me bring a partner home and it's all in the name of
religion. And now I've come to Alaska and I've lived here for
several years and I found a church where I'm accepted because I'm
a person and because God loves me. And I feel like I deserve to be
treated equally and I think all people deserve to be treated
equally and that's why I'm proud to live in this country and in
this state. I had hoped that Alaska would be different. I don't
think that allowing gay people to have a long-term monogamous
relationship is going to threaten heterosexual marriage in any way.
And I just strongly urge you not to allow this amendment to go to
popular vote. I guess that's all, thanks.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you. Is there anyone else who has signed up
that has not testified. We've kind of shortened the list and there
may have been a missed name. Okay, Susan.
Number 1540
LIZ DODD: Thank you for allowing me a few closing remarks, but
I'll warn you Johnny Cochran I'm not. I've never have been to law
school or anything like that. You know I -- and I do have a couple
of things that I think are important from the civil liberties
standpoint to say, but, you know, I always have to talk on civil
liberties issues when I testify and I rarely get a chance to talk
from my personal perspective and if you indulge me for just a
moment, I'd like to just say a couple of things about my own life.
I got married when I was 19 years old. I was born and raised here
in Juneau, went to Juneau-Douglas High. And when I was 19, I had
this young man who was my - kind of like my best friend and - well,
candidly he was my drinking buddy. And we spent some time
together, moved into a trailer together out there at Sprucewood and
one day decided we were kind of broke and we needed to have a
party, and what would be a good way to do that. Well, we were kind
of thinking we might get married, but let's do it, let's get
married and we can have a party and everybody will bring beer over
to our house because it'll be a wedding and, you know, that always
means a party. And so we were both working for the state at the
time and we took our lunch hours off and came up here to this very
building where we had made an appointment with -- it was either
Judge Shult or Judge Stewart, and he married us on our lunch hours,
and we went back to work, and that night we had a party. Mission
accomplished. And it was funny because as soon as we became man
and wife, just as someone - Caren, I think pointed out in her
testimony, all of sudden we got all these benefits. He got his GI
benefit - his GI bill benefits were increased. You know, all of a
sudden we found that we got deals from local merchants. I mean
there were all these things and we just kind of -- I mean we didn't
take the whole thing very seriously. But nevertheless, the state
took it seriously and it turned out to be a pretty good deal for
us. Unfortunately, the marriage did not last very long as anyone
could have anticipated - a year or two, I can't remember. But many
years have gone by and a lot of changes have happened in my growing
up as have happened in all of our growing up. And about seven
years ago, I entered into a relationship with another woman. This
is a serious relationship. We knew each other for a long time
before we decided to -- well not a real long time, but a reasonable
length of time. There was no alcohol involved. We found that we
had common intellectual interests, that we had common interest in
loving to watch basketball on television. We had many interests
and it made complete sense for us to join up, and as well as
physical attraction. And we bought a house together and we've been
living there here in Juneau for, you know, like about six years now
I think we've owned the house. And my mother and everyone in my
family realizes this is the best relationship I have ever been in.
Everybody thinks it's a perfect match, I think it's a perfect
match. It's fairly free of turbulence and a serious relationship.
