Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/09/1996 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 1996
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Brian Porter
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 545
"An Act relating to the cost-of-living differential for certain
public employees residing in the state and the criteria for
determining eligibility for the differential; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 308
"An Act clarifying a statute relating to persons who may legally
marry; relating to same-sex marriages; and providing for an
effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 416
"An Act relating to fees or assessment of costs for certain
services provided by state government, including hearing costs
related to the real estate surety fund; fees for authorization to
operate a postsecondary educational institution or for an agent's
permit to perform services for a postsecondary educational
institution; administrative fees for self-insurers in workers'
compensation; business license fees; fees for activities related to
coastal zone management, training relating to emergency management
response, regulation of pesticides and broadcast chemicals, and
subdivision plans for sewage waste disposal or treatment; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 482
"An Act relating to state procurement practices and procedures; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 198
"An Act relating to absences from the state and eligibility for
permanent fund dividends; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 546
"An Act providing for and relating to the issuance of general
obligation bonds in the amount of $600,211,000 for the purpose of
paying the cost of acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, and
equipping public schools and of repair and major maintenance of
public school and University of Alaska facilities; and providing
for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the duration of a regular session.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 545
SHORT TITLE: PUB. EMPLOYEE COST OF LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/22/96 3269 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/22/96 3269 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/22/96 3269 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM, REV, DOT)
03/22/96 3269 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/04/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/09/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 308
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT SAME SEX MARRIAGES
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/14/96 2738 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/14/96 2738 (S) HES, JUD
03/18/96 (S) HES AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/18/96 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/20/96 (S) HES AT 10:30 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/20/96 (S) MINUTE(HES)
03/20/96 2806 (S) HES RPT 3DP
03/20/96 2806 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)
03/25/96 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/25/96 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/26/96 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/26/96 2901 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 1NR 1DNP
03/26/96 2902 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAW)
03/27/96 2924 (S) RULES RPT 3 CALENDAR & 2NR 3/27/96
03/27/96 2925 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/27/96 2925 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y12 N8
03/27/96 2925 (S) THIRD READING 3/28 CALENDAR
03/28/96 2946 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 308
03/28/96 2947 (S) PASSED Y16 N3 E1
03/28/96 2947 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
03/28/96 2947 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/29/96 2972 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP TODAY
03/29/96 2973 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/01/96 3508 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/01/96 3508 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
04/09/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 416
SHORT TITLE: OMNIBUS STATE FEES & COST ASSESSMENTS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/12/96 2432 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/96 2432 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, L&C, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/12/96 2432 (H) 7 FNS (DCED, 2-DEC, 2-GOV, LABOR, MLV)
01/12/96 2432 (H) FISCAL NOTE (REV)
01/12/96 2433 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/09/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
PATRICK GULLUFSEN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 545.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on SB 308.
CHARLES TRIPP
1820 Larch Street C8
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-4229
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SB 308.
DAN MINYARD
1216 Ismailov Street
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-5284
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SB 308.
CHARLES ABBOTT
P.O. Box 1434
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-1098
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on SB 308.
BARBARA RAWALT
P.O. Box 823
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-1946
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SB 308.
ROY BOWDRE
P.O. Box 2
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4448
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SB 308.
DEBORAH VANDRUFF
1014 West 16th Avenue, Number 4
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
SYLVIA SHORT, Member
Citizen of the State of Alaska
705 West 47th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 562-4992
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on SB 308.
ALLISON MENDEL
8830 Banjo Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 243-7826
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on SB 308.
LYNN STIMLER
10919 (Indisc.) Drive
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: Not provided.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on SB 308.
JED WHITTAKER
1540 Medra Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: Not available.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
SUSAN MOEHER
1014 West 16th Avenue, Number 4
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
PHIL REEMTSMA
208 Lawton
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4781
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SB 308.
JOANNE JENCKS
616 Maple
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-5244
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SB 308.
DAN DAVIS
P.O. Box 1285
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SB 308.
MILDRED BOESSER
17585 Lena Loop
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-1445
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
DANIEL COLLISON
P.O. Box 21466
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-5001
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
SARA BOESSER
9365 View Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5230
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
MARSHA BUCK, Member
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays - Juneau
8445 Kimberly Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-6167
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
BURNIE LINDSEY
3126 Spruce Cape Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-5625
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of SB 308.
AMY YOUNG
218 East 10th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-9925
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
KAREN CARLISLE
P.O. Box 763
Dillingham, Alaska 99476
Telephone: (907) 842-4618
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to SB 308.
NANCY SLAGLE, Director
Budget Review
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4699
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 416.
