Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
04/17/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 213 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 17, 2007
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Scott Kawasaki
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
- MOVED CSHJR 9(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 213
"An Act relating to an aggravating factor at sentencing for
crimes committed at certain shelters and facilities."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 04/20/07
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 9
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL
02/12/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/27/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/27/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/07 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2DNP 1NR
03/27/07 (H) DP: JOHNSON, JOHANSEN, COGHILL, LYNN
03/27/07 (H) DNP: DOLL, GRUENBERG
03/27/07 (H) NR: ROSES
04/17/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JEAN M. MISCHEL, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the drafter of HJR 9 and a legal
opinion requested by Representative Gruenberg.
LIN DAVIS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
JIM MINNERY, President
Alaska Family Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
KAREN WELLS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
BILL TUNILLA
Worldwide Marriage Encounter
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
MARSHA BUCK
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9 and suggested that its passage be stopped.
SHAHARRIET HOUCHINS
Worldwide Marriage Encounter
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
JAMES HOUCHINS
Worldwide Marriage Encounter
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
VICTORIA DANCE
Auke Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
JOE LARIVIERE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
JOHN ALCANTRA, Director
Government Relations
Alaska Branch
National Education Association (NEA-Alaska)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 9.
LES SYREN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
JAMES STEVEN REESE, Member
Juneau Human Rights Commission
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
ROBERT BIRD
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 9 but stated
agreement with those in favor of HJR 9.
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
MICHAEL "WES" MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (AkCLU)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9 and urged the committee to stop the resolution.
CHRISTOPHER KURKA
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a comment during discussion of
HJR 9 and asked members to vote for the resolution.
THERESA SYREN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
PAUL ADASIAK
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 9.
JOY DAVIDSON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
CHERYL HUMME
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 9.
JOHN FLEMING
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
MARY BISHOP
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 9.
KATHY COTTON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
JEANNE LAURENCELLE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9 and asked the committee to vote against it.
JUSTIN COTTON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
STEVEN JACQUIER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9 and asked that it be tabled.
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President
Eagle Forum Alaska
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
RICHARD COLLINS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9 and asked the committee to vote "no" on it.
LONNIET KURKA
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
ROLANDO RIVAS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9 and asked that it be tabled.
CHRISTINE KURKA
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9 and urged its passage.
SHIRLEY RIVAS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9 and asked members to vote "no."
STEPHEN GINGRICH
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HJR 9.
KEVIN G. CLARKSON, Esq., Attorney at Law
Brena, Bell & Clarkson, PC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HJR 9.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:15:43 PM. Representatives Lynn, Holmes,
Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, and Ramras were present at the call to
order. Representatives Samuels and Coghill arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Representatives Doll, Kelly, LeDoux,
and Kawasaki were also in attendance.
HJR 9 - CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
1:16:25 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Proposing an amendment to the
section of the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to
marriage.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that a legal opinion dated 4/2/07 written
by Jean M. Mischel, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
would be provided to members.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned that the bill has a small
fiscal note and a referral to the House Finance Committee. He
also mentioned that he'd written the letter requesting the
aforementioned legal opinion.
1:24:02 PM
JEAN M. MISCHEL, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA), offered that HJR 9 proposes to put before the
voters a proposed amendment to the Alaska State Constitution;
that proposed amendment, should it be adopted by the voters,
would in part add to Article I, Section 25, the following
language: "No other union is similarly situated to a marriage
between a man and a woman and, therefore, a marriage between a
man and a woman is the only union that shall be valid or
recognized in this State and to which the rights, benefits,
obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage shall be extended
or assigned."
MS. MISCHEL characterized that language as fairly lengthy and
deceptively simple in the context of related limitations to the
state's current prohibition on marriage [being anything other
than between one man and one woman]. She noted that there are a
lot of legal issues raised by HJR 9, one of which, as was
pointed out by Representative Gruenberg in his aforementioned
request for a legal opinion, is whether HJR 9 might constitute a
revision of the Alaska State Constitution rather than a mere
amendment to it. She said it is her opinion that the language
in HJR 9 as currently written may well constitute a revision,
which may not be proposed via a legislative resolution; a
revision of the Alaska State Constitution requires that a
constitutional convention be convened, and then, if passed by
the convention, the voters would then have an opportunity to
ratify that decision.
MS. MISCHEL explained that the Alaska Supreme Court has already
considered once the question of whether a proposed amendment -
[in the form of Senate Joint Resolution 42, which passed the
legislature in 1998] - to Article I, Section 25, of the Alaska
State Constitution constituted an amendment or a revision. In
that case - Bess v. Ulmer - although the court opined that the
second sentence of that particular resolution may have been a
revision, the appellees characterized it as surplusage and it
was therefore withdrawn from the resultant ballot measure on
those grounds. She characterized that second sentence of Senate
Joint Resolution 42 as similar to and narrower than the language
being proposed via HJR 9.
MS. MISCHEL opined that in that prior decision the court gave a
pretty good idea of how it would view a revision as opposed an
amendment, though it did not give a bright-line rule; therefore,
although she could be wrong, she acknowledged, HJR 9 looks like
a revision because of its substantial effect on many other
provisions of the Alaska State Constitute and because of the
breadth of its proposed language, which encompasses a whole lot
more than marriage. She said, "It's interesting that it's
characterized in the catch phrase as, 'related limitations' to
marriage," because the aforementioned second sentence that was
at issue in Bess related only to marriage, whereas the language
that HJR 9 proposes to insert relates to any union and any
recognition in this state of a union.
MS. MISCHEL noted that there is also some question regarding
whether HJR 9 would affect private enterprise in this state, and
this question is not resolved by the language in the resolution.
Normally, she relayed, the Alaska State Constitution only
applies to state action, but in HJR 9, use of the phrase, "in
this State" is a very significant departure from the phrase used
in the aforementioned second sentence of Senate Joint Resolution
42 - "the State".
1:30:57 PM
MS. MISCHEL mentioned that that second sentence read: "No
provision of this constitution may be interpreted to require the
State to recognize or permit marriage between individuals of the
same sex." This language, she opined, obviously dealt with
marriage and with actions by the state, whereas the language of
HJR 9 does more than that. She again acknowledged that she is
not sure what the Alaska Supreme Court would do, should a
"revision" challenge be raised against HJR 9, because use of the
term, "union" goes way beyond intimate partnerships or even
same-sex partnerships. In Bess, the court held that the first
sentence of Senate Joint Resolution was not a revision but
rather simply an amendment.
MS. MISCHEL noted that while reviewing that first sentence, the
Alaska Supreme Court said that maybe the privacy interest of a
person would be affected by it, and so the court looked at what,
if any, effect it had on other provisions of the Alaska State
Constitution and whether it affected the fundamental
governmental structure of the state. Also in Bess, in upholding
the first sentence as an amendment rather than a revision, the
court said:
In our view the first sentence of the resolve is not
so broad in scope that it is impermissible as an
amendment. It potentially affects the meaning of the
equal rights clause contained in article I, section 1.
Article I, section 3 is not affected, for it does not
specify sexual preference as a suspect classification.
Further, it is unclear whether the right to privacy is
affected, for the first sentence is concerned with
recognition of marriage as an official relationship,
not with private relationships.
MS. MISCHEL reiterated that the language in HJR 9 is concerned
not only with the official relationship of marriage but also
with any union and prohibits the recognition, in this state, of
a union, whether private, intimate, or publicly recognized.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as the sponsor of HJR 9, opined
that in Bess, the second sentence of Senate Joint Resolution 42
was deleted only because it was surplusage. He also opined that
the phrase used in HJR 9, "rights, benefits, obligations,
qualities, or effects of marriage" clarifies that this new
language only applies to marriage and shouldn't be construed as
affecting anything else. He said he finds it hard to envision
that a court would find otherwise.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to a memorandum dated 4/17/07 by Kevin G.
Clarkson of Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the Alaska
Supreme Court ruling in the 2005 Alaska Civil Liberties Union v.
State & Municipality of Anchorage case went contrary to the
"1998 marriage amendment" to the Alaska State Constitution when
it determined that the benefits of marriage should be provided
to those that are forbidden to marry, adding that he disagrees
with the court's view that to not do so raises an equal
protection issue. He opined that HJR 9 deals only with the
single issue of marriage and thus constitutes an amendment
rather than a revision, adding, though, that if it is true that
the proposed amendment does address more than one issue, then it
is equally true of the court's recent finding in Alaska Civil
Liberties Union - that it has the effect of revision.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
1:44:12 PM
MS. MISCHEL said the Bess case gave a good idea of what the
court would look at in deciding whether a proposed change to the
Alaska State Constitution constitutes an amendment or a
revision. In Bess the court applied a hybrid test, she
explained, that is essentially a sliding scale: if the proposed
change has a substantial effect qualitatively, then the number
of sections affected appears to be less significant; if the
effect on the Alaska State Constitution or the structure of the
state's government is somewhat less substantial or
insubstantial, then the court looks at how many other provisions
of the Alaska State Constitution would be affected by a proposed
change. So, in the Bess case, although the court acknowledged
the effect of the first sentence - which was held to be an
amendment - on the equal protection clause, the court said it
wasn't clear whether sexual preference was a suspect
classification.
MS. MISCHEL said, "We have a lot more information about what the
[Alaska Supreme Court] would do with same-sex partner benefits
in the [Alaska Civil Liberties Union] case" wherein the court
found that the statute limiting employment benefits to married
couples was unconstitutional and discriminatory and could not be
otherwise validated through a substantial state interest under
the equal protection clause. "So now we know," she remarked,
that the effect of limiting employment benefits - which HJR 9
certainly proposes to do - has a substantial effect on "our"
equal protection rights in Alaska. "We also know," she added,
that privacy interests are implicated under Article I, Section
22, and, under Article I, Section 7, "our due process rights"
are also implicated, as are perhaps freedom of religion rights
and the retirement clause pertaining to no reduction in benefits
since there are current beneficiaries under the [state benefit]
system.
MS. MISCHEL, referring to the aforementioned memorandum by Mr.
Clarkson, surmised that Mr. Clarkson's approach seems to be that
the striking of Senate Joint Resolution 42's second sentence
occurred simply because it was surplus language. She said she
doesn't quite agree with that view, however, because the
appellants in the Bess case argued quite strenuously that that
sentence constituted a revision and the court was concerned
about that and did speak to that issue. In response, Mr.
Clarkson - attorney for the appellees in the Bess case -
conceded that the court had the authority to strike it as
surplus language, "so we don't really know how far the court
would have gone with that particular question," she remarked.
1:49:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he'd introduced HJR 9 in response to
the controversy that surrounds the Alaska Supreme Court case,
Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. State & Municipality of
Anchorage, wherein the court found that when the voters approved
the 1998 marriage amendment limiting marriage to between one man
and one woman and thereby created a special class of people -
those who are forbidden to marry - it also created a duty for
the state to pay benefits to [employees with same-sex partners]
that are the same as those given to [employees] who are married.