I fully expect us to sit in our little lawn chairs together until
we are very old, I hope. And this relationship gets no recognition
from society. There is no benefit to us. In fact, in certain -
many circumstances we have to hide it. Not only that but, you
know, I'm not working right now because I got this chronic
volunteeritis problem. And I write a check every month for $230.00
for my health benefits when my partner works in a job where all of
her similarly situation coworkers, who are married to men, get that
benefit provided. And so it's just -- you know, just to explain to
you from a subjective standpoint just how kind of silly this all
is, when you live on this side of it, inside of it. So that's my
personal tale. Chairman Green, I really -- and particularly you
Representative Porter, because the two of you have sat here all day
and listened to person after person. I thank you as well,
Representative James and Representative Bunde. Because as I was
trying to say earlier under my time limit, this really is a central
issue to the lives of Alaskans as I think the legislature will deal
with, and not for the reason that Senator Leman said because he
said because marriage -- what did he say, he said, "Marriage
defines who we are as a people." That's what Senator Leman said
this morning. Well, I think the constitution and the laws of our
state define who we are as a people. And the reason it's so
important to have this full hearing is because this proposed
constitutional amendment is a true litmus test of who we are as a
people, and who we are as Alaskans. Are we going to enter into a
new era where our constitution - where the words in our
constitution say, "Article I is no longer talking about inherent
rights that everyone has." We're going to ... make a limited
section in Article I and say that some people don't have rights,
some people don't have an equal - a right to equal protection under
our laws, the laws that pertain to marital rights. Are we going to
enter into a new era where our constitution protects only the
rights of those who conform to certain moral or religious beliefs
or whose lives fit neatly into some particular mold that we call or
that we might think of today as normal? I think there could be
nothing more un-Alaskan than that. You know -- I mean I understand
the idea of same-sex marriage today, as we sit here, is it's a hard
pill to swallow, I mean -- and it's a big deal if this passes -- if
this is upheld in the courts, defeated here in the legislature and
eventually many years down the road upheld by the courts, it's
going to be a little bit of a shakeup in our society. Although I
think knowing that that court process is going to be long and
protracted, but it'll be less of shakeup than it'll be today
because, boy, things are changing fast. Look at all the people, 75
people came out today, many of whom are gay people who didn't dare
poke their heads up for fear of getting them shot off as recently
as five or ten years ago. So, I mean things are changing and by
the time this makes its way through the courts, this will be a very
different world. I really believe that. And -- but as far as this
hard pill to swallow goes, I mean I really believe -- because I
believe this is the way history works and that it has to be because
what we're talking about is very basic in justice and fairness to
a group of people who will eventually rise, as all people do, to
try and be treated fairly. That's such a wonderful human impulse.
And our constitution, both federal and the state, predicts it in
people. It predicts that people will rise and that those rights
that are in there, that didn't apply to slaves -- Thomas Jefferson
was a slave holder as we all know, those later found life -- those
words found life when slaves were freed. And that's what we're
talking about here, is growing into that - those statements that
are brilliant, I really think brilliant, founding documents. So I
will not impose on your good graces any longer here. I just want
to predict that one day we'll all open up our local newspapers and
there will be the wedding announcements and Judy will be engaged to
Helen. Some people will look at that and just be disgusted and
irate. Most people will look at that and they -- well, that's a
little strange, but eventually no one will look at that and think
that Judy and Helen are not within their rights, as Alaskans, or
within their rights as Americans, to decide who they want to spend
the rest of their lives with. So the choice is plain, Mr.
Chairman, members of the committee, you can go backward now and
forward later, or we can simply go forward now. Thanks again for
taking time to hear these long closing remarks and for listening to
all of us today.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Susan, for a nice summary. Well that
-- there is no one else to testify.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright, and who are you?
Number 1989
ALLEN SHULER (ph): My name is Allen Shuler. I live here in Juneau
and I appreciate the comments about this being an important part of
society, and the laws and constitutions making up this society.
That's why I urge your passage of Senate Bill - or SJR 42 because
I believe the people of Alaska should have a vote on this important
issue, because it is very important. And it concerns me that a
single judge or a handful of judges could completely rewrite what
has always been held throughout all generations, through all
societies that marriage is between one man and one woman. And, you
know, if such a drastic change should happen in our society, it
should be the voice of the people, not in a handful of judges.
Many opponents to SJR express how this bill would limit marriage.
And I believe the correct perspective is that SJR would clarify the
commonly held boundaries and prevent it from being broadened to
include homosexual unions. It does not add the additional
restrictions to marriage. Opponents say that SJR invades privacy
laws. If privacy was a real concern of the homosexual community,
they would not be seeking a public marriage license. In reality
SJR 42 does not invade privacy laws for personal choice. People
are still obligated or still free to live whomever they wish.