JULES TILLESTON, Director
Central Office
Division of Mining and Water Management
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 800
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5935
Telephone: (907) 762-2163
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 416.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-47, SIDE A
Number 0015
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Ivan, Ogan, Willis, Green and James. Members
absent were Representatives Robinson and Porter.
HB 545 - PUB. EMPLOYEE COST OF LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Patrick Gullufsen, Department of
Law, to explain the bill further.
CHAIR JAMES explained the concerns regarding HB 545 at the last
meeting were how it would be implemented. The criteria for
enacting the cost of living differential (COLA) would be the same
criteria used for the permanent fund dividend (PFD) in statute but
not in regulation.
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Caren Robinson
at 8:08 a.m.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Gullufsen if the employee had to qualify for
the permanent fund dividend, or just meet the criteria in statute?
They were two different things.
Number 0222
PATRICK GULLUFSEN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, explained he was asked
to draft the bill and propose the bill to the House State Affairs
Committee. He explained a person would not have to qualify or
obtain the permanent fund dividend. However, the bill allowed the
state to use the criteria of the definition of resident in statute
for the dividend and the regulations that had been adopted by the
Department of Revenue. Those criteria would determine who received
the COLA differential until the Department of Administration
adopted different regulations or clarified the PFD regulations as
they would apply to the differential. The exception was that the
criteria used for the PFD might contain nuances as they were
applied to the COLA differential for employees living in Alaska.
Therefore, by giving the Commissioner of Administration the
authority to modify the PFD regulations legislative action would
not be necessary every time there was a new nuance.
Number 0355
CHAIR JAMES replied that was her biggest concern. She wondered why
legislation was necessary at all.
Number 0380
MR. GULLUFSEN responded if the legislature did not set the criteria
or allow the executive branch to set the criteria, arbitrators
would then set the criteria under collective bargaining agreements.
Therefore, when there was a dispute, it would go to arbitration,
and would be subject to inconsistencies based on decisions made by
the arbitrators. The basic need was for the executive or
legislative branch to specify the criteria to prevent those
inconsistent decisions.
Number 0499
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Gullufsen if the incentive was established to
encourage people to move to Alaska to work on the Marine Highway
System?
Number 0517
MR. GULLUFSEN replied the legal argument was that it was an
incentive for Alaskan residents to work for the Marine Highway
System. The argument that Chair James presented was avoided by the
system because it presented problems.
Number 0555
CHAIR JAMES wondered where was the incentive because the
differential was established to equalize residents and
nonresidents.
Number 0584
MR. GULLUFSEN said that was a good question. He explained in 1977
when the legislation was passed, the House Finance Committee report
discussed that it might not be an incentive because the dollar
would be spent for the greater cost of living in Alaska. It was
removing a disincentive, however.
Number 0622
CHAIR JAMES explained there was legislation pending that addressed
geographic pay differentials. In that legislation it was
determined that the cost of living in Anchorage and Seattle was the
same. She was not sure if she agreed with that conclusion,
however. She asked Mr. Gullufsen if the COLA differential was
necessary?
Number 0650
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "I don't know." He had asked that question
himself before.
CHAIR JAMES stated if it was not necessary the bill was not needed.
Furthermore, if there was an active state income tax, it would be
easier to determine who was a resident and who was a nonresident.
She was not sure if the PFD requirements were the right ones to
follow. She cited an individual who moved to Alaska from Idaho and
got a job with the Marine Highway System. She wondered if he would
qualify for the COLA differential.
Number 0716
MR. GULLUFSEN replied under the PFD requirements, he would qualify
for the differential. However, under the current scenario, an
arbitrator could rule that a part-time Alaskan resident, a resident
living in the South for part of the year, would qualify for the
COLA differential. Whereas, under the PFD criteria a part-time
resident would not qualify.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Gullufsen, why not give a part-time resident
the differential when he was in Alaska and not while he was outside
of Alaska.
MR. GULLUFSEN replied that was one option. He envisioned an
administrative nightmare, however.
Number 0812
CHAIR JAMES stated other states used that type of system to
determine state taxes, for example. She said there was a better
way to do this than alluding to the PFD requirements. She
suggested including in the bill the exact statutes that the system
wanted to follow instead of tying it into the PFD program. That
would prevent future regulation changes on the part of the
Administration in the event the PFD program changed their
regulations. Otherwise, it was a proliferation of regulations.
Number 0910
MR. GULLUFSEN replied the criteria could be put into statute. The
system would hope it was detailed enough, however, to resolve the
disputes. He reiterated the basic desire was to resolve the
disputes that went to arbitration.
Number 0968
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said the PFD regulations were the most
"bullet proof" residency requirements in the state. They had
withstood several court tests, and were generally accepted as
undisputable.