In addition to that opinion, the Alaska Supreme Court required
the Alaska Superior Court to order the State to [provide such
benefits] via regulation. Representative Coghill opined that
the court's decision thwarted the will of the people, who, when
voting on the 1998 marriage amendment, didn't think that it
created a relationship similar to and with the same authority as
marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that AS 25.05.013(b) -
[which says, "A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by
the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage."] -
prohibits a public employer from extending marriage benefits to
same-sex partners. This is a policy call made by the
legislature, he remarked, adding his belief that AS
18.80.220(c)(1) - [which says, "an employer may, without
violating this chapter, provide greater health and retirement
benefits to employees who have a spouse or dependent children
than are provided to other employees;" - grants an employer the
right to give benefits to married people because of the value
generally placed on marriage. The aforementioned 1998 marriage
amendment came about in response to the Alaska Superior Court's
decision in Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, about which he
remarked, "What this does is it says the institution of
marriage, then, cannot be its own standing unit; it must be
shared by those who society, generally in Alaska, have said,
'No, we don't want it shared.'"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that the benefits of marriage were
thought of as a societal good, particularly after World War II
because the stability of society was thought to stem from the
nuclear family, and so employers began offering benefits as part
of an employment package, which, at the time, mostly
supplemented single income households. He said he didn't
understand why limiting such benefits only to [married couples]
is considered discriminatory, and opined that the recent court
cases have continually attempted to "break that unit" and
diminish things that he sees as being of value to society.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he doesn't think that giving married
couples a special place is dishonoring anyone else. The
question in Alaska, he opined, is whether the benefits of
marriage should be afforded to same-sex couples, and whether the
relationship of a same-sex couple should even be thought of as a
marriage. According to voters in 1998, the answer to the latter
question was, "No." With regard to the former question - should
the benefits of marriage be afforded to same-sex couples - the
court has said that they should because such couples are
similarly situated to married couples; he opined, however, that
similarly situated means "equal to" and thus same-sex couples
shouldn't be afforded the benefits of marriage. He surmised
that those who voted to restrict marriage to one man and one
woman would agree with him and disagree with the court.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, referring to the Brause Case, offered
his belief that [the plaintiffs] wanted the benefits,
attributes, and privileges of marriage and viewed the right to
marry as the gateway to the benefits of marriage. Currently the
court has ordered the State to pay benefits to same-sex couples,
but there are other provisions of statute, he opined, that give
[extra] privileges to married people. He also opined that there
is also a constitutional issue involved because the court is
forcing the State to implement regulations offering benefits to
same-sex couples, and surmised that this will be construed as a
mandate on private businesses to provide such benefits as well.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he proposed HJR 9 because he would
like to see what the voters really want. He opined that the
courts have continually pushed "the agenda to have ... same-sex
partners legitimately have marriage relationships and/or take
over the benefits of marriage." Characterizing this issue as a
civil matter, he said the courts have overruled statutes, the
voters, and the administration by forcing the State to
promulgate regulations to provide same-sex couples with
benefits. He indicated that the only recourse is to put this
question before the voters because he disagrees with and wants
to challenge the courts on this particular issue as a matter of
societal policy.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
2:04:00 PM
LIN DAVIS, after mentioning that she is a state employee and one
of the plaintiffs in Alaska Civil Liberties Union, said that she
and her partner are thrilled to have the health benefits and
survivor benefits provided by the state because now her partner
can receive her last paycheck [should something befall her.] In
January [of 2007], Alaska became the 12th state to offer same-
sex domestic partner benefits; 11 other states have been
offering such benefits for years, some since the early '90s.
For these states, [providing such benefits] is "mainstream," and
it has been a good business practice and good public policy to
include more people under health insurance and survivorship
benefits. Furthermore, over half of the "Fortune 500" companies
offer [same-sex domestic partner] benefits, with the percentage
of such companies increasing every quarter, and, now, more small
businesses are offering them as well; "this" is increasingly a
mainstream practice.
MS. DAVIS said:
[House Joint Resolution 9], however, is in the
business of taking away health and survivor benefits
from an ever-widening circle of groups of people; it
would remove them from me and from other gay state
workers who recently acquired them, and then it would
prevent new gay ... [state employees] from obtaining
them. And now we're beginning to hear some new twists
and troublesome angles because it appears to also
target unmarried people, and the ramifications of that
are unknown and appear troublesome. The "doctor
letter" that ran in the [Juneau Empire] continues to
be helpful [with] ... - before the April 3 [2007] vote
- 40 doctors signing, saying that it's a state health
crises to widen the circle of groups that are targeted
for no benefits; Juneau doctors do not want the health
of Alaskan families harmed by this unfair and
undemocratic state legislation.
MS. DAVIS said that HJR 9 appears to prevent private employers
from providing work-related, merit-based benefits that they deem
necessary, and appears to tangle with the rights of employers.
This doesn't sound like good public policy to her, she opined.
Currently there are 18 companies in Juneau, in addition to the
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ) and the University of Alaska
Southeast (UAS), that offer same-sex domestic partner benefits,
she relayed, listing them, and adding that it is [good] to see
how mainstream offering same-sex domestic partner benefits has
become, particularly with those companies who are attempting to
recruit good employees.
MS. DAVIS remarked that the statewide advisory vote held on
April 3, 2007, was close and clear; there is no traction in
Alaska for further discrimination against gays or other target
groups. Governor Palin, Ms. Davis noted, agreed that the result
of that advisory vote did not constitute a mandate. Ms. Davis
went on to say:
So let's end this undemocratic effort to isolate us
gay people in order to keep us financially and
socially vulnerable. As [President] Lincoln said,
"When you trample on the rights of others, you lose
your own genius for independence." Let's save our
genius capacities for setting up a gas pipeline, and
let's get back to the larger good work that we are all
meant to do.
MS. DAVIS, in response to a question, agreed to provide the
committee with further information regarding the final results
of the aforementioned advisory vote.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, after offering his understanding
regarding some of the results of the advisory vote as well as
another ballot measure, suggested that the advisory vote not be
discussed further.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, acknowledging that some private
employers do offer same-sex domestic partner benefits, remarked
that HJR 9 is intended to address a larger societal question.
2:13:33 PM
JIM MINNERY, President, Alaska Family Council, after indicating
that he would be testifying in support of HJR 9, mentioned that
the Alaska Family Council is a state-wide, pro-family, public-
policy organization representing a growing list of Alaskans with
a dedicated interest in preserving and defending traditional
values regarding the family. Regardless of where individual
legislators stand on this issue, he opined, the results from the
aforementioned advisory vote are indisputable - the majority of
Alaskans [who voted] "once again," voted to protect marriage and
state clearly that marriage is a unique relationship that should
receive distinct status, privilege, and recognition.
MR. MINNERY relayed that the Alaska Family Council spent the
last several months working very hard to educate Alaskans
regarding this issue. Characterizing the debate that ensued
from these efforts as a healthy one, he said that "our side"
simply didn't buy the argument that this was about health
benefits because, if it were, why weren't health benefits being
sought for all Alaskan's instead of just for those involved in
homosexual relationships. Mr. Minnery then offered his
understanding that a prominent gay activist and professor has
said:
Our best strategy for securing this social
endorsement, i.e. marriage under the name marriage, is
first to secure the legal incidents, then people will
look at our civil unions, realize that they are
virtually indistinguishable from marriages, start
calling them marriages, and gradually forget why they
objected to doing so before; that's what's happened in
Scandinavia and it's happening elsewhere in Europe.
MR. MINNERY surmised from this quote that the issue [for same-
sex couples] is simply one of public affirmation of a lifestyle,
a lifestyle, he opined, that the majority of Alaskans [who
voted] have said should not be equated with marriage. He opined
that legislators, even those who believe that same-sex couples
should be treated via public policy just as if they are married,
shouldn't strive to prevent all other Alaskans from voting on
the issue, particularly given that [the majority of those who
cast their advisory vote in April] said they wanted an
opportunity to vote on this issue. The fact that there was low
voter turnout in April and only a narrow margin of victory is
irrelevant and shortsighted, he opined, and spoke briefly about
the voting margins associated with some of Alaska's other ballot
initiatives. In conclusion, he asked the legislature to not
deny the people the opportunity to vote on this matter, and to
move HJR 9 forward to the floor for a full vote.
2:17:26 PM
KAREN WELLS first relayed that she is grateful to the state and
to its fishermen, the people whom she has served for more than
28 years. She went on to say:
As I prepare to retire next week, I am reflecting back
over 28 years at who I was, who I am now, and who I
take myself to be. I was young back then, eager,
ignorant, scared, ambitious, wanting to find a mate -
someone to love and somebody I could love - no
different than any other person. Being public about
being a lesbian was not something I thought of much as
I lived my life, made friends, played sports, and
followed my heart's desire. Twenty-eight years later,
a lot has happened, a lot has changed; some of what
has changed is my willingness to sit here, be visible
in the world as a woman who has courage ... and seeks
the truth at all costs - for the truth is all we have.
The truth as I see it is that this [resolution] ...
has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Why its
proponents keep saying this is about marriage seems an
untruth to me, a lie, or something they just don't
understand. The people voted to deny gays and
lesbians the right to marriage. I have no possibility
of marrying in this state. I don't question it, I
take it as the vote. But what are the rights of
marriage? Marriages happen in churches; in the eyes
of certain religions marriage means one thing, where
in other religions it can mean something entirely
different.
Who am I to judge what doctrines various churches
follow? However, when those religious doctrines
become involved in city and state personnel policies,
I take notice. There is a reason for separation of
church and state, as our esteemed governor noted
during her campaign. I have enormous respect for her
integrity in stating that the April 3 vote was not a
mandate of the people. The ... [Alaska State
Constitution] guarantees equal protection under the
law; all state employees are to receive the same
benefits. This [resolution] ... is saying that I am
undeserving of the benefits my married coworkers
receive. This is discrimination at its best.
MS. WELLS continued:
I ask you why you are pursuing this [resolution] ...
after the vote with such a slim margin between "yes"
and "no." I ask you why you are not trying your best
to ensure that every man, woman, and child in this
great state has medical coverage. I ask you why you
were willing to spend $1.2 million of the people's
money to produce a vote that had no real effect on
anything. I do not believe for one minute that your
opposition to same-sex partners receiving benefits has
anything to do with dollar amounts, as the dollars
spent are so small - the saying, "Beating a dead
horse" comes to mind - the vote did not produce the
results you were expecting.
I am a state employee and I exist. Whether you agree
with my choices or not does not mean that I can or
should be treated differently than my coworkers. I'm
not going away, nor am I going to be silent on issues
that discriminate against people I love and people in
minorities. In fact, I feel my strength rising, my
ability to speak up and articulate issues becoming
clearer ... [with] each time I get a chance to testify
before you folks - and I'm getting a lot of
opportunities. Do the right thing and treat all state
employees fairly. This is a personnel matter, not one
that should be put to [a] vote. I ask you to
represent all Alaskans, not just ones you favor or
ones that go to your church. As the Rutgers' women's
basketball champion said to Don Imus, "Get to know us
before you make judgments and criticisms against us."
MS. WELLS concluded:
When standing on the corner holding a sign, people
passed and were mostly friendly, but some gave me the
finger and some name-called. Is hate what you want to
promote in letters to the editor? I have read some
letters to the editor and wept with utter joy for the
support that the people of this state have given gays
and lesbians. I have also been about as angry as [a]
person could be when people tell lies about who I am
and who I should love. One thing is for sure, the
issue is front and center, and, as in all
discrimination, it takes public awareness and
conversation to see change. In that regard, I thank
you for allowing me to testify and communicate with
the people of this state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that two legal issues have thus
far been presented: the question of whether the amendment
proposed via HJR 9 is so broad as to constitute a revision and
hence violate Bess v. Ulmer; and the question of whether [the
amendment proposed via HJR 9] violates the federal equal
protection clause as outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court case,
Romer v. Evans, which is referenced in footnote 20 of the Alaska
Civil Liberties Union Alaska Supreme Court opinion. He said he
is interested in receiving further information about those two
issues.
