Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/25/1996 01:30 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
March 25, 1996
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Lyda Green, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Al Adams
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 312
"An Act relating to purchase of an alcoholic beverage from a
package store."
HOUSE BILL NO. 392 am
"An Act relating to the reinstatement of dissolved Native village
corporations, and to the affirmative vote necessary to amend the
articles of incorporation of Native village corporations to
authorize the classification of directors."
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."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 226(FIN) am
"An Act permitting the provision of different retirement and health
benefits to certain employees by differentiating between benefits
provided to employees with spouses or children and to other
employees."
SENATE BILL NO. 268
"An Act relating to release before trial in cases involving
controlled substances."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 207(CRA)
"An Act authorizing the issuance and sale of revenue bonds to fund
public wastewater systems, nonpoint source water pollution control
projects, including solid waste management systems, and estuary
conservation and management projects; authorizing the use of the
Alaska clean water fund to pay and secure the bonds and to pay
costs related to issuance and administration of the bonds;
authorizing certain measures to secure payment of the bonds; and
amending Rule 3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure." (SCHEDULED BUT
NOT HEARD.)
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 312 - No previous Senate committee action.
HB 392 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/26/96.
SB 308 - See Senate Health, Education & Social Services minutes
dated 3/18/96 and 3/20/96.
HB 226 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 268 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/13/96 and 3/22/96.
WITNESS REGISTER
Laurie Otto
Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 268 and offered amendments
Ms. Pat Walker
Staff to Representative Ivan Ivan
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified for sponsor of HB 392
Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 308
Joann Jenckes
Kenai
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 308
Dan Davis
P.O. Box 1285
Delta, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 308
Robert Knight, Director
Family Research Council
Washington, DC
202-393-2100
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 308
Steve Pitcher
Virginia
804-424-4242
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 308
Mark Tumio
Texas
409-268-1552
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Michael Johnston
National Campaign to Protect Marriage
P.O. Box 210906
Anchorage, AK 99521
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 308
Susan Moeller
1014 W 16th Ave. #4
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Connie Faipzas
2846 Redwood Place
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Lynn Stimler
ACLU
P.O. Box 201844
Anchorage, AK 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Mary Elizabeth Rider
3524 E 15th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Mark Molinhauer
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 308
Mildred Boesser
17585 Lena Loop
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Marsha Buck
PFLAG
8445 Kimberly St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Carol Anderson
202 Hermit
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Susan Hargis
Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance
P.O. Box 22493
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Sara Boesser
Committee for Equality
9365 View Dr.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308 and HB 226
Mary Graham
235 5th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Janine Williamson
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed to SB 308
Russell Bowde
Delta Junction, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 308
Debbie Martinez
Fairbanks, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Cindy Boesser
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 308
Representative Pete Kelly
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 226
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-27, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:30 p.m. Senators Adams and Miller were present. The
first order of business was SB 268.
SB 268 PRETRIAL RELEASE FOR DRUG OFFENSES
LAURIE OTTO, representing the Department of Law (DOL), addressed
the proposed committee substitute. DOL feels the committee
substitute strengthens the bill and more closely parallels the
conditions of release currently requested by the department.
Referring to item (4) on page 2, Ms. Otto noted current bail
condition language states, "to not have in the defendant's
possession or control, ..." which she believes is stronger
language. Similarly, on line 31, page 2, DOL would prefer the
language, "to not have a firearm or a knife in the defendant's
possession or control." A current bail provision prohibits the
defendant from having any weapon, including a firearm or knife, to
prevent drug offenders from being armed when out on bail.
SENATOR TAYLOR and MS. OTTO discussed the semantic problem of
including the word "knife" since a knife is an ordinary household
item. SENATOR TAYLOR was concerned that the language be
enforceable from a practical standpoint, since the defendant would
be prohibited from having a knife in a vehicle or his/her
residence. MS. OTTO pointed out the list of conditions currently
used were developed by prosecutors in Anchorage who deal with drug
offenders daily and are imposed to protect the public.
MS. OTTO suggested the following changes:
on page 2, line 31, and page 3, line 1:
(1) to not have a firearm in the defendant's possession or
control in any vehicle over which the defendant has control, or in
the defendant's residence, or a knife on the defendant's person;
and on page 3, line 5:
(13) to not engage in any conduct or to refrain from any
conduct that the court considers reasonably necessary to protect
the public, and to assure the appearance of the person in court.