Number 0995
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "you hit the nail on the head." That was
one of the reasons why the PFD regulations were identified. They
had been tested by application and in court.
Number 1005
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Gullufsen, if HB 545 was to pass,
would the regulations be adopted verbatim or with exceptions?
Number 1018
MR. GULLUFSEN replied the regulations that applied to state
residency would be adopted verbatim.
Number 1043
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated, therefore, it would be fair to assume
that the wheel would not be reinvented and a lot of bureaucratic
time would not be wasted writing regulations.
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "that's correct." However, the bill did
give the Commissioner of Administration the authority to change the
PFD regulations through the Department of Law hearing process. The
system hoped, however, that the PFD regulations would work well.
Number 1084
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN said he agreed with Chair James that if
the regulations were going to be tweaked they needed to be
addressed in the bill. If they were not going to be tweaked they
did not need to be included in the bill. He did not agree with the
concept that they would be adopted until changes were needed.
Number 1153
MR. GULLUFSEN said he understood the concerns of Representative
Green. He explained the application process of the PFD would also
determine who was eligible and who was not eligible for a COLA
differential.
Number 1197
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, if that was the case, new regulations
would not be needed. He said, "if your going to have your own
regs, have your own regs. If you going to rely on the permanent
fund dividend requirements, then you should say that."
Number 1221
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "maybe we are." The system believed the PFD
requirements were a solid set of regulations. However, the system
was a different program with special nuances that might need to be
fixed by regulation over time. Therefore, a strict application of
the PFD program would probably not solve all of the problems of the
COLA differential.
Number 1278
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what was the benefit of referencing
"criteria similar" to the PFD program then (page 1, line 7)?
Number 1306
MR. GULLUFSEN replied the bill said it was going to be the
regulations of the PFD program. An arbitrator might use a strict
view of the regulations, and cited he might rule that both parents
had to be out of the state for a medical leave for six months
rather than just one, for example. The system would then be stuck
with that decision regarding that particular regulation. That was
the nuance he was referring to earlier. The system did not know
over time how the arbitrators would rule, however. Therefore, it
wanted the ability to fix the regulations if they were diverting
from a reasonable interpretation.
Number 1376
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said basically room was being made
for tweaking the regulations if needed.
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "that would be correct. That's the intent."
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON further said, even though the regulations
were written, it could be discovered that they were not completely
designed exactly as the system needed.
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "that's correct."
Number 1406
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, for clarification, the system did not
have the statutory authority to deny an employee differential
because he did not qualify for the PFD.
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "that's correct."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN further said the system was looking for
statutory authority for contract negotiations with the unions and
arbitrators.
MR. GULLUFSEN replied, "that's correct." The system did not want
to argue over the criteria. Furthermore, the system did not want
an arbitrator to pick and chose criteria. It wanted a criteria
system so that all parties knew what were the rules.
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, if the regulatory authority was not
given, something would need to be written in statute referring to
PFD eligibility, for example.
MR. GULLUFSEN said that would be one approach, or the system would
continue to live with the current approach.
Number 1504
CHAIR JAMES said she was concerned about using the PFD regulations
because it might prevent an individual from spending time outside
of Alaska, especially if he was gone for more than 180 days. She
asked, "do we really want to hold the resident as-tight-as the
permanent fund?"
Number 1545
MR. GULLUFSEN replied that was a difference in philosophy. The
system would like to hold that resident. It was open to legitimate
argument, however.
Number 1565
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any further questions or comments.
She announced she was not willing to move the bill forward today.
She wanted to look at it further.
Number 1572
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN announced he would ask questions of the
Administration at the next scheduled hearing.
SB 308 - PROHIBIT SAME SEX MARRIAGES
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was SB 308.
CHAIR JAMES announced in the effort of time the committee members
had been provided with the minutes of the previous testimony heard
in the Senate. Therefore, she would only take testimony from those
that had not already testified.
Number 1641
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained there was a change in SB 308.
She believed anybody should be able to testify.
Number 1653
CHAIR JAMES replied, "I understand." She reiterated those that had
already testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate
House, Education and Social Services Committee would be heard today
if there was time. She wanted to hear only from those that had not
already testified.
Number 1673
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she disagreed. She had not heard the
testimony in the Senate. Furthermore, this was the only committee
in the House of Representatives that would hear this bill.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Robinson if she had read the
minutes in the packet of information?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied, "that's beside the point." The
bottom line was that the people had a right to come before this
committee and give their testimony.
CHAIR JAMES replied she would hear those that had not testified
already first, and if time permitted, she would hear the others.