2:24:13 PM
BILL TUNILLA, Worldwide Marriage Encounter, said he and his wife
support marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Marriage is a sacrament between man, woman, and god, and can
never be just a legal contract between two people of the same
sex. Marriage is a holy covenant, he remarked, with its
holiness deriving from sexuality and man and woman's ability to
create children. He went on to say:
Today there are many wars on many fronts. One of
those wars is the war on the traditional American
family. Sherry and I feel like our beliefs are being
destroyed and are under attack, and that our ability
to freely worship and parent our children may be
forever changed. Sherry and I grew up in an America
where most families had both a dad and a mom - a
husband and a wife. We grew up in a time where
marriage was still a respected state between man and
woman, where couples looked forward to having children
and continuing to raise those children to respect the
law and to respect church teachings. A time where
giving to your neighbors was just a normal part of
life.
I was proud to serve in the military, and served my
country; proud to be married and to be given the gift
of five children and to volunteer my time in church
and the community and often giving of the gifts I have
been given. America still valued the American dream
when I grew up, and I still do; we still value modesty
and truthfulness, compassion. And it was a time that
no one questioned what happened in the parents'
bedrooms or felt a need to know about anyone else's
sexuality. It was [a] time of innocence, and it was a
time of matter left up to our parents and the creator
of the universe. It certainly wasn't on public
display as it is today. And people did not use their
sexuality as a reason for getting special favors. In
my heart, I believe that homosexual men and woman
today are publicly asking for their sexuality to [be]
viewed as a means to receive special favors.
MR. TUNILLA concluded:
In closing, I also believe that if allowed, ... these
special favors will cost our society greatly. Not
only are they in direct violation of god's laws, and
those of nature, but for ... our tax payors as well.
I can think of better ways to spend my tax dollars. I
have read that in Massachusetts, ... they have had a
cutback on elderly, disabled, and children's programs
to make way for ... a special group of people. Our
children, our parents, and the disabled deserve better
than this. Before my tax money is to be used for
their special needs, then I would expect our lawmakers
to consider far greater needs than the marriage of
those of the homosexual community. Thank you.
2:27:28 PM
MARSHA BUCK, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
(PFLAG) Juneau, after relaying that she would also be speaking
as a parent, noted that spoke to this committee just last spring
asking members to vote "no" on House joint Resolution 32 because
of the negative effect it would have had on her daughter and
other wonderful people. She went on to say:
I was very surprised and actually incredulous that I
have to be back again, today, to testify on a
resolution that appears to propose even greater
inequality and greater discrimination to even greater
numbers of Alaskans than ... [House Joint
Resolution 32 did]. I'm sure that you are aware that
HJR 9 before you would no longer simply affect my
daughter and others like her but would negatively
affect the health benefits of family members of most
Alaskans. When you consider family members and
friends, most Alaskans - most of your constituents -
are going to be affected by HJR 9 and affected
negatively. It would also affect Alaskan businesses
and virtually all of Alaska's educational
institutions, and would affect them negatively.
And HJR 9 isn't going to "fix" ... anything. I'm
afraid that supporting it will only make you, as a
group, look out of step with mainstream Alaskans who
support health benefits and support families. I know
Representative Coghill doesn't want us to talk about
the advisory vote, but I think that gave us some good
information; ... that showed us that there is no
mandate for removing employment benefits or health
benefits from a portion of Alaskans. I think it's bad
public policy to pass a resolution that would only
exacerbate [our] growing health insurance crises, and
I'm not sure why you'd want to appear unreasonable and
uncompassionate as a legislature to do so.
I think it's time that we do more homework like we
heard in the legislative legal report. We need
leaders in Alaska, ... not decision makers who waffle
or ... flip-flop from saying things like, "We're
looking for an overwhelming majority" and then, "No,
we want to go ahead no matter what we get from the
vote." I think it's time that the legislature get
back in step with Alaskans and say "no" and stop ...
HJR 9 in committee.
MS. BUCK, in closing, offered some of the latest statistics from
the April 3 advisory vote.
2:31:02 PM
SHAHARRIET HOUCHINS, Worldwide Marriage Encounter, relayed that
she and her husband would be speaking in support of HJR 9. She
said that as an Alaska Worldwide Marriage Encounter presenting
team and as sacramental married Catholics, she and her husband
uphold god's moral law that the bond of marriage is only between
a man and a woman, adding that she and her husband voted in the
affirmative during [the advisory vote] because they don't want
homosexual relationships to be treated the same as marriages
between men and women. Neither do she and her husband, she
remarked, want any homosexual union to be recognized or
validated in Alaska, nor extended or assigned the rights,
benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage. Ms.
Houchins went on to say:
We are the parents of nine children, and by our
example and their exposure to the examples of couples
who feel as strongly as we do, we have fought hard to
be the moral compass and example of what marriage is
truly about. We want you, our elected officials, to
help us cement this example by 100 percent protection
of the only marriage that can really be - a man and a
woman. We invest in our marriage daily and always
want to exemplify what god wanted when he raised the
level of marriage at the wedding of Cana. A husband
and wife procreate with god, and the world continues.
It is imperative you uphold this most sacred union.
We must stand up for the family, the family unit is
the most precious unit we have. Our children need to
see us as committed married parents that weather
storms and celebrate triumphs, so they can see what
they will grow up to parallel. Our nation's future
depends on the future ... [and] we are raising that
future now. We, when our four-year old ask us to kiss
and revel in the pure innocent joy that we do, we know
she is understanding our positions in her life and in
god's world.
I'm a nurse by trade but I'm a domestic engineer
daily; I'm in charge of nurturing futures. Every
mother shows her daughter how to be the bride, the
wife, and the mother of the family, and every father
shows his son how to be the groom, the husband, and
the father of the family. Together we show our
children, when we sit as a family at mass and other
public events, how to be a family - mom, dad, and
children. As we present our Worldwide Marriage
Encounter weekends to couples, they see how our deep
commitment is to preserve marriage between one man and
one woman. As a mother they saw me united with their
dad, even when he was serving our country during
Desert Storm and Desert Shield in his active duty
career. They themselves understood our bond and their
place in the family unit as they sacrificed their time
with him while he served our country. They see our
bond as marriage commitment as we work together at
their schools - their dad on the board of Holy Rosary
Academy, and myself as vice president of the parents
organization.
JAMES HOUCHINS, Worldwide Marriage Encounter, said he believes
the issue is not about benefits. Noting that he has served his
country in the military for 20 years, he said that one of the
principles he held dear was the sanctity of a healthy family
between a man and a woman and children if god saw fit to grant
them. He added: "We want you, our elected officials, to truly
hear us and be our voice. Don't bow to pressure to compromise,
and say what needs to be said for the good of the family.
Please listen to the voters and bring this to a vote ... [of]
the people in 2008."
2:34:47 PM
VICTORIA DANCE said she would be speaking to the committee about
equal rights, but opined that she oughtn't have to, because she
didn't understand the [Alaska State Constitution] to say that
she would have to in order to defend her rights. She went on to
say that she [was] married to a man for 10 years, has been in a
partnership with a woman for 23 years, and has raised a son.
Therefore, she knows that what happens in a marriage has very
little to do with sex but a lot to do with holding, nourishing,
and supporting the other person. Remarking that the legislature
has much more important issues to take care of, she asked that
the legislature not destroy further the rights that are in the
[Alaska State Constitution] by proposing amendments such as
HJR 9. Whether someone who works and contributes to the gross
national product (GNP) is married is not a problem, she opined,
pointing out that the Alaska Supreme Court didn't think it was a
problem either.
MS. DANCE opined that Alaska Supreme Court ruled as it did
because its job is to protect the people, and recalled the
similar struggle prevalent during the 1960s; banning domestic
partner benefits raises issues similar to those raised during
the civil rights movement. There is the same effort to
undermine the ability of groups to achieve civil equality and,
with it, fulfilling their lives and families and their
communities. Yet banning benefits [for same-sex partners] is
different because, unlike during the civil rights movement, gays
and lesbians are not just relegated to the back of the bus but
are not allowed on the bus at all. What would have happened to
this country if, rather than following the U.S. Supreme Court
ruling to desegregate schools, Alabama had put the question on
the ballot: "Should blacks have equal rights?" Does anyone
doubt how that vote would have gone? Would it have been
shameful? Yes. Can people be counted on to remember or vote
the right thing? Not always.
MS. DANCE pointed out that even with laws, equality remains an
issue for blacks, as illustrated by the comments made by Don
Imus. Everybody needs all the help they can get for a place in
the sun, she remarked, opining that the court overruled the
State because the court's job is to defend the Constitution.
Noting that even Thomas Jefferson was culturally blinded in that
when helping to write the Constitution and speaking about equal
rights he still kept slaves, she questioned how much society
today is culturally blinded when discussing the issue of equal
rights/benefits for gays and lesbians. The efforts spent on
making equal pay for equal work a problem or writing a
constitutional amendment for this imagined problem is time and
money taken away from solving truly difficult issues.
MS. DANCE said she simply feels very passionately that [the
legislature] has better things to do than attack a particular
group of people. With regard to the comment that extra support
was given to nuclear families after World War II, she said she
questioned whether that was actually constitutional - why should
only families get benefits.
2:40:05 PM
JOE LARIVIERE said that for him, the issue is the sacredness of
marriage; to him, marriage is the nucleus of the family and
"our" society. He opined that what is occurring is that the
family is being attacked on all different sides, and he feels
that if these attacks continue, it will result in a breakdown of
the nucleus of society, and therefore he feels that the proposed
constitutional amendment should be put to the people because it
addresses a societal matter and thus the people should be the
ones to decide what to do.
2:41:25 PM
JOHN ALCANTRA, Director, Government Relations, Alaska Branch,
National Education Association (NEA-Alaska), relayed that he
would be speaking in opposition to HJR 9, adding that NEA-Alaska
opposes any legislation that discriminates against Alaskans.
House Joint Resolution 9 is about denying benefits to Alaskans
that currently have them, and would prevent equal pay for equal
work and deny equal rights and opportunities to Alaskans. On
February 2, 400 NEA-Alaska delegates met at the 51st annual NEA-
Alaska Delegate Assembly and set the policy that NEA-Alaska
would adamantly oppose this type of discriminatory legislation.
With 25 pieces of legislation currently assigned to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, he remarked, and with less than
one month remaining in the session, he is perplexed that
valuable time is being spent on this issue, particularly given
that over the next 29 days the legislature has real business to
conclude - the gas line, retirement funding, and the budget must
all still be addressed.
MR. ALCANTRA, referring to the April 3 advisory vote, pointed
out that it cost the State [over] $1 million and only
illustrated that the Alaskans [who voted] are basically split on
the issue. He said that NEA-Alaska agrees with Governor Palin
when she said that it's hard to characterize the results of the
advisory vote as a mandate. In conclusion, he said that NEA-
Alaska respectfully requests that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee hold HJR 9 and make this the last hearing on this
divisive issue.
2:45:02 PM
LES SYREN relayed that he would be speaking in favor of HJR 9.