Number 132
MS. OTTO offered two other amendments to CSSB 268. On page 3,
lines 2-3 and 15-19 require the defendant to attend drug, alcohol,
or personal counseling as conditions of bail. That condition is
similar to a condition contained in a domestic violence bail
condition statute and when imposed has resulted in court appeals
based on Fifth Amendment rights. DOL has, as a matter of policy,
asked prosecutors not to request that condition because of the
constitutional problem of requiring the defendant to confess to
conduct that he/she has not been convicted of. DOL has spent
considerable time in the last year reviewing appropriate conditions
for domestic violence cases because the current conditions in
statute are inadequate. She asked the committee to consider
amending the domestic violence statute to fix it, rather than to
include the same problematic conditions in a new bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Otto to submit suggested language to
committee staff so that the proposed committee substitute could be
redrafted.
Number 217
SENATOR ADAMS inquired whether Section 2 of the proposed CSSB 268
coincides with the Governor's domestic violence legislation. MS.
OTTO clarified she is requesting the committee to add the domestic
violence bail conditions from the Governor's bill to CSSB 268.
MS. OTTO acknowledged DOL supports CSSB 268 and appreciates the
sponsor's willingness to work with department staff.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted his continuing concern that by specifying bail
conditions in statute, the legislation might imply to the court the
list is complete or final. MS. OTTO observed DOL shares that
concern, especially in light of the fact that the department is
currently receiving the bail conditions it has requested. The
broader concern is that three classes of offenses will have been
designated in statute for which specific bail conditions apply. The
court may interpret that specification to mean the same conditions
do not apply to other offenses by omission. She interpreted the
listing of conditions as the legislature's attempt to deal with
specific problems identified, but in every other respect,
appropriate bail conditions are left to the court's discretion for
offenses other than those in CSSB 268.
Number 268
SENATOR GREEN questioned whether other statutory language addresses
weapons in a more general way than just firearms or knives. MS.
OTTO replied bail conditions are not normally specified in statute;
conditions are usually tailored, by the court, to the individual.
DOL often requests, in cases where there is a risk of violence, for
bail conditions that restrict an individual's access to weapons.
SB 312 LICENSEE BUYING LIQUOR FROM PACKAGE STORE
SENATOR TAYLOR, sponsor of SB 312, informed committee members when
the Alcohol Beverage Control Board bill was passed last year, it
had the unintended effect of banning a practice common among
retailers. Bars and restaurants would often purchase alcohol from
businesses, such as COSTCO or from a retail package store, when
wholesale delivery was not on a daily basis. That question was
raised during hearings, but the committee was reassured the
unintended effect would not occur, however that advice was in
error. SB 312 cleans up the misinterpretation and amends last
year's bill to allow a person holding a dispensary, restaurant,
club, or package store license to purchase from a package store, as
long as the package store obtained its product from a wholesaler.
It retains the protection against gray market goods while restoring
the ability of bars and restaurants to purchase from package stores
and discount outlets.
SENATOR ADAMS stated this bill corrects an oversight in SB 87, and
moved and asked unanimous consent that SB 312 be moved out of
committee. There being no objection, the motion carried.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted there were no witnesses to testify on SB 312,
and that Mr. Gilman had called in support of the measure.
HB 392 NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATIONS
PAT WALKER, legislative aide to Representative Ivan, sponsor of the
measure, explained the legislation. HB 392 amends the Alaska
Corporations Code to allow ANCSA village corporations to amend
their articles of incorporation to authorize a classified or
staggered term board of directors by a majority vote by the shares
represented at a meeting of shareholders. Under current law, for
those villages which did not have classified boards in place by
July 1, 1989, such an amendment requires a vote of two-thirds of
all outstanding shares entitled to vote. This has been difficult
for village corporations to achieve. In addition, HB 392 was
amended to allow ANCSA village corporations that have been
involuntarily dissolved by the state an opportunity to reinstate
one year after the effective date of this act. A similar provision
was provided by the 18th Alaska Legislature in 1994 under HB 71.
According to the Division of Banking, Securities, and Corporations
there remain five Native village corporations that did not take
advantage of the 1994 reinstatement.
There being no questions, SENATOR ADAMS moved and asked unanimous
consent that HB 392am be moved from committee. There being no
objection, the motion carried.
SB 308 PROHIBIT SAME SEX MARRIAGES
SENATOR LEMAN presented SB 308 for the Senate HES Committee. SB
308 has three main provisions. Section 1 clarifies that a marriage
is between one man and one woman. According to the Department of
Law, existing statute is enforced that way, however 22 years ago
some of the words were changed in a revisor's bill; with the
possibility the change could be substantive. The second provision,
in Section 2, prevents Alaska from acknowledging same sex marriages
acknowledged by other states. The third provision prevents a same
sex relationship, not consummated by marriage, from being
recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of
marriage. The impetus for the legislation is a court case in the
State of Hawaii. A number of states are concerned that public
policy should be determined by the states and their legislatures,
not by a handful of judges.