Number 1717
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG explained he was hear to present the
nature of SB 308 to the House State Affairs Committee members. He
said SB 308 was similar to HB 227 but was different in two
respects. It first added the explicit prohibition of same-sex
marriages in the state. It secondly applied the document to
marriages contracted in other states making them unenforceable in
the state. The provisions were necessary to avoid potential
litigation as it related to the full faith and credit clause of the
U. S. Constitution with respect to reciprocity. He cited the
activity of the legislature and the Supreme Court in the state of
Hawaii regarding this same issue (Baehr v. Lewin). He explained
the case was still in the court waiting for a recommendation by a
committee established by the Hawaiian State Legislature. It was
possible that the state of Hawaii would allow for the recognition
of same-sex marriages. He referred the committee members to a
handout titled, "Family News - Update on Same Sex Marriage Bans"
indicating this was a national issue. Furthermore, a case had been
filed in the Third Judicial District in Anchorage challenging the
lack of a same-sex marriage license based on the privacy clause and
the equal protection clause of the Alaska State Constitution.
Therefore, it was important for the legislature to make a strong
and compelling argument for a policy prohibiting same-sex
marriages. He asked the committee members for their support of SB
308.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Kodiak, Charles Tripp.
Number 1941
CHARLES TRIPP expressed his support of SB 308. He explained it was
in response to reciprocity and the prohibition of same sex
marriages in Alaska. The bill was not discriminatory against
homosexuals, but a distinction between what was a family and what
was not. He cited rape was so broadly defined in society that the
term had become meaningless. Therefore, the broadening of the term
"marriage" needed to be avoided to truly distinguish between
ordinary behavior and reprehensible behavior. Furthermore, society
reserved benefits for families and marriages, and by providing
those benefits to all, it removed the special privileges. The bill
further prohibited the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple.
He urged the committee members to support SB 308.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Kodiak, Dan Minyard.
Number 2089
DAN MINYARD expressed his support of SB 308. He felt it was the
responsibility of the state to protect and honor the family
institution.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Charles Abbott.
Number 2142
CHARLES ABBOTT said because of homosexuality there was AIDS and
because of AIDS there was an airborne virus transmitted through
turburculosis. He wondered why the leaders would consider killing
the people for the sake of a few perverted homosexuals. He called
homosexuality an abomination. "Judgement is coming upon this
nation as it is (indisc.) law." Furthermore, homosexuals could not
reproduce, so "let's stop this unnatural perverted lying now."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Barbara Rawalt.
Number 2192
BARBARA RAWALT called SB 308 an excellent bill. She said a
traditional marriage was a safeguard for a stable society. The
bill also maintained the standard of basic rights and laws. She
reiterated her support of SB 308 and urged the committee members to
support it as well.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Roy Bowdre.
Number 2334
ROY BOWDRE asked the committee members to support SB 308. This
bill would help prevent the force of the immorality of a few onto
the majority.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Deborah Vandruff.
Number 2263
DEBORAH VANDRUFF said as a health care provider she was concerned
about the state of families today. She asked the committee members
to consider the fact that families were changing with society, and
by passing a law against a gay family would not make it go away.
She wondered what happened to the Alaskan policy of "live and let
live." The bill smelled of outside groups trying to impose their
will onto Alaska. Furthermore, recognizing a loving couple would
not only provide stability to the communities but produce secure
and good citizens. She was not sure what everyone was so afraid of
when two people wanted to make a commitment that loved each other.
Moreover, homosexuals could reproduce contrary to the previous
testifier. She asked the committee members to not pass this
"ridiculous bill."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Sylvia Short.
Number 2338
SYLVIA SHORT, Member, Citizen of the State of Alaska, read the
following statement into the record.
"One of the tenets advocated by the Republican majority in Congress
is the lessening of government regulations. This I applaud as a
recognition of the independence of the American spirit which is the
product of our freedom and equality. Every governmental
encroachment on our privacy diminishes our American spirit.
"The government itself has no rights other than those granted to it
by the people. The government, therefore, cannot dictate our
private relationships as it has no such powers. In Alaska the
people have spoken clearly that the right of privacy shall be a
right of Alaskan citizens. The state therefore cannot infringe on
our privacy nor grant to some what it refused to others without
breaking our constitution.
"Some raise arguments about a `slippery slop' in opposition to our
exercise of the right to control our own dying. The slippery slope
could be extended to the right to marry or to recognize marriages,
so that maybe one could not marry a left-handed person or a
Eurasian or a native person. These are all part of the same pain,
if our laws will purport to inhibit marriage between certain
persons, where does the government stop?"
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Allison Mendel.