He offered the following quotes from a book written in 1970 by
Carl Wittman called Refugees from Amerika: A Gay Manifesto
[original punctuation provided along with some formatting
changes, and edited for content]:
Marriage: Marriage is a prime example of a straight
institution fraught with role playing. Traditional
marriage is a rotten, oppressive institution. Those
of us who have been in heterosexual marriages too
often have blamed our gayness on the breakup of the
marriage. No. They broke up because marriage is a
contract which smothers both people, denies needs, and
places impossible demands on both people. And we had
the strength, again, to refuse to capitulate to the
roles which were demanded of us.
Heterosexuality: Exclusive heterosexuality is ... up.
It reflects a fear of people of the same sex, it's
anti-homosexual, and it is fraught with frustration.
Heterosexual sex is ... up too; ask women's liberation
about what straight guys are like in bed. Sex is
aggression for the male chauvinist; sex is obligation
for the traditional woman. And among the young, the
modern, the hip, it's only a subtle version of the
same. For us to become heterosexual in the sense that
our straight brothers and sisters are is not a cure,
it is a disease.
MR. SYREN characterized those passages as hateful and
intolerant, and opined that today, 37 years later, marriage in
Alaska is still under attack despite two votes wherein the
majority of those voting voted to protect it. He posited that
HJR 9 is really about whether the people will be allowed to
decide the future of marriage itself, and asked that the public
be given the chance to vote on it.
2:49:00 PM
JAMES STEVEN REESE, Member, Juneau Human Rights Commission,
after relaying that he has two children in the public school
system, said that he and his wife are members of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which, he opined, is the same
church that financed the 1998 marriage amendment. He went on to
say:
A simple democracy, where decisions are made based
solely on majority opinion without regard for the
basic rights of each citizen, has been described as
three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for
dinner. Just because a majority may feel it's okay to
give certain groups less rights, less protection, or
less compensation for the same work, doesn't make it
okay. In fact, our government was established in part
to protect the minority from the tyranny of the
masses. Even if you write discrimination into the
[Alaska State Constitution], it will still be
discrimination. To state in one place that we are all
equal, and then amend that to say that some are more
equal than others, only makes this document as self-
contradicting as the scriptures from which you
selectively choose your values. This legislation is
another embarrassing waste of our time and money that
protects no one and rather victimizes ... many at a
great cost to us all. It hurts families. It hurts
children. It hurts our healthcare system.
If our Christian heterosexual marriages need special
protection, why should we stop at gays and
fornicators? Isn't adultery a much greater sin and a
far greater threat to the sanctity of marriage? Jesus
Christ said, "Whoever shall put away his wife and
shall marry another, committeth adultery, and who so
marrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery."
Why not, then, take away benefits from adulterers and
married couples in which either partner has had a
previous marriage? Doesn't our tolerance of their
adultery pose a greater threat to our monogamous
marriages? As a part of the United States and as
Christians we're obliged to protect the human rights
of every person which include freedom of religion and
equal treatment, even for those who don't sit on the
same pew with us on Sunday. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Reese whether he is
suggesting that there may also be establishment clause issues
raised by HJR 9; the U.S. Constitution prohibits the State
establishment of a religion.
MR. REESE said yes, opining that HJR 9 is pushing a religious
belief on families, on people, saying that if a person doesn't
conform to heterosexual marriage, then he/she will be treated as
a second-class citizen.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that this issue should also
be explored further.
2:52:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that she too is a member of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which, she opined,
absolutely believes that marriage consists of one man and one
woman.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that it is a stretch to argue that
HJR 9 raises establishment clause issues. "To have moral views
in America does not establish a religion," he remarked,
reiterating his belief that the goal of HJR 9 is to bring the
public to the debate. He added, "We've established marriage as
a civil law."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG countered, "I think we've established
that it's an issue."
2:54:18 PM
ROBERT BIRD said that although he agrees with those speaking in
favor of HJR 9, he would be speaking in opposition to it. After
mentioning that he's been a teacher for 33 years and teaches
constitutional law at both college and high school, he said:
Things that are no longer recognized, it seems, are
concepts that are in the Declaration of Independence
such as natural law and common law. And for those who
... want a wide open definition of marriage, they are
ignoring the fact that natural law can and will be
recognized by court systems and it's translated into
common law. Common law is unwritten law recognized by
the courts, and common law, certainly, if it
recognizes homosexual activities at all, does not look
upon it very favorably. And natural law is easily ...
understood; in fact, the natural outcome of a
heterosexual union is in fact children and there has
never been a child, to my knowledge, that's ever come
about out of a homosexual union.
The idea that a state cannot interfere with a
definition of marriage really puts the lie to history
because Utah was not permitted into the Union until
1890 when it ended polygamous marriage. And so we'd
have to make an awful lot of apologies to the LDS
Church for not permitting Utah into the Union - [Utah]
certainly would have been admitted far earlier but for
polygamous marriage, which was their attempt to
redefine marriage outside of common law and natural
law. But I am going to just tell you that this whole
idea of having to amend the constitution ... every
time the supreme court goes cross-eyed, as it were, is
to me self-defeating because we all know how ... a
constitution is to be amended, and that is, in our
state, we have a process and it has to go to the
people after, I believe, it passes the House and the
Senate. ...
It is saying, then, that the legislature and the
people have to go through a torturous process to
redefine the state constitution. But all the supreme
court has to do is to just pass an opinion, and then
all of a sudden the state constitution has been
changed. Now if you look at Article IV, Section 1, it
says the jurisdiction of courts shall be prescribed by
law. That means that the courts are under the control
of the legislature, and to my knowledge, the
legislature has never given the courts permission to
redefine the constitution any way any time they want
to feel like it, even when outside common or natural
law or even, arguably, the recently passed definition
of marriage ... amendment ... from 1998.
Secondly, the whole problem is saying that the
legislature cannot reign in the courts, when in fact
the impeachment of a justice for malfeasance, which
would probably mean bribe-taking, or misfeasance in
the performance of his official duties, and
misfeasance would mean they're misconstruing and
reaching for powers that don't exist -- so to
constantly go to the democratic or public opinion
process to have confirmed what is really a legislative
responsibility, to me, is, in the end, self defeating.
Natural law and common law are not susceptible to
public opinion polls; they are susceptible only to
god.
And, finally, the governor has the authority to
restrain violation of any constitutional or
legislative power, duty, or right by any officer,
department, or agency. This authority shall not be
construed to authorize any action or proceeding
against the legislature. So when the courts ordered
the legislature to somehow amend the constitution to
give these benefits, there is no ... power of the
courts to demand this of the legislature, and the
governor need not enforce it. The courts don't
control the governor or the legislature, and yet by
holding these hearings, you are admitting they can
change the constitution any time where they feel like
it, while we have to go through this incredibly
torturous process. And so I would ... vote against
this amendment because the responsibility lies with
the ... executive and the legislature in reigning in
the judiciary, not with the people.
2:59:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that in order for a proposed
constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot by the
legislature, a joint resolution must first pass both bodies by a
two-thirds vote.
MR. BIRD said that makes it even more difficult to get such a
proposed amendment to the people.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that although Mr. Bird is probably
right in that the administration didn't have to respond [to the
court's decision], it chose to anyway.
MR. BIRD remarked, "And I would say that the legislature ought
to pass a resolution to [this] effect rather than diddling and
dithering with the people, here, to try and pass through
something that probably had ... an 18 percent voter turnout."
3:00:09 PM
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, after relaying that he is a local pastor, a
husband, and a father of five, said it is concerning to him that
Alaskans have now voted twice to protect marriage yet it seems
that that decision is not being respected. He urged passage of
HJR 9 out of committee for a full vote on the floor. He said he
agrees with many of the comments in support of moving HJR 9 from
committee, and referred to Proverbs 22:28, wherein, he offered,
King Solomon says, "Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up
by your forefathers." He opined that written human history
declares marriage between one man and one woman to be an ancient
boundary stone. He again urged passage of HJR 9 so that the
people of Alaska can vote on the proposed constitutional
amendment, thereby preventing the moving of an ancient boundary
stone.
3:02:46 PM
MICHAEL "WES" MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska Civil
Liberties Union (AkCLU), relayed that the AkCLU was the
proponent of the suit that resulted in the Alaska Supreme
Court's October 2005 decision which in turn has generated much
of the discussion over the last year and a half. He said he
would like to respond to earlier comments such as the comments
pertaining to the role of the judiciary. He said:
The comments of those who advance this [proposed]
amendment would seem to suggest that the judiciary can
only decide cases based upon how the majority of
Alaskans would decide an issue which means that the
judiciary has no role whatsoever. What is the
judiciary to do? The judiciary has the responsibility
of interpreting our constitution, at a bare minimum.
I should also remind you that this was not one
person's decision; it was a unanimous decision of a
five person court written by the most conservative
justice on that court. This is not just some
offhanded decision that was made.
I'll also say that the issues that were put before you
by Representative Coghill and by [Ms. Mischel]
essentially mimic what we have been saying all along
about this particular proposal, that the language of
this measure is quite ambiguous. It could be
interpreted very, very broadly, in which case, it
might run afoul of the federal Constitution, or it
could be interpreted very, very narrowly, in which
case I think it would not accomplish what the
proponents intend it to accomplish. And so I think
there are some real problems just with the language of
the ... [resolution].
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said he would be happy to comment on the
[opinion] issued by Ms. Mischel another time. Indicating that
he wished to correct a couple of comments made previously by
others, he said:
Representative Coghill talked about the decision of
the court creating a special class. In fact, it did
not create a special class; the court decided that
same-sex couples were not in a special class - they
did not have to reach that decision - rather, they
said there was no rational basis for the
classification system that had been in place at that
time. So, there was no special class created.
Also, I think Representative Coghill, in his opening
comments, said that the court created a duty to pay
these employment benefits. In fact, the court said no
such thing. ... The court said that you have to
provide this same set of employment benefits. Whether
you choose to pay the employment benefits to all
people equally, why, that would be fine; if you choose
to pay none of the benefits to none of the people,
that would also be fine. The point is that you have
to treat people equally: equal protections, equal
rights, equal opportunities. That's what the [Alaska
State Constitution] ... says in Article I.
And then also there have been a number of comments
about exceeding to the will of the majority. A
majority can be as little as 50.001 percent or even
less. Does this mean that 50.1 percent will decide
all rights that are held by the other 49.9 percent? I
don't thinks so, and the reason that ... there is a
more complicated process for amending our constitution
is to say that under the kind of democracies that
work, the majority does not always rule - the rights
of the minority are sacrosanct - and it is up to you,
the legislature, to help protect the rights of the
minority.
So the majority doesn't rule in all cases, and to use
this catch phrase - the will of the majority - somehow
is intended to give an aura of special-ness to what is
trying to be achieved through this constitutional
amendment. And what this constitutional amendment is
trying to do is to restrict the impact of the equal
protection clause of the [Alaska State Constitution].