SENATOR ADAMS asked for a legal analysis of SB 308. SENATOR LEMAN
responded his analysis is that the bill is legal.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the amendment added to Representative
Kelly's bill. SENATOR LEMAN explained a bill passed the House that
deals with benefits at the University of Alaska and State of
Alaska. A second bill in the House contains parts of SB 308,
specifically the definition of marriage.
Number 386
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the State of Alaska has ever recognized a
marriage between two people of the same gender. SENATOR LEMAN
replied it has not. SENATOR ELLIS asked if that is existing law.
SENATOR LEMAN answered it is, and DOL enforces it that way.
JOANNE JENCKES testified from Kenai in support of SB 308 as it will
help to preserve the family.
DAN DAVIS testified from Delta in strong support of SB 308 as it
addresses a serious social problem. He commended the Senate for
taking action on this issue and believes the state must do
everything in its power to promote the standard heterosexual
husband-wife family. Elevating the dangerous practices of
homosexuality with legally protected status is devoid of reason and
morality. Statistics show the average life expectancy of a
homosexual male and lesbian female is 43 and 45 years respectively.
MICHAEL JOHNSTON, the state director of the National Campaign to
Protect Marriage, testified from Anchorage in support of SB 308. SB
308 is a common sense approach to deal with two primary issues:
ambiguity and the Alaska marriage statute. The issue of ambiguity
revolves around gender neutral language. Marriage has never been
neutral and statutory changes to gender neutral language were not
intended by the legislature to legalize same sex marriages. The
statutory issue deals with potential controversy in other
jurisdictions. Several states have passed legislation similar to
SB 308, and 22 states are currently considering similar
legislation. SB 308 provides for a strong public policy against
same sex marriages necessary to support an extension from the
requirement for the state to give full faith and credit to public
acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state as
described in the U.S. Constitution. Opponents argue SB 308 is
unnecessary, warrants extensive litigation, and is discriminatory.
The threat of costly litigation is a moot point because if Alaska
does not take action now and establish a clear policy, it will be
a matter of time before same sex marital contracts from other
states will be contested in Alaska courts.
KATE WATTUM testified from Fairbanks in opposition of SB 308 as it
fuels the fires of intolerance and hatred and sends the message
that discrimination is acceptable. It is a nonsense law that will
mobilize, not stop, activists. SB 308 puts discriminatory views
into law by not acknowledging equal rights for all citizens.
Number 490
BOB KNIGHT, representing the Family Research Council in Washington,
D.C. stated an overwhelming number of studies show communities with
the most intact families are healthier, and children in intact
families experience higher academic achievement, are more secure
psychologically and economically, commit fewer crimes, and are far
less likely to fall into social pathologies such as unwed
pregnancies, drug abuse, venereal disease and deviancies of all
types. Marriage and the family are the key organizing principle
behind all civilizations, and exist for procreative purposes. In
a same sex relationship, one gender is radically excluded. The
U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1885 that the law protecting
marriage was so important that any state wanting to become part of
the union must protect it. Same sex couples can have marriage
ceremonies, but legally sanctioning those marriages would have
serious consequences for others. Schools would have to teach that
homosexual sex is the equivalent of marital love between husband
and wife; businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual
relationships or face the full power of the law wielded against
them; churches believe that homosexuality is a sin and would find
themselves outside the law and it could affect tax-exempt status;
and groups like the Boy Scouts of America, already under severe
attack in the courts, would be under increasing pressure to have
homosexual leaders. Opening the door to same sex marriages would
prevent the denial of multiple partner unions.
Number 562
KIMBERLY MACK testified from Barrow in opposition to SB 308. Gay
marriages do not threaten anyone. The presumption that gay people
are strange is not justified or fair. In long term homosexual
relationships, partners need the same benefits and protections as
married couples. Gay people contribute to society and deserve to
be acknowledged and receive the same protections as everyone else.
MARK TUMIO testified from Texas in opposition to SB 308. He
appreciated the fact that SB 308 has not been veiled in vague terms
and promoted through excuses of financial or economic concerns,
like HB 226. Ten percent of our society is denied the basic right
of equal protection under the law, granted to opposite sex couples.