Number 2409
ALLISON MENDEL said she had lived in Anchorage for 14 years of
which two of her four children were born in Anchorage. She was
also an attorney. She was interested in the comments of
Representative Rokeberg. She had followed the bill closely and had
yet to understand the need for the bill. She asked the committee
to enlighten her regarding the crisis that this piece of
legislation was responding to. Furthermore, she said there were
more people that wanted to testify on this bill but could not due
to the short notice of the hearings in the Senate. Please consider
that as well. This was a serious road to follow, she explained.
She reiterated she had yet to hear public articulation regarding
the seriousness of the problem.
TAPE 96-47, SIDE B
Number 0000
MS. MENDEL further said the state of Alaska had never had a law on
the books to disregard the law of another state. She asked the
committee members to read the memorandum dated March 28, 1996, from
Terri Lauterbach, Legislative Counsel, carefully because it was
produced late in the hearings in the Senate. She reiterated this
was not an issue, it was not responding to any social problem that
needed to be addressed. She said it was a perception of something
that might happen down the line.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Lynn Stimler.
Number 0076
LYNN STIMLER asked the committee members to respond to the
memorandum dated March 28, 1996, from Terri Lauterbach, Legislative
Counsel. She asked Representative Willis to respond first as her
representative. She asked Representative Willis directly what he
thought of the constitutional arguments contained in the legal
analysis of the ACLU and in the memorandum?
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Stimler to stand by because the committee was
still taking public testimony. They would respond to her question
later.
MS. STIMLER said she would pass her three minutes allotted so that
all of the Representatives could respond to the arguments in the
ACLU paper and in the memorandum so that the public understood
their positions.
CHAIR JAMES said she would like to continue with the testimony, and
the committee members would consider her question when discussing
the bill after the testimony.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Jed Whittaker.
Number 0176
JED WHITTAKER said he was here today to say a prayer to heal the
hatred that was in the hearts of the committee members. The hatred
that did not recognize that everyone was different, yet the same,
because we were human beings. He was here to pray that the love in
their hearts would come forward to overcome the hatred that this
bill was about. He said it was acceptable to disagree about
appropriate social behavior, but 50 percent of heterosexual
marriages ended in divorce. He wondered where the stability was
that this bill was supporting. He said, "you cannot legislative
love. You could try to legislate hate, but you could not legislate
love." He reiterated he hoped they could find the love in their
hearts and see that the bill was nothing but hatred. It was not
appropriate for the state of Alaska to engage in acts of hatred.
Number 0247
CHAIR JAMES replied that she did not hate anyone. She did not like
the actions of some people, however. She reiterated she did not
hate Mr. Whittaker or other people. She did not even think of the
homosexuality relating to this bill. She was willing to create
legislation to give same-sex relationships similar benefits that a
man and woman marriage produced. However, the word "marriage" was
sacred to her. She announced she would support SB 308. "What you
have (Mr. Whittaker) is a loving relationship, if that happens to
be your choice, I believe that is something different."
Number 0300
MR. WHITTAKER stated Chair James assumed he was gay.
CHAIR JAMES replied she did make that assumption. She apologized
if she was incorrect.
MR. WHITTAKER further said the assumption that Chair James just
made was the heart of this kind of legislation. He called it
bigotry because there was an assumption of hate based on sight
alone.
CHAIR JAMES responded she liked Mr. Whittaker just fine. She did
not hate him.
MR. WHITTAKER replied, "you referred to me as a gay man."
CHAIR JAMES said she also liked him that way also. She had no
problem with "those kind of people, whoever they are." She
reiterated she had no dislike for gay people. She said she felt
the same way as Mr. Whittaker did when she was accused of being
hateful. It was the same frustration. It had to be dealt with,
but it probably would not be solved today. She announced she would
be happy to talk to Mr. Whittaker at another time on this very
issue to see how to accomplish these goals.
Number 0354
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he would prefer to finish the testimony
before debating the issue.
CHAIR JAMES explained the testimony was finished unless there was
time left for the previous witnesses to testify again. She
apologized if she insulted Representative Green on this issue, but
she felt compelled to address the hatred statement.
MR. WHITTAKER said hatred was what this issue was all about.
CHAIR JAMES replied she understood his feelings. She also had the
same feelings.
CHAIR JAMES announced there was enough time left for two minutes
each from the remaining testifiers.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "so testimony isn't over then."
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no." There was time left to hear further
testimony.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Susan Moeher.
Number 0414
SUSAN MOEHER said she was a registered nurse and was concerned that
the laws of the community did not reflect the families that she met
and worked. The families had changed over the years, and the laws
were behind the times. They did not support the families of the
1990's. Furthermore, as a health care provider she found this bill
to be very cruel and exclusive to people. She believed it was an
important bill for the homosexual community because it needed the
same sort of benefits and support as the heterosexual community,
such as, health care benefits. She reiterated SB 308 was wrong.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai,
Phil Reemtsma.