Although it's amending the marriage provision of the
[Alaska State Constitution], its effect will be to
make it so that some people, in the state of Alaska,
will not have the full protection of the equal
protection clause.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL concluded by urging the committee to stop HJR 9
now, and for members to do their duty as legislators to protect
the rights of the minority in Alaska. In response to a request,
he agreed to furnish the committee with the AkCLU's written
legal opinion on all the points discussed thus far. Then, in
response to comments, he explained that when the Alaska Civil
Liberties Union case was sent from the Alaska Supreme Court back
to the Alaska Superior court, the first thing the Alaska
Superior Court did was issue instruction to the defendants
asking them to submit their own plan for coming into
implementation, and it was the choice of the State of Alaska,
through the executive branch, to say that it was going to "draft
and go through the rule-making process" to implement the plan
that has been in effect since 1/1/07; the Alaska Superior Court
had issued an affirmative order that that plan had to include
certain criteria, and this was overruled by the Alaska Supreme
Court in December of 2006. Again, it was the administration's
choice to implement the October 2005 decision by going through
the rule-making process.
3:12:06 PM
CHRISTOPHER KURKA said he disagrees with [Mr. Macleod-Ball] and
questions the statement that homosexuals are being discriminated
against, adding that homosexuals have the same rights as
heterosexuals and can simply marry someone of the opposite sex.
He offered his understanding that all committee members but one
are from districts that voted in the affirmative during the
April 3 advisory vote. In conclusion, he adjured the members to
vote for HJR 9.
3:13:33 PM
THERESA SYREN surmised that anyone who wants to limit the
benefits of marriage to only those people who are married is
then portrayed as a homophobe or a bigot, offering her mother as
an example of someone who's written articles stating that same-
sex unions are not the same as marriages. In one of her
mother's article, Ms. Syren relayed, her mother said that the
courts are not only wrong on this issue, they are demonstrating
an arrogance that is truly frightening, and therefore the
legislature needs to protect the [Alaska State Constitution]
from judicial activism. Referring to the comment that HJR 9
might be establishing a religion, she offered her understanding
that Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence,
referenced the laws of nature and nature's god.
MS. SYREN offered her belief that the 1998 marriage amendment
did not forbid homosexuals from marrying but instead simply
recognized that marriage is between a man and a woman and is a
procreative union. Even if the majority of [those who've voted]
had not, twice, indicated that they wish to recognize the laws
of nature and live by them, she remarked, the legislature has
the obligation to protect the rights of everyone to live under
the laws of nature. The "gay lobby," she opined, has indicated
that it wishes to overturn marriage completely, and offered the
following partial quote from an article in Out magazine written
by Michelangelo Signorile in 1994:
... to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits
and then, once granted, redefine the institution of
marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not
as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but
rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic
institution ... the most subversive action lesbians
and gay men can undertake ... is to transform the
notion of "family" entirely.
MS. SYREN concluded by characterizing that quote as an
establishment of religion.
3:18:40 PM
PAUL ADASIAK relayed that he would be speaking against HJR 9.
He said he has been pondering what he could possibly say to
convince members to vote "no" on HJR 9. Five members of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee voted "yes" last year on
House Bill 4002 - approving the April 3 advisory vote - and in
the districts of each of those members, at least half of those
who voted, voted "yes"; therefore, "your integrity," he
remarked, "would seem to demand your 'yes' vote." He went on to
say:
Short of persuading you that authorizing the advisory
vote was a mistake, I can probably do little to
encourage you now to vote "no." However, I can take
away one cowardly excuse for a "yes" vote, and ask you
to face up to what you may be voting for.
Representative Mike Kelly has gone on the record,
saying, "I don't see how any legislator could vote to
deny the people their vote on this issue." Earlier in
this session, Representative Coghill said, "I would
like the people of Alaska to have a chance to chime
in." In expressing these sentiments, they show a poor
understanding of the legislature's role in
constitutional amendments. They seem to think that
the legislature's job is to allow any amendment
proposed to be approved by a majority of the popular
vote.
But that is not our process. Our constitution shows
more wisdom than that. First, amendments must be
passed by the legislature. This body is presumed to
have greater knowledge of state need, a broader
perspective, and the longer view than the average
voter. Second, amendments to the state constitution
require a two-thirds vote - not a simple majority - of
each house of the legislature. It was made thus to
allow only persistent, pressing needs to be placed
into the constitution. If you place any stock in the
results of the April 3 advisory vote, with 52.8
percent voting "yes," you cannot believe that Alaskan
citizens are clamoring for a constitutional amendment.
And if you compare that number to the 68 percent
majority who voted for the marriage amendment in 1998,
you cannot believe that this concern is pressing. If
anything, this concern is fading.
Do not argue that you're voting for HJR 9 because "the
voters should get to decide." With constitutional
amendments, you're job is to use your best judgment
for long term interests of the state, not to act as a
rubber stamp. There is only one reason to vote for
this amendment: because you think that denying
constitutionally mandated healthcare and retirement
benefits to the unmarried partners and step-children
of public employees is a good thing. Are you willing
to say that? Please do not let an increased burden on
families be your legacy. It is not too late to change
course. For Alaskan families, I urge you to vote
"no."
3:22:07 PM
JOY DAVIDSON, after relaying that she is a mother of three
children, said she doesn't believe that the issue raised by
HJR 9 is about equal rights, nor that [the efforts to oppose it]
have any similarity to the [suffragist] movement or the civil
rights movement. Instead of discriminating against people, she
remarked, [proponents of HJR 9] are simply saying that a
marriage is between a man and a woman, and that a same-sex
relationship is not a marriage. She opined that it is a red
herring to say that the issue is one of equal rights or health
benefits. She offered:
If we move in this direction of saying that our
criteria for giving health benefits is that
essentially you have an intimate relationship with
someone for a long time, instead of it being between a
man and a woman, I see no reason for denying health
benefits to people who have intimate relationships
between two men and a woman or between a brother and a
sister. I see ... no logical or philosophical basis
for that not ... being the case ... 30 years from now,
us arguing, "Well why are we being discriminatory
against this ... intimate relationship between two men
and a woman." ... I have seen cases in Germany and in
Sweden going on right now - in Germany a brother and a
sister want to be acknowledged as married, and in
Sweden two women and a man. So I just want us to
really look at what we're doing here. And ... when we
take away the "man and woman" definition, do we
realize what could very well happen? Even if we have
no problem morally with homosexual relationships, do
we see what could, philosophically, easily happen in
20-30 years in our state? ... Thank you.
3:25:04 PM
CHERYL HUMME relayed that she would be testifying in opposition
to HJR 9. It's the court's job to look at what the [Alaska
State Constitution] says, and although [a two-thirds vote in
each body of the legislature] is required to get an amendment
[to the Alaska State Constitution on the ballot,] this
information was not provided in the voter pamphlet pertaining to
the April 3 advisory vote. She said she wishes the legislature
would stop wasting time in continued conversations about this
issue. She then expressed disfavor with the committee's
choosing to alternate testimony between those opposed to HJR 9
and those in favor of it because it then appears that the
testimony is balanced, and this is misleading. In conclusion,
she said she opposes HJR 9 and hopes the committee will vote
"no" on the question of moving the resolution from committee,
particularly given that it won't garner the required two-thirds
majority vote needed to put the proposed amendment on the
ballot. In response to a question, she opined that it would
have been better for the committee to take testimony in the
order that people signed up to testify, regardless of their
position on the resolution.
3:28:11 PM
JOHN FLEMING said that for him, marriage is a union that
historically goes beyond the bond of a relationship based on
personal pleasure. Marriage in most every culture, he opined,
involves a commitment that usually includes giving birth to and
subsequently raising a family. He also opined that this
"unique" aspect of marriage guarantees the civil- and socially-
ordered continuance of the human race. If one accepts the
premise that marriage between man and woman fulfills this
"special" role, he remarked, then the benefits designed to
support the married should only be available to the married man
and woman, and not shared with those who are physically unable
to practice procreation.
3:29:42 PM
MARY BISHOP said that as a registered Republican and a Catholic,
she opposes HJR 9 in good conscience. She explained that her
marriage of 46 years is not threatened by her friends' same-sex
union, nor is any other marriage. Imitation is the most sincere
form of flattery, she remarked, adding that she is thankful when
gay couples value the same sort of commitments found in [some]
heterosexual marriages. House Joint Resolution 9 would disallow
all spousal rights for all non-married couples - gay or straight
- regardless of how long-standing their commitment to each other
is; they would be denied rights to visit a hospitalized partner,
end-of-life healthcare, child custody, and other state-provided
spousal rights. Equal rights under the [Alaska State
Constitution] would take a big hit in all kinds of ways yet to
be litigated.
MS. BISHOP pointed out that the New Jersey Supreme Court
recently ruled that New Jersey must provide benefits to same-sex
domestic partners; instead of proposing a discriminatory
amendment to its state constitution, the New Jersey legislature
simply created a civil-union law allowing committed domestic
partners to receive the same benefits as married couples. She
said:
I urge our legislators to do likewise. Our societal
norm should spell out standards for similar benefits
and responsibilities for both gay and straight couples
who make serious commitments to one another. Alaska's
gay youth should not have to look forward to dealing
with a hostile society as they mature. We've got to
get past the fear, the disinformation, the myths, and
[the] discrimination that understandably result in
anger and retaliation, drugs, alcohol, family despair,
and even suicide. ... I've been trying to wrap my head
around this issue for 60 of my 69 years. For 30 years
or so I mostly hid my head in the sand, and I can
appreciate anyone's desire to do so.
But it won't work anymore. Gay and lesbian "happens"
to the best of families, to the best of kids. Today's
kids know it, and they won't go back in the closet,
and they will act responsibility, especially if we
straight people show them respect and equal treatment
for doing so. Most gays recognize the social and
cultural value of a stable, loving, and monogamous
relationship. I want Alaska's gay youth to look
forward to that kind of stable, loving relationship,
and to have those unions accepted in our society.
Thank you for your attention, and please oppose HJR 9.
3:33:26 PM
KATHY COTTON relayed that she had voted "'yes' for marriage" on
April 3, 2007, and surmised that the majority of those voting
did so as well. She went on to say:
I want the [legislature] to bring up this
constitutional amendment to the vote of the people of
Alaska. I believe the advisory vote showed that, and
that the majority of Alaskans want that. I thought
our state constitution seems clear enough, and I voted
in 1998 to clarify that marriage was between one man
and one woman; I believe it does now need further
clarification like what is written in this proposed
amendment. I believe that marriage is the basic unit
of society in that it's designed not by narrow-minded
men or women, but by god our creator and designer -
like several people mentioned, the natural laws.
Therefore, I think that we should protect and honor
and encourage marriage between one man and one woman.
I think the voters of this state ... [have] shown that
they want the right to vote. And I just encourage you
guys in the committee to keep this thing going. I
also would say to ... the committee that you letting
us vote does not take away benefits from anyone, it
just allows us to vote. And I just thank you for
hearing me ....
3:35:32 PM
JEANNE LAURENCELLE relayed that she is a mother, a university
employee, and a former naval officer. Remarking that the United
States was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the notion that
all men are created equal, she opined that HJR 9 is designed to
take away rights and benefits from unmarried Alaskan citizens;
that it proposes to take healthcare away from children and
retirees; that it corrupts the constitution's promise of
equality for all Alaskans; that it undermines the public
employer's ability to recruit and retain talented employees; and
that it undermines the private employer's ability to offer
competitive benefits. Furthermore, the sweeping language in
HJR 9 will invite costly lawsuits.