Opposite sex couples get this right regardless of whether they are
in good marriages or whether they are good and moral people: it is
a right associated solely with their sexuality. Many churches,
throughout history, have sanctioned same sex or multiple partner
marriages. Gays and lesbians are not trying to change the law:
that is being done by the sponsor of SB 308. Gays and lesbians are
only asking to be treated fairly: this is not a gay agenda, it is
a human agenda. The Hawaii court case will not be settled for
several years and invalidating marriages from other states will not
pass constitutional muster.
TAPE 96-27, SIDE B
Number 572
STEVE FITCHER, Director of the National Legal Foundation, stated if
Hawaii recognizes same sex marriages, homosexual couples from all
over America will travel to Hawaii to marry and return to their
native states and seek to have those marriages recognized,
according to two Law Review articles. Both authors believe that a
state's best defense, if opposed to recognizing same sex marriages,
is a choice of law issue which should be shown with a strong public
policy against such marriages. SB 308 is well drafted for that
purpose. Two reasons to enforce SB 308 are morality and the impact
to the state. The framers of the Constitution left the police
power to the states which includes public safety and public
morality. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled,
in Powers v. Hardwick, that the majority sentiments about
homosexuality can be grounds for legislation. Regarding the impact
of recognition to the state, in the Hawaii case itself, the Hawaii
Supreme Court recognized 14 broad areas of their state code which
would be impacted, and that list was not exhaustive. He believes
the bill is constitutional as there is no fundamental right either
to homosexual sodomy or to homosexual marriage arriving from the
privacy right or anywhere else. The key difference between Hawaii
and Alaska is that in Hawaii the Supreme Court remanded the case
instructing the trial court to use a strict scrutiny standard. In
Alaska a rational basis test is used.
Number 529
SENATOR TAYLOR noted he had a full copy of the lawsuit and appeal
filed against the University of Alaska; the points made to the
court in that case are available to the committee.
MILDRED BOESSER, representing the City and Borough of Juneau Human
Rights Commission on SB 308 and HB 226, stated the commission voted
unanimously at its March 1996 meeting to go on record as opposing
SB 308 as a violation of human rights. She read a statement from
the committee in opposition to HB 226 (available in committee
packets). She noted she is a lifelong committed Christian and
disagreed with the statement that all major churches define
homosexuality as a sin. The Episcopal church does not do so. She
believes it is more important to enlarge the concept of marriage
rather than redefine or undermine traditional marriage.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Boesser about the heresy trial in the
Episcopal church. MS. BOESSER replied a small group of bishops,
mostly retired, have brought a heresy trial against a fellow bishop
who ordained a gay man living in a committed homosexual
relationship. The case is not about the fact that a gay man was
ordained, it is about the fact that this bishop is living in an
open relationship. She believed that policy to be hypocritical.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that is similar to the President's
position on the military.
MARSHA BUCK, representing Parents, Families, and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Juneau, testified in opposition to SB 308
and HB 226 because both bills are based on erroneous information
and are discriminatory and unconstitutional. Gay and lesbian
people have a God-given sexual orientation. Lying about one's
opponent is effective political weaponry, however gays and lesbians
are not anyone's opponents, they are constituents. She emphasized
PFLAG-Juneau is opposed specifically to SB 308 because if passed,
it is only a matter of time before an expensive court case will
ensue, and the law will be found to be unconstitutional based on
the state reciprocity provision in the U.S. Constitution.
Number 410
CAROL ANDERSON testified in opposition to SB 308 as it is an
attempt to deny the basic human right of marriage to lesbians and
gays. Gays and lesbians have been around since the beginning of
time making their quiet contributions to society. Many gays and
lesbians are afraid to publically object to bills such as these
because there are no city, state, or federal laws to protect them
from discrimination. They could be fired from jobs, evicted from
homes, and lose custody of children. SB 308 will codify the
discriminatory practice of allowing people to marry a person only
of the opposite sex. Gay people want the status of legal families,
to provide for their children, to be allowed hospital visitation,
and to be entitled as surviving spouses to social security
benefits, and to avoid inheritance problems.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that no one in Alaska pays inheritance
taxes to the State of Alaska unless they pay federal inheritance
taxes. For a couple, the net estate must be worth $1.2 million;
for an individual the net estate must be $600,000. He wondered if
Ms. Anderson was referring to the transfer of property without the
requirement of probate. A husband and wife owning property jointly
in an estate called "tenants by the entirety with right of
survivorship" provides that when one spouse dies, the property
automatically transfers to the other spouse on the filing of the
death certificate with the recorder's office. Same sex partners
would not have that opportunity under Alaska real estate law,
because the property is not owned by a married couple with right of
survivorship.