Number 0557
PHIL REEMTSMA said he supported SB 308. It was not an issue of
hate. He was a Minister at Calvary Baptist and he did not hate
anybody. There was a responsibility to do what was right, however.
It was God that set the standard and it was God that instituted
marriage, therefore, there was a moral responsibility to do what
was right. He thanked the Chair for allowing him to testify.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai,
Joanne Jencks.
Number 0620
JOANNE JENCKS thanked the committee members for considering SB 308
today. She said it was too bad that society had degenerated to the
point that this type of legislation needed to be considered. The
previous testimony in the Senate indicated that the opposition was
concerned about the cost. She cited in the 1960's the bible and
God were thrown out of the schools, and since then divorce had
skyrocketed, children were having babies, and venereal diseases had
gotten out of hand causing tax payers enormous amounts of money.
Furthermore, she stated a homosexual lifestyle was the cause of
AIDS also costing the tax payers an enormous amount of money with
no end in sight. Therefore, if the traditional merits of marriage
were adhered to, it would not cause the state anything compared to
the alternatives.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Dan Davis.
Number 0700
DAN DAVIS said he wanted to go on record again as a strong
supporter of SB 308. It was a behavior that was physiologically
destructive. He further said it was an issue of sodomy and not
procreation. He cited the average homosexual had over 500 partners
in a lifetime which did nothing more than spread sexually
transmitted diseases. The statistics further showed that
homosexual behavior was destructive to the health of the individual
and decreased his life expectancy. Therefore, to promote this
behavior was dangerous. It did not make sense to legitimize the
behavior legally. He said SB 308 was right. He reiterated
homosexuality was a behavior choice, it was not about a
relationship.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Mildred Boesser.
Number 0829
MILDRED BOESSER said she had testified before so she would keep her
comments brief. She said she was very much in favor of supporting
families. She had been married to the same person for 48 years
with four children and four grandchildren. She was not against
marriage. However, there were other types of families in this
society. She said the times were changing and it was necessary to
recognize the other types of families and give them support. She
knew two lesbian couples that had lived together for 40 years.
They could never be married, however. Her own daughter was a
lesbian and had lived with her partner for 14 years. They owned a
house, worked, and paid taxes in this community, but could not
enjoy the benefits of a married couple. This was an inequality
that was not right. Moreover, she was a Christian and suggested it
was time to realize that God might have created people with a
different sexual orientation. She disagreed with the previous
speaker that homosexuality was a choice. It was not a choice, it
was something that one was born with, so it was a gift of God.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Daniel Collison.
Number 0955
DANIEL COLLISON, Board Members, Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian
Alliance, shared an Easter story with the committee members of a
child seeking questions to a traditional part of the dinner
preparation. He said gays and lesbians had never fit the mold of
a traditional marriage of one man and one woman. The advocates
rested too easily on this traditional interpretation of marriage.
A narrow and prudish view belied the fluid manner in which humans
had and would continue to redefine marriage as an institution. He
cited marriages were more often than not in the past arranged by
the parents. He further wondered about interracial marriages when
the Southern states outlawed them in the 1960's. Similarly, SB 308
denied recognition of same-sex marriages sanctioned by other
states. The courts had found such laws to be unconstitutional in
the past and would continue to do so in the future. These cases
never hinged on the gray area of legal interpretation, it was black
and white in constitutional law. The state had no compelling
interest to bar a recognition of a union with another person of the
same-sex.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Sara Boesser.
Number 1216
SARA BOESSER said she was glad to see that the committee members
had the memorandum dated March 28, 1996, from Terri Lauterbach,
Legislative Counsel, because it showed the constitutional problems
of the bill. She said there was no cause for harm if the same
gender partners married because there was no way to stop the
affirmation of the relationship currently. Furthermore, she stated
her marriage to her same-sex partner did not interfere with the
strength of another family. She cited it was fidelity, love,
respect, commitment, honesty, trust and responsibility that
strengthened a family. Furthermore, history was against bills such
as SB 308. She cited race, religion, disability and divorce were
issues surrounding marriages in the past. Therefore, the tradition
of marriage had evolved over time. Change was the nature of an
evolving society. History was what created the civil rights
protection in this world today. Therefore, the bill would be an
extension of the next wave of legal rights to even more Americans.
She asked the committee members to vote against SB 308.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Marsha Buck.