MS. LAURENCELLE said of HJR 9: it's a bad business from start
to finish, embarrassing and detrimental to the state, in
opposition to the founding principles of the nation, and flat
bad for businesses operating in Alaska. The justification for
presenting this amendment is the protection of marriage, and
while some evangelical Christians believe this, many mainstream
Christians believe the opposite, she remarked, and offered the
following quote from Michael Keys, now serving as the Bishop of
the Alaska Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:
"God does not need us to protect our definition of marriage; I
believe Jesus calls us to ask, 'How are we called to heal
others,' not wound them." She pointed out that the Alaska
Supreme Court has said: "Denying benefits has no demonstrated
relationship to the interest of promoting marriage."
MS. LAURENCELLE observed that the marriage issue has already
been decided, and that the definition of marriage is locked into
the Alaska State Constitution. A new amendment that proposes to
take rights and benefits is just that, an amendment to take
rights and benefits; it wastes the state's time and money, gives
no protection to marriage, and harms Alaskans. In conclusion
she asked, "Please vote against the proposed amendment."
3:38:23 PM
JUSTIN COTTON said he supports HJR 9. Acknowledging that the
April 3 advisory vote did not result in two-thirds of the voters
voting "yes," he pointed out that such is not necessary - all
that is required to approve a ballot item is a simple majority
vote. Having garnered such a vote, the proposed constitutional
amendment should go on to a vote of the people, he opined,
regardless that the vote was close - it was still a victory for
proponents of this proposed amendment pertaining to marriage.
He said he feels that HJR 9 should go on and be placed on the
ballot, adding that it seems reasonable, once advice via an
advisory vote has been given, to follow that advice. In
conclusion, he said he appreciated the references prior speakers
made to "natural rights" and "natural law."
3:40:32 PM
STEVEN JACQUIER relayed that he would be speaking on behalf of
himself, his partner, and their children. He said:
I am one of the 62 people in the state whose health
insurance benefits HJR 9 seeks to withdraw and deny.
This divisive effort has been the root of so much
radical rancor. For example, here in Anchorage
supporters of the recent advisory vote were
trespassing without permission onto public schools and
posting their campaign signs on school grounds even
when asked not to engage in this illegal activity.
For the record, by the way - since there seems to be a
misunderstanding on some people's part - gay and
lesbian people can and do procreate, as well as
[provide] excellent parenting to orphaned children.
I join Chairman Ramras in wishing there were no hatred
in Alaska, but my friend Gene's experience indicates
otherwise: Gene was murdered by a zealot who burst
into his home and smashed in Gene's skull with a
hammer for being, quote, "an abomination in the sight
of the lord." [House Joint Resolution 9] is inflaming
these flames of hatred in Alaska. This issue being
addressed today is entirely about fundamental issues
of fairness as regard [to] equal pay for equal work.
Just as both our leaders and average people alike
eventually came to realize the fundamental malignant
wrongness of prejudicial discrimination in slavery, in
preventing women from voting, and in denying partners
of different colors the right to marry, we trust time
is on the side of reason and justice with this issue
as well. [House Joint Resolution 9] is like a
throwback to territorial days, when some people felt
quite righteously justified in posting signs ...
[saying], "No dogs or Natives allowed." My family and
I have faith this, too, shall pass. Sooner or later
justice will prevail and equal work for equal pay will
stand uncontested as the law of the land for all
people, as it is now, today, here in Alaska thanks to
the wisdom of our founding fathers and the Alaska
State Constitution.
As time moves forward and younger, more diverse,
better educated voters replace those whose
[irrational] fears would block equal justice for all,
the question will change from, "Should the same-sex
partners of state employees be barred from equal
access to benefits?" to, "How, in 2007, could the
legislators and people of this great state ever have
sullied themselves with attempting to change the state
constitution so as to implement such ugly
discrimination?" If this [resolution] ... moves
forward today, then history will recall this moment
with distaste, just as we recall with embarrassment
and shame the irrational prejudices of decades past.
The question remains of just how much cost and harm to
families unlike their own, as well as to the
taxpayers, institutions, and reputation of Alaska as a
whole, some legislators are willing to inflict on
others based upon their personal religious beliefs.
Evidence in abundance shows there is no fiscal
justification for this prejudicial [resolution.] To
quote the great scholar and statesman, President John
Adams, "Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be
our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our
passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and
evidence."
Indeed, the more the evidence of reason is willfully
ignored and the more extremist, reactionary, and
intolerant the Republican Party allows itself to
become of the actual diversity in our society, the
more irrelevant it will be and, accordingly, the less
influence it will have in future. Please make a
better choice today and table HJR 9.
MR. JACQUIER, in conclusion, relayed that he would be faxing the
balance of his testimony to the committee and would remain
available to answer questions.
3:44:57 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed disagreement with the concept that
discussion of this issue will trigger violence.
MR. JACQUIER, in response to questions, spoke briefly about his
experience in adopting a child, and offered his belief that had
language such as is being proposed via HJR 9 been in the Alaska
State Constitution at that time, he would have experienced
prejudice in the adoption process because it would have been
demonstrable that he and his partner would not have been able to
provide the same quality of care as they can now via his
partner's state health insurance benefits.
3:47:16 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President, Eagle Forum Alaska, after saying that
she is representing over 1,000 families and all of those who
voted "yes" on April 3, posited that they all want HJR 9 to pass
the legislature. She went on to say:
Since the "yes" vote won on April 3, we've been
marginalized and told that our vote doesn't count
because we didn't win by a large enough margin.
Guarantee you that if [those voting "no"] had won, we
would have said that "no" won. After being outspent
more than three to one and having the people of Alaska
told that this vote had nothing to do with marriage,
people of Alaska went out anyway on an April day with
no other reason to vote, and they said ... with their
vote that they want marriage to be set apart from
other relationships and they do not want partners of
same-sex relationships to be given marriage benefits.
I think we'll agree that our society is in a moral
decline and that the state of the family in America
and in Alaska is weak today. And I'm here to ask you
to not deal another blow to family by suppressing the
people's right to vote on this constitutional
amendment. Yes, there are blended families and there
are homes with children living with two lesbians or
two male [homosexuals], but that's not the preferred
way bringing up [children]. Studies show that the
best, healthiest possible environment for children is
to grow up [with] their mom and dad. That's not
always possible, however, it is what's best for
children. If we treat same-sex partnerships the same
as marriage, [we] are saying that one is as good as
another, [and] that simply is not true.
[Our] children are faced with so many confusing
messages today, and we need to be sure that we're not
adding to their confusion by validating same-sex
relationships as being equal to marriage. Now we're
being told that HJR 9 is possibly a revision to the
constitution and not an amendment. In the truest
sense of the word, HJR 9 isn't even an amendment; it's
simply a clarification of the original [intent] of the
founding fathers of the Alaska State Constitution.
There are some [still] alive today and we can ask them
- I have. Never in their wildest dreams did our
founding fathers envision the need for HJR 9 or, for
that matter, the '98 amendment. ...
MS. JOSLIN continued:
The thought [that] HJR 9 is a revision is
disingenuous; HJR 9 merely returns us to the original
intent of the constitution. During the weeks leading
up to the advisory vote that was put together by the
legislature, we heard over and over again about what a
waste [of money] it was to hold an advisory vote.
This is a very important matter, and the [people] of
Alaska deserve an opportunity to weigh in on it.
However, if after going to the expense [and trouble]
of holding an advisory vote the legislature intends to
ignore the will of the people, then it was a waste.
If our legislators have no intention of honoring the
will of the people of Alaska, then the advisory vote
was nothing more than political trickery and the
legislature has (indisc. - teleconference audio faded
out) to the voters of Alaska. Surely this is not
true. Surely the members of our state legislature
have a deep held (indisc. - teleconference audio faded
out) respect for the people of Alaska. Your passage
of HJR 9 will show that to be true. Thank you.
3:50:56 PM
RICHARD COLLINS relayed that he has been partnered with a man
for over 10 years. He elaborated:
In 1996 we celebrated our partnership with our
families in a church service, and on that day we
signed our wills and powers of attorney and had them
witnessed by members of the congregation. Since then,
we have established our lives in Fairbanks, we have
bought a home together, and accumulated probably too
much joint property. I am very concerned that HJR 9
will undermine the joint property and powers of health
and financial attorney that we have established.
[House Joint Resolution 9] will not change the
definition of marriage in the constitution.
Recognizing that we will not have the opportunity to
legally marry, Patrick and I have used the tools of
everyday law to create a framework that makes sense
for our lives. I fear that HJR 9 is a blunt tool and
a broad brush that will revise common property and
personal law. It establishes a special class of
second-class Alaskans. Thank you for your time and
please vote "no" on this in committee.
MR. COLLINS, in response to a question, relayed that he is not
qualified to speak on issues related to estate planning law. He
said his concern is that since marriage has already been
defined, HJR 9 instead seems to be doing something that will
affect many aspects of health, power of attorney, and custody
issues; again, HJR 9 seems to be a very broad brush.
3:53:13 PM
LONNIET KURKA said she would be speaking in favor [of HJR 9].
She opined that the issue of health and retirement benefits
could have been dealt with in a different way, and perhaps
should have been, rather than giving the courts the opportunity
to say that same-sex relationships are similarly situated.
That's one reason why she likes the language currently in HJR 9,
she relayed, because it does say that marriage is different.
She went on to say that although her marriage isn't threatened
by giving benefits [to same-sex partners], doing so does
threaten marriage as an institution. She added: "I think it's
very important that we protect and value that for our culture
and for the continuation of values and ... decency, and so I
would really like to be able to vote on this issue, and I think
we need this added to the amendment. Thank you."
3:55:09 PM
ROLANDO RIVAS remarked that HJR 9 is being pushed through the
legislature by a few highly-conservative legislators who feel
the need to press their agenda on a segment of Alaska's
population. The resolution has nothing to do with marriage, but
has everything to do with equal rights under the Alaska State
Constitution. He said he cannot understand how it was that the
legislature felt the need to spend over $1 million of the
state's tax dollars to [have an advisory vote] to find out how
some of Alaska's citizens felt, particularly given that it would
have been just as easy and a lot cheaper to hire an agency to
run a poll. Given that less than 18 percent of the populace
voted on the advisory vote, he said he can't see the value of
[having had the vote] or in calling those who voted "yes" a
majority of Alaskans.
MR. RIVAS asked the committee to do the right thing. The Alaska
State Constitution was written in order to afford equal rights
to all Alaskans, not just those that some feel are worthy of its
protection. He added:
Yet here we are again, testifying against what has
become yet another hot button issue for those who feel
that they are potentially better than the person
sitting next to them in the workplace. What is it
that makes you feel that you have the right to deny
medical benefits to a segment of the population
because they do not fit the mold that you have laid
out? [House Joint Resolution 9] will not just affect
those who have been waiting for medical benefits but
potentially denying those rights already afforded them
by their employers. Where is the justification, I ask
you?
If you, our legislature, continue to pass this
[resolution] up the ladder, it will be a sad day for
all Alaskans. What will come next? ... Will we some
day again start to deny rights to our Alaskan Natives
or other segments of our population, as we did, not so
very long ago, by an all white legislature? Because
perhaps we might feel that they just are not quite
fitting the mold that we have come to expect? So I
ask you again to do ... the right thing, not ...
something [that] some of you might feel ... would get
you more votes at some point, but to do what is just
and equal for all Alaskans, and that is to table
HJR 9.