SJR 42 only clarifies that the state is not obligated to classify
homosexual unions as a marriage. Similarly, the expression of
marriage is not a judicial responsibility, or the expansion of
marriage is not a judicial responsibility. Laws are established by
the legislature and interpreted by the judicial system. It's not
their responsibility in the judicial system to expand laws beyond
their original intent. When this happens, the legislature has the
responsibility and obligation to bring the judicial system back in
line by clarifying what they intended the law to say. Hence,
SJR 42 is appropriate. SJR 42 has nothing to do with civil rights.
A person's race or gender is intrinsic. In contrast, homosexual
activity is a choice. Even if a person believes they were born as
a homosexual, that does not obligate the state to expand marriage
laws. For example, it is commonly accepted that some people are
more prone to alcoholism than others. However, this intrinsic
condition has not obligated the state to loosen drunk driving laws.
Similarly, the presence of homosexual activity in our society does
not obligate the state to loosen marriage laws. I strongly urge
quick passage of SJR 42 so that the legal definition of marriage
may be clarified. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you, Allen. Is that the -- whoop, one more,
two more, okay.
Number 2108
LINDA HEMPHILL: Hi, thank you very much for letting me state my
opinion. I'm Linda Hemphill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: You're what?
MS. HEMPHILL: Linda Hemphill.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Alright.
MS. HEMPHILL: I support SJR 42, the definition of marriage
amendment and urge you to fully support it. I believe that we all
came about because of the union of one man and one woman. And in
a society, if we don't have any unions and don't have any
offsprings, we don't have any society, and I believe that's a
foundational block in our society. And I think once we start
chipping away at that, the whole foundation begins to crumble and
then our society, as a whole, is going to start to crumble. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Thank you very much, Linda. And there was one
more I understand. Yes.
Number 2147
JEAN FINDLEY: Hi.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Hello.
MS. FINDLEY: My name is Jean Findley and I live in Juneau. I was
on the list, but...
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jean - J-e-a-n.
MS. FINDLEY: Yes, F-i-n-d-l-e-y.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Okay, thank you.
MS. FINDLEY: And I oppose SJR 42, and I feel like a political
football and my civil rights, I feel like they're being made a
farce of and if it -- you know, it seems like a political thing and
not really a -- it seems like legislators aren't doing what they
should be doing this year, you know. And if it becomes -- if it
gets on the ballot, it'll become a media campaign and it seems like
with a media campaign and he with the most money will win and
they'll prey on people who are paranoid about people different from
them, and that would make a farce of everybody's civil rights. And
I just urge you to drop it in this committee right now because you
can find it in your hearts to do what you're responsible to do, and
I hope you can do that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Jean, thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing
nobody else, that closes the testimony. We have heard a
significant amount of good debate on this issue. I'm going to not
try and do anything now. I think it's time for the committee to
probably individually, certainly tonight, and maybe collectively
sometime in the future, but to think about what we've heard. I do
appreciate, especially I appreciate what was said here just
recently that not too many years ago people would not have come out
and said openly, what they have said. And for that, I'm really
appreciative, I admire your courage. I don't know if I were in the
same situation I would have that kind of courage, but I do
appreciate your coming. Representative Bunde.
Number 2220
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE: Mr. Chairman, and with apologies to those on
camera and here, I did have another bill that I fought rather
unsuccessfully for along time, and that's where I was. The
testimony, the bit that I did hear on both sides of the issue, was
very interesting, intellectually very challenging for me. And so
I apologize for not being here, but it wasn't because I wasn't
interested in hearing the testimony. And I certainly appreciate
your opportunity for me to weigh these issues because people have
given me a lot to think about.
CHAIRMAN GREEN: Representative James.
Number 2246
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to
apologize for those people who sat through this long, long time as
I bumped up and back and so forth. But I had lots of other things
that I had to do today and I tried to get in here as much as I
could and I'm sorry if I missed your testimony. I want you to know
that I didn't do it because I didn't want to hear what you had to
say. I think everything that everyone said was - come from the
heart and needed to be said, and I appreciate that you sat through
all of the day to make your statements.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN GREEN: With that, we're adjourned. [6:50 p.m.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|