Number 1384
MARSHA BUCK, Member, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays (PFLAG) - Juneau, said PFLAG was against SB 308. The bill
sounded and felt like discrimination. She cited her daughter was
in a relationship with another woman and was being discriminated
against for wanting to establish a strong and stable family. The
bill did not contain any features that were helpful to Alaskans,
but instead interfered with the personal rights of Alaskans. She
reiterated PFLAG was against SB 308 and asked that it be removed
from any further consideration.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Kodiak, Burnie Lindsey.
Number 1522
BURNIE LINDSEY said he supported SB 308. The country was
established on Biblical principles and the Ten Commandments. He
was against homosexuality. Furthermore, one of the reasons for a
family was to procreate and homosexuality could not provide that
aspect of a marriage.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Amy Young.
Number 1618
AMY YOUNG said she was against SB 308. The language was
unconstitutional. It was fear that drove the opposition. She said
the 1990's represented "gay bashing" reinforcing the fear and
hatred. Furthermore, the laws affected the mood of the public.
Therefore, if SB 308 was passed it sent the message that it was
acceptable to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Dillingham, Karen Carlisle.
Number 1777
KAREN CARLISLE said she was against SB 308. She was embarrassed
that legislators in her state were trying to pass a bill that was
so blatantly prejudiced. It reminded her of school grade behavior
amongst children. She cited she knew several lesbian couples that
were very responsible citizens. Furthermore, the Methodists,
Lutherans, Episcopalians, Unitarians, and the Unity Church
performed commitment ceremonies, therefore, not all Christians were
opposed to same-sex marriages. She asked the committee members to
oppose this prejudice and vote no on SB 308.
Number 1947
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON requested that SB 308 go to a subcommittee
to further look at the issues addressed in the memorandum dated
March 28, 1996, from Terri Lauterbach, Legislative Counsel. It was
clear that Alaska denied same-sex marriages. Therefore, this was
a non-issue. It generated fear because people believed it was an
issue. She reiterated there were potential U. S. Constitutional
and Alaska State Constitutional issues that affected Sec. 2 of SB
308 that needed to be looked at further.
Number 2039
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered how gay people could reproduce. He
was referring to a statement made earlier by a witness regarding
the ability of a gay couple to reproduce. He said, "inquiring
minds want to know how."
CHAIR JAMES replied she did not have the answer.
Number 2078
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there was a full faith and credit
issue involved, but according to the memorandum dated March, 1995,
from Terri Lauterbach, Legislative Counsel, she recommended making
changes to HB 227 to overcome those objections thus creating SB
308. It was crystal clear that the decision of one state's supreme
court should not be able to dictate the social policies of this
country. Therefore, this was a necessary action. He reiterated
there was a case filed in the Third Judicial District in Alaska
regarding this issue, therefore, it was a current issue before the
legislature. There was a compelling reason to make a public policy
statement. This was not a non-issue. Furthermore, the policies
relating to the Loving v. Virginia case set forth by Ms. Lauterbach
and Ms. Stimler were not germane. A situation did exist that
needed to be clarified in statute, therefore, he urged the
committee members to support SB 308.
Number 2274
CHAIR JAMES said HB 368 was recently passed out of the House State
Affairs Committee that contained many provisions that bridged on
the issue of constitutionality. She said, if it was
unconstitutional, it would be determined by the courts. That was
their responsibility. However, over the past few years, the courts
had been making the laws. The legislative body could not sit here
and try to second guess what the courts would do. The legislature
was here to legislate the will of the people.
Number 2358
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Rokeberg if he knew of
any case where the courts interpreted that a same-sex marriage was
legal in the state of Alaska?
Number 2381
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "no." He was only familiar with
the Baehr v. Lewin case in Hawaii. The only case he knew of in
Alaska was at the bar.
Number 2408
CHAIR JAMES said the current law was changed to "person" by the
revisor of statutes, whereas previously it stated "man" and
"woman." Therefore, SB 308 would make this perfectly clear.
Number 2439
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was talking about a court
interpretation. The courts had not interpreted that anything other
than a man and a woman could be married. She said Chair James was
correct that in 1974 the language changed in the statutes. She
further wondered if anyone in the state of Alaska had issued a
license to recognize a same-sex marriage.
Number 2472
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this was a current area of dispute,
judicially.
TAPE 96-48, SIDE A
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further said in Minnesota there was a
statute that clearly indicated that discrimination against sexual
orientation was not allowed. However, it strictly prohibited same-
sex marriages. Clearly, there were different courts and different
rulings on similar language with varying conclusions.
Number 0077
CHAIR JAMES said she supported SB 308 because society was on a
"slippery slope." The bill was not a slippery slope bill, however.