3:58:44 PM
CHRISTINE KURKA said that as a young unmarried woman and an
Alaskan voter, she urges the committee to pass HJR 9 out of
committee. The majority of those who voted during the April 3
advisory vote want the opportunity to vote in the 2008 election
to amend the Alaska State Constitution to keep the unique
benefits of marriage to those who are married. Although
legislators may ignore what these voters want, she remarked,
members will be held accountable by both their constituents and
by "your creator." She offered that she is not saying that
homosexual people are less valuable, merely that it is the duty
of government to say what it will allow and promote.
MS. CHRISTINE KURKA expressed agreement with the testimony of
Mr. Bird that the legislature was responsible for dealing with
this issue and should have had the courage to do so, to firmly
say that the benefits of marriage remain to those who are
married. If this discussion was really about equal pay for
equal work or equal rights, she opined, people would be
discussing why a state employee who lives with his/her father,
for example, shouldn't be able to [extend state medical benefits
to his/her father]. Instead the discussion revolves around
people who are sexually active with one another and live
together - not really a good reason for giving the same benefits
as are given to those that are married, she concluded.
4:01:12 PM
SHIRLEY RIVAS relayed that she has been staying awake nights
trying to figure out how denying her son health insurance from
his partner's employer is going to defend or protect either hers
or anyone else's marriage. She went on to say:
This makes no practical sense to me. We are just
fine. My son and his partner do not threaten our
marriage or that of anyone else. If anything, they
enrich our lives. They have been together three years
and are just as devoted and loving to each other as
are our heterosexual children and their spouses. We
feel greatly blessed by all of our children and all
their families. I do, however, see a threat on [my]
personal horizon if HJR 9 should pass into law; for
instance, if, because of HJR 9, our son should lose
his health insurance and suffer a major accident or
illness, the financial obligation of this catastrophe
will fall on the shoulders of his partner and their
extended family - that would be us, his parents and
his brother and sisters.
Please know, without any doubt, this [resolution] will
definitely not just affect the people you so easily
hate and dismiss, but also those you profess to
protect. [House Joint Resolution 9] is a hideous hate
crime based on homophobia, which is based on fear or
worse; HJR 9 is a political ploy to get out the vote
of those people who are eaten alive with homophobia
and fear. The crafters of this [resolution] will do
anything for a vote, right down on to amending a
perfectly good constitution, wasting time and money
for political gain. The crafters of this [resolution]
should be ashamed. Go back to your office, put on
your thinking cap, open your hearts, and create
legislation that will be useful to our society.
While you are wasting taxpayer time and money on
amending the constitution to deny a minority
population healthcare, you could be doing something
really useful. What are you doing to improve the
education of our children? What are you doing to
improve the healthcare system for all Alaskans? What
are you doing to end the plague of drug abuse? What
are you doing to help the homeless? What are you
doing to help end spousal and child abuse? What are
you doing trying to pass legislation to deny people
rights they have earned and are entitled to. The
courts are correct. Vote "no" and stop this nonsense
in this committee.
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized Ms. Rivas's testimony as intolerant.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that not everybody who supports
HJR 9 is a homophobe.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that the people who are
testifying on this issue, regardless of their position, are
simply speaking from the heart, adding his belief that the
members appreciate everyone who's come forward to speak.
CHAIR RAMRAS concurred, but opined that tolerance should be
practiced by all regardless of which side of an issue they are
on.
4:06:34 PM
STEPHEN GINGRICH opined that a benefit ban benefits no one,
adding that it is disappointing that some legislators are still
pandering to bigotry in proposing what he characterized as
another embarrassment to the Alaska State Constitution. It
would be more decent of legislators to be spending time, effort,
and the people's money coming up with ways to ensure that as
many Alaskans as possible have medical coverage; the lack of
medical coverage is a major problem in the U.S., and HJR 9 would
make that problem worse. He pointed out that lesbian and gay
people have children at a rate close to that of straight people,
and that HJR 9 would take away those children's coverage. The
proposed amendment to the Alaska State Constitution is contrary
to the principles of good government and democracy, he opined,
adding that all citizens are constitutionally entitled to equal
treatment by the government. And government would be failing in
its responsibility if it allows the prejudice of the majority to
deny equal rights to an unpopular minority.
MR. GINGRICH opined that legislators should have the
professionalism to rise above personal prejudice and simply do
what is right, just as the Alaska Supreme Court did. This
resolution would require discrimination by private employers,
and the $1.25 million of the people's money that the legislature
wasted on the advisory vote, which was effectively a tie vote,
would more than likely have paid the first year's cost of the
[same-sex partner benefit] program. He noted that the
University of Alaska and the CBJ have had a policy of equal pay
for equal work for a very long time, without doing harm to
anyone. Prejudice is diminishing; what was a two-thirds
majority in 1998 is now down to 52.8 percent, and thus it is
likely that not even a simple majority of voters would vote to
pass this proposed amendment, should it pass the legislature, by
the time it came before the voters. The 1998 marriage
amendment, he predicted, will eventually be ruled
unconstitutional. In conclusion, he noted that reasonable
conservatives, via editorials in the newspaper, have spoken
against [HJR 9], and opined that HJR 9 could not be more anti-
family.
4:09:30 PM
KEVIN G. CLARKSON, Esq., Attorney at Law, Brena, Bell &
Clarkson, PC, confirmed that he had written the aforementioned
memorandum dated 4/17/07.
CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no other members of the
public wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 9.
The committee took an at-ease from 4:10 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he's received information
from the administration regarding those who've applied for
[same-sex partner] benefits: there are a total of 70 people
enrolled - 53 retirees and 17 current employees - [less than
one-fourth of 1 percent] of the State's current 29,732
employees/retirees.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, responding to prior testimony, opined that
the legislature can't take away benefits that never existed to
begin with; that those who favor HJR 9 are incredulous that some
homosexual couples are demanding the same rights as legally
married people; that the break down of traditional family and
traditional marriage creates all manner of social and economic
problems; that one's race is beyond one's control, whereas one's
sexual behavior is always under one's control; that the focus of
the National Education Association (NEA) should be on teachers'
salaries, wages, and working conditions; and that the fact that
some marriages are not perfect is a function of personal
behavior not a function of the institution of marriage itself.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that he agrees with the comment
regarding not moving ancient boundary stones - especially as
they pertain to marriage - and that he questions whether a
father and son or mother and daughter or brother and brother or
sister and sister living together could constitute a same-sex
couple. He said he also agrees with the comment that [marriage]
is a defining issue of society; as such, it is appropriate for
the legislature to spend time discussing it. Furthermore, there
can be no such thing as a spousal right unless one has a spouse,
and [homosexual people] aren't allowed to be spouses. Anyone
can designate who may visit him/her in the hospital, and who can
get his/her property upon death. Allowing the people to vote
won't take away the rights of anybody, and all unmarried state
employees already receive benefits. If advice has been given -
as with the April 3 advisory vote - he opined, that advice
should be listened to.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expressed disbelief with the concept that
gay and lesbian people can procreate, and with the argument that
equal pay for equal work applies to this issue. He said he
agrees with the comment that HJR 9 is more of a clarification
than an amendment, and opined that it is certainly not a
revision. He also said he agrees with the comment that it would
be a waste of the advisory vote if people are not then afforded
the opportunity to vote on the proposed constitutional
amendment. In conclusion, he opined that everyone on the planet
has value and needs to be treated with respect and dignity
regardless of his/her personal situation or sexual orientation.
CHAIR RAMRAS turned the committee's attention to the words, "in
this State", found on page 1, line 9.
4:43:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is wondering whether it is that
wording that creates the possibility that HJR 9 would be
considered a revision. He also raised the issue of reciprocity.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. MISCHEL said that the difficulty with the aforementioned
language is that it creates an ambiguity, is perhaps broader
than intended, could be interpreted to apply beyond State or
public actions, and might be the subject of litigation. She
said she is not sure, however, whether changing or deleting that
language would resolve the question of whether HJR 9 proposes an
amendment or a revision, adding that she is troubled by the
breadth of that language from a legal perspective unless it is
the intent of the committee to apply the prohibitions in the
proposed amendment to private employers or anyone outside of
public organizations. Even if that language is removed, she
warned, the proposed amendment will still have fairly broad
applications and could therefore still be considered a revision,
though deleting the language will limit the amendment's
potential applicability beyond public entities. She suggested
changing the language from "in this State" to "by the State" or
to "by the State and political subdivisions"; again, another
option would be to delete the words, "in this State" altogether.
4:46:45 PM
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MR. CLARKSON opined that members should not be concerned that
Article I, Section 25, of the Alaska State Constitution - either
as it is currently or as HJR 9 is proposing to amend it - would
impact private entities/individuals; constitutions only define
relationships between government and citizens, not relationships
between private citizens and private citizens. Also, regardless
of whether the aforementioned language is deleted, the change
proposed by HJR 9 won't require private employers to do anything
differently with regard to how they "divvy out" their private
employment benefits to their private employees. He also noted
that the phrase, "in this State" is already used in existing
Article I, Section 25, and offered his belief that the point of
using that phrase is that it "defines what a marriage would be
that might be created within Alaska," and it "defines what
relationships that might be created outside of Alaska that once
they come to Alaska would be recognized as a marriage."
MR. CLARKSON said he agrees a bit with Ms. Mischel that the
words, "shall be valid or recognized in this State and to which"
are not necessary. He surmised that the proposed new language
should simply say, "No other union is similarly situated to a
marriage between a man and woman and, therefore, a marriage
between a man and a woman is the only union that the rights,
benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage shall
be extended or assigned."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered instead that the words, "that
shall be valid or recognized in this State and" should be
deleted, thus leaving the proposed language to read, "No other
union is similarly situated to a marriage between a man and
woman and, therefore, a marriage between a man and a woman is
the only union to which the rights, benefits, obligations,
qualities, or effects of marriage shall be extended or
assigned."
MR. CLARKSON concurred.
4:51:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to Mr. Clarkson's initial
comments, opined that there actually are a number of
constitutional rights that do apply in private situations; for
example, the right of free speech and the limitation of libel
lawsuits apply in disputes between private individuals. He said
he wouldn't oppose an amendment deleting the words, "that shall
be valid or recognized in this State and".
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he will give consideration to that
suggested change.
MR. CLARKSON, turning to the issue of whether HJR 9 constitutes
a revision to the Alaska State Constitution or an amendment,
opined that HJR 9 is simply proposing an amendment, not a
revision, regardless of whether the aforementioned suggested
change is adopted. He then noted that he'd served as counsel
for the State in the Bess case, and that he'd argued in favor
viewing the 1998 marriage amendment as an amendment rather than
a revision. After reading portions of Article XIII, Sections 1
and 4, of the Alaska State Constitution, he relayed that in the
Bess case, the Alaska Supreme Court said that there are both
qualitative and quantitative distinctions between an amendment
to the constitution and a revision to the constitution. From a
quantitative perspective, a proposed constitutional change is a
revision if it directly effects a modification to numerous
existing provisions of the constitution so as to constitute a
change to the substantial entirety of the constitution, and from
a qualitative perspective, a proposed constitutional change is a
revision if it has the effect of creating a far-reaching change
in the nature of Alaska's basic governmental plan.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MR. CLARKSON offered his understanding that in determining
whether a proposed constitutional change is a revision or an
amendment, the core question becomes whether the proposed change
is so significant as to create a need to consider the
constitution as an organic whole. In other words, in
considering a proposed constitutional change, is one also
required to reconsider the entire structure of the constitution?
He opined that since the court already determined that the
language that became the 1998 marriage amendment was just an
amendment, then HJR 9 can be nothing other than an amendment.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
5:01:09 PM
MR. CLARKSON concurred with Ms. Mischel's statement that the
second sentence of Senate Joint Resolution 42 was dropped by the
court from the proposed 1998 ballot measure as being mere
surplusage. He then offered his belief that HJR 9 would not
affect Alaska's statutory divorce laws because a divorce decree
creates obligations on and grants rights to only those who were
once were married.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that there
was a case [Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission] in
which the courts held it was unconstitutional for a landlord to
refuse to rent an apartment to a couple that wasn't married;
HJR 9 would reverse that opinion and have an effect on the equal
protection clause in that regard. Also, HJR 9 could potentially
reverse the court's decision in a case involving workers'
compensation benefits - SLW v. State; an unmarried couple
conceived a child, the father was then killed at work, and the
question was whether the child was entitled to recover under the
state's workers' compensation laws, which, at the time, only
allowed "legitimate" children to receive workers' compensation
benefits. In that case, the Alaska Supreme Court held that
there were no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents,
and extended the benefits to that child. He opined that under
HJR 9, that case would be reversed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that there is also a question in
his mind whether, under Alaska Civil Liberties Union, the
statute that allows married couples to escape probate by
creating a deed for tenancy by the entirety wouldn't apply to a
same-sex couple who can't marry. If such is the case, [HJR 9]
would have a profound effect and require same-sex couples to go
through the expensive and oftentimes difficult probate procedure
just to pass the family residence on to the surviving partner.
Noting that the issue before the committee also pertains to
retirement benefits, he pointed out that there are a number of
people working for the University of Alaska and the Alaska
Railroad Corporation (ARRC) whose rights may have vested and
thus they may be entitled to those benefits under Article XII,
Section 7. He remarked:
All of those constitutional provisions - equal
protection, the right to contract with respect to the
issue of tenancy by the entirety ..., the vested
retirement benefits - ... are only three distinct
constitutional protections that are implicated by
this, and argue in my mind strongly for the conclusion
that this is a revision, not just an amendment.
5:08:15 PM
MR. CLARKSON opined that HJR 9 will have no impact on the
Swanner decision because that case dealt with statutory language
[AS 18.80.240], not a constitutional provision, regarding who a
private landlord may prohibit as a tenant. With regard to the
SLW case, he opined that HJR 9 won't impact that case since it
dealt with parenthood rather than marital status. With regard
to the issue of deeds for tenancy by the entirety, he opined
that neither the Alaska Civil Liberties Union case nor HJR 9
will have an impact because current law stipulates that an
unmarried couple cannot hold property as tenants by the
entirety, and same-sex couples cannot get married. With regard
to the issue of retirement benefits for certain employees, he
relayed that he has not yet looked at the issue of whether HJR 9
will take away vested rights.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on the issue of tenancy by the
entirety, clarified that his point is that in view of the Alaska
Civil Liberties Union case, a good argument could be made by a
same-sex couple that they are denied equal protection [under]
the law with respect to "that statute" because only a
heterosexual married couple can take advantage of it and the
same-sex couple is prohibited from marrying; "that's" subject to
constitutional challenge now, but wouldn't be under HJR 9.
MR. CLARKSON agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that HJR 9 doesn't deal with
same-sex couples only; it also deals with unmarried heterosexual
couples and would deny them equal protection under the law as it
is extended to married couples, both now and in the future.
MR. CLARKSON posited that although currently Alaska doesn't
recognize common law marriage, he doesn't think that either the
1998 marriage amendment or HJR 9 would prohibit Alaska courts
from recognizing those relationships as being between a man and
a woman only and as marriages albeit sans ceremony. He said he
agrees, however, that HJR 9 would prohibit the government from
attaching the privileges of marriage to any other relationships.
5:15:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that if a couple were to meet
the requirements of common law marriage in another state, then
the courts in Alaska would recognize that marriage because it
was valid in that other state. He questioned whether that view
would be changed by the passage of HJR 9.
MR. CLARKSON reiterated his belief that it wouldn't because a
common law marriage is still a relationship between a man and a
woman only.
CHAIR RAMRAS - surmising that Representative Gruenberg is of the
opinion that the change proposed by HJR 9 would require a
constitutional convention because it is a revision, and that Mr.
Clarkson is of the opinion that HJR 9 is merely an amendment -
asked Ms. Mischel for her view.
MS. MISCHEL said she doesn't share Mr. Clarkson's confidence
that HJR 9 is not a revision. The legislature, however, has the
authority to pass the resolution, and the Alaska Supreme Court
can then sort out the question of whether it constitutes a
revision. In terms of property interests and divorce decrees
and other issues that have been raised, she observed that there
are constitutional implications in modifying or interfering with
"those kinds of relationships"; HJR 9 is proposing to insert
very broad language, she reiterated, much broader than the
language of the aforementioned second sentence of Senate Joint
Resolution 42.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked when a citizen would assert that HJR 9
warrants a constitutional convention.
MS. MISCHEL said that in the past such assertions were made
after the passage of the resolutions and before their language
was presented to the voters.
MR. CLARKSON concurred and offered some historical background
regarding the challenges pertaining to Senate Joint
Resolution 42 and other ballot measures addressed during that
same election.
CHAIR RAMRAS surmised that should HJR 9 pass the legislature and
a challenge be raised, it would be up to the Alaska Supreme
Court to determine whether it is an amendment and thus suitable
for placement on the ballot.
MR. CLARKSON concurred.
MS. MISCHEL, in response to a question, reiterated that she
can't speak with certainty that the Alaska Supreme Court will
view HJR 9 as an amendment. She herself, she offered, would not
want to defend it as a mere amendment because the implications
of its proposed language are very broad; therefore, unless the
court modifies its analysis, the Bess case supports her opinion
that HJR 9 appears to be a revision. She again acknowledged,
however, that she could be wrong.
MR. CLARKSON disagreed.
5:26:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred again to Romer as referenced
in footnote 20 of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union opinion, and
asked Ms. Mischel to elaborate on her comments as presented in
her 4/2/07 written opinion.
MS. MISCHEL offered that in Romer, the U.S. Supreme Court found
that a proposed amendment to the Colorado State Constitution
violated the federal equal protection provision; although not
directly related to the question of whether HJR 9 constitutes a
revision, when a court is analyzing the substantive effects of
HJR 9, the court may find that the federal equal protection
provision is also implicated.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that because [HJR 9] denies
equal protection of the law to public employees with same-sex
domestic partners, it violates the equal protection clause in
the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. He said he also
believes that there is some serious question regarding whether
it will similarly cause problems in the Alaska State
Constitution. Regardless of whether the latter point is true,
if HJR 9 violates the federal Constitution, the federal
supremacy clause takes precedence. He then read footnote 20 of
the Alaska Civil Liberties Union opinion [original punctuation
provided although with some formatting changes]:
Explicitly denying benefits to public employees with
same-sex domestic partners would arguably offend the
Federal Constitution. In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620
(1996), the United States Supreme Court struck down on
federal equal protection grounds an amendment to the
Colorado Constitution that repealed all local and
statewide laws prohibiting discrimination based on
sexual orientation. The Court explained that in
addition to merely repealing state and local laws, the
amendment "prohibits all legislative, executive, or
judicial action at any level of state or local
government designed to protect the named class...."
Id. at 624. The Court invalidated the amendment under
the rational basis standard of judicial review,
reasoning that the amendment could not satisfy even
the minimal level of scrutiny. Id. at 632. It
explained that the amendment's "disqualification of a
class of persons from the right to seek specific
protection from the law is unprecedented in our
jurisprudence.... A law declaring that in general it
shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than
for all others to seek aid from the government is
itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the
most literal sense." Id. at 633.
5:33:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that a third challenge to HJR 9
could be that it could not be constitutionally applied to people
who've acquired any rights to pensions, including those that
have acquired them as a result of the decision in Alaska Civil
Liberties Union and previous retirement laws pertaining to the
University of Alaska, the ARRC, and other entities protected
under Article XII, Section 7, of the Alaska State Constitution.
MS. MISCHEL offered her belief that it is possible that HJR 9
would violate Article XII, Section 7, of the Alaska State
Constitution. Should HJR 9 pass and survive a court challenge,
the question of vested retirement rights must be reconciled with
Article XII, Section 7, which prohibits the reduction of
retirement benefits. Furthermore, there are people who've
already qualified [for benefits] under the regulations adopted
in response to Alaska Civil Liberties Union. She said she is
not sure how a conflict between two sections of the Alaska State
Constitution would be dealt with; normally the narrower, later
amendment would supersede a broader, prior amendment. Again,
though, this raises the issue of whether HJR 9 would have a
substantive effect on "other legal rights" in the Alaska State
Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL disagreed. Referring to the State's
different tiers of retirement benefits, he pointed out that the
benefits provided in one tier have been allowed to stand even
when other tiers have been instituted. He surmised that the
same would be true should HJR 9 pass the legislature and be
approved by a majority of the voters. He offered his belief
that HJR 9 would not affect Article XII, Section 7, and pointed
out that the legislature is the policy-making body, not the
courts.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, posited
that it would be up to the courts to determine whether a
challenge asserting that HJR 9 causes two provisions of the
Alaska State Constitution to conflict with each other would be
sustainable.
MR. CLARKSON, in response to a question, reiterated that he has
not yet looked at the issue of whether HJR 9 will affect vested
rights. With regard to the equal protection issue raised in
Romer, he noted that since the time that the Alaska Supreme
court in Alaska Civil Liberties Union referenced Romer, the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals considered a legal challenge to
Nebraska's marriage amendment and upheld a sentence virtually
identical to language in HJR 9. He also pointed out that the
constitutional amendment that was dealt with in Romer didn't
just address marriage or marriage benefits, but instead
identified a class of people by a single trait - that being
sexual orientation - and denied them societal benefits across
the board; for example, one question that arose was whether the
proposed Colorado amendment would have resulted in homosexuals
being denied police protection. The court in Romer found the
language of the Colorado amendment to be so broad as to be
completely irrational. To compare the Colorado amendment to
HJR 9 is not possible, he opined, given the difference in the
impact of each.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the legislature
shouldn't be looking only at how the courts would view HJR 9 but
at how they as legislators would view it. A constitutional
provision is unlike any other statute because if a
constitutional amendment such as is being proposed via HJR 9
passes, it will authorize future legislatures to the ability to
pass laws that are currently prohibited. Therefore, HJR 9 must
be viewed through the lens of time, he remarked, and how it
might be interpreted by future legislators and future courts.
He asked Mr. Clarkson whether he believes that HJR 9 could allow
a future legislature to deny unmarried couples police
protection, for example.
MR. CLARKSON opined that [HJR 9] won't because it relates to the
benefits, attributes, rights, obligations, qualities, and
effects of marriage, and police protection is not divvied out
based on one's marital status.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would leave it to other
committee members and members of the public to put the proposed
language in the context of other laws that may be allowed.
5:45:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 8-9
Delete:
"that shall be valid or recognized in this State and"
CHAIR RAMRAS objected.
The committee took an at-ease from 5:46 p.m. to 5:49 p.m.
CHAIR RAMRAS removed his objection to Amendment 1. There being
no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:49:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HJR 9, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Dahlstrom,
Coghill, Samuels, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting HJR 9,
as amended, from committee. Representatives Holmes and
Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, CSHJR 9(JUD) was
reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote
of 5-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|