Furthermore, she was not convinced that society was willing to go
down that slippery slope any further. Society was paying a price
for the acceptance of divorce, for example. There was a direct
correlation between the money spent on the welfare programs and the
loosening of society. She said she was not judging if that was
right or wrong, however. She was also afraid of the effects of
conditioning to the point that it did not bother a person anymore.
This was how society had progressed through he 20th Century.
Moreover, she remembered when common law was not recognized in some
states. She believed that a ceremony was not needed to recognize
a marriage, but according to laws of the land a permit was needed.
She said she did not have a problem with same-sex relationships and
recognizing their rights under the laws. However, she did not
agree with using the term "marriage" to describe that relationship.
She was not willing to give up the concept of marriage between a
man and a woman just yet. Furthermore, she hated discrimination
and would not discriminate against anybody. She looked at SB 308
as a discrimination against herself, however, and her concept of
marriage. Marriage was very, very important to her, therefore, she
would support SB 308.
CHAIR JAMES announced she wanted to move the bill out of the
committee today.
Number 0388
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said in many ways she agreed with Chair
James. She believed, however, that SB 308 contained constitutional
problems. Furthermore, the pain that the bill brought forward was
wrong when this was a non-issue. The law indicated that no one had
ever been issued a marriage license in the state of Alaska unless
it was a man and a woman couple. The reasoning behind this issue
at a national level was because many did not like the lifestyle of
homosexuals. She further cited AS 25.05.021 that stated a marriage
was prohibited if either party already had a husband or wife.
Furthermore, AS 25.05.010-11 was titled "husband and wife." It was
clear this was not an issue costing the state money. There was a
case in court so let it rule and if there was a problem then the
legislature should address the issue. She reiterated this was an
issue because of the fears of people that someone other than a man
or a woman would get married. Moreover, she cited a legal opinion
that stated the statute authorized the issuance of a marriage
license between "persons." It also indicated that marriage was a
civil contract that could be entered into by males at the age of
21. She did not realize that males had to be 21 and females had to
be 18 to get married. She suggested looking at that further. She
reiterated the statutes were clear regarding marriage. She
reiterated by addressing this issue the legislature was warranting
the fears of the people when in fact it was not a fear that the
people should be concerned about in Alaska.
Number 0598
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the laws now do prohibit same-sex
marriages. However, he believed it should be made clear to the
people. This was a painful subject because society was changing.
The courts were established to interpret laws and the legislature
was established to make laws. Therefore, whether or not certain
portions of the bill would be found unconstitutional should be left
to the courts. Moreover, according to the animal kingdom,
including mankind, homosexuality was an unnatural act. It was
becoming more prevalent, however, in society. Society, however,
was founded under the laws of God. He was concerned about the
Christians testifying that they were in favor of homosexual
behavior. He suggested they look at the book that was divinely
inspired. It was clear that homosexual relationships were not the
will of God according to the Bible. It was a travesty that a
society would condone that type of behavior. Therefore, a bill was
needed to not recognize the behavior in Alaska and in other states.
He said he would support SB 308.
Number 0841
CHAIR JAMES said she believed in the statement of "judge not that
you be not judged." She felt her responsibility to her God was her
own behavior. That was why she did not discriminate against other
people. She called it a reciprocal agreement. She reiterated she
felt passionate about the traditional concept of marriage. Her
district also felt the same way.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to pass the bill out of the
committee.
Number 0886
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that legal opinions were just opinions.
He said there were as many opinions as there were lawyers. He was
responding to Ms. Stimler's question of the committee members
regarding the legal analysis of the ACLU.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that SB 308 move from the committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON announced she had to leave the House State
Affairs Committee meeting to attend a caucus.
HB 416 - OMNIBUS STATE FEES & COST ASSESSMENTS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 416.
CHAIR JAMES called on Nancy Slagle, Office of the Governor , to
present the bill.
Number 0982
NANCY SLAGLE, Director, Budget Review, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor , said HB 416 was an intricate part
of the Governor's long-range fiscal plan. It was also part of the
Majority's fiscal plan. She referred the committee members to a
memorandum from the Department of Law regarding the single subject
rule. She explained it was the opinion of the department that HB
416 did not violate any single subject rules. She further referred
the committee members to the section analysis prepared by the
Office of the Governor. She would go over the section analysis on
Thursday, April 11, 1996, at the next scheduled hearing in the
interest of time. Representatives from the departments would also
be present to answer any questions of the committee members.
CHAIR JAMES announced there was a witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Jules Tileston.
Number 1090
JULES TILESTON, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining and
Water Management, Department of Natural Resources, announced he
would wait until Thursday, April 11, 1996, to testify.
MS. SLAGLE explained Mr. Tileston was on-line due to a proposed
amendment.
Number 1113
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at
9:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|