PHIL REEMTSMA, a member of Cavalry Baptist Church in Kenai,
testified in support of SB 308. The issue of same sex marriages is
not one of discrimination, it is an issue about the erosion of
society. Scripturally speaking, the Bible declares homosexuality
to be a sin. Homosexuals are not born as homosexuals, otherwise
many homosexuals would not change to heterosexual lifestyles.
Opponents of same sex marriages are not hate mongers.
SUSAN MOELLER, a nurse from Anchorage, stated she often works with
families in their homes in stressful situations and often sees
people in same sex relationships caring for their partner's
relatives. She supports all families, regardless of sexual
orientation, and believes recognizing same sex marriages will
strengthen relationships and not be harmful to anyone.
MARY BISHOP, President of Fairbanks PFLAG, testified on her own
behalf. PFLAG is a gay/straight reliance with the mission of
continuing relationships between gay children and their families.
In a school in Utah all extracurricular organizations were
terminated rather than allow an organization named the Gay/Straight
Alliance to meet. In a neighboring school, an organization named
Students Against Faggots Everywhere (SAFE) was meeting at the
school and was not questioned. She asked which high school
committee members would want their children to attend. She
supported Ms. Boesser's testimony.
Number 263
SUSAN HARGESS, Chair of the Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian
Alliance, testified in opposition to SB 308. This legislation is
discriminatory and will not help preserve families, since
relationships will be strengthened by more people living in
committed relationships. She considers herself an honest
hardworking person, deserving of the same benefits as other people,
including the right to choose who to marry.
SARA BOESSER, speaking for the Committee for Equality, opposed SB
308. It discriminates on the basis of gender in that it forces a
person to only select for marriage a person of the opposite gender.
As far as breaking other states' contracts, this bill is the most
blatantly anti-gay/lesbian bill to date in the legislature. Press
reports nationwide show that hate crimes increase when lesbian and
gay citizens are subjected to hearing anti-gay bills that are being
debated by legislatures. Not long ago, legislative bodies
prevented slaves from marrying one another, fortunately time and
reason have caused those laws to end and that practice changed.
More recently, mixed race marriages were also made illegal by
legislative bodies. Finally some states crossed that norm and
declared those marriages legal. Around the country, bills like SB
308 sprung up, however the Constitution's full faith and credit
clause, which requires states to uphold one another's judicial
proceedings, overturned those unconstitutional laws, because legal
comity is required across state lines for state contracts. She
questioned why heterosexual couples are not required to promise to
procreate when applying for marriage licenses if that is the
premise for marriage. Would elderly people, or sterile people be
denied licenses? A major battle cry against the women's vote was
that it would destroy the family. The Hawaiian court case will not
be reheard in lower court until midsummer, with a decision at the
end of 1996. Since either side promises a Supreme Court appeal,
Hawaii's court will not have Supreme Court resolution until 1997 or
1998. This same bill has been proposed, almost verbatim, to over
20 states. In the majority of those states the bill has been
rejected. This issue needs legal research and there is ample time
to follow the Hawaii case. Religious groups do not have to approve
or religiously bless same gender marriages, but to pressure the
state to break gender nondiscrimination and contract law across
state lines is unconscionable. The decision about who can receive
a state marriage license with all the benefits it provides should
be left to the courts.
KRISTIANE HOOPER testified in opposition to SB 308 and HB 226 based
on the fact it violates her civil rights and discriminates by
determining who can marry based on gender.
DANIEL COLLISON, board member of the Southeast Alaska Gay and
Lesbian Alliance, read testimony to committee members from a paper
on themes from, "The Significance of the Frontier in American
History" by Frederick Jackson Turner. He submitted written
testimony to be included in committee members' packets.
TAPE 96-28, SIDE A
Number 000
MARY GRAHAM, testified in opposition to SB 308, and thinks it is
best to leave the law as is and let the issue be decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court. State resources need to be used for more
pressing issues. Regarding religion, the Universalist Church does
not believe gay and lesbian people are living in sin, and supports
the union of such relationships.
MARK MOLINHAUER testified in support of SB 308 and HB 226 and urged
committee members to not let the threat of a lawsuit influence
their votes. This issue is a matter of state's rights and
sovereignty, and is not about hate but about the institution of
marriage. He discussed historical examples of the disintegration
of societies based on moral values. He argued that the concept of
enlarging the institution of marriage could lead to marriages
between pedophiles and minors.
CONNIE FAIPEAS testified in opposition to SB 308 from Fairbanks.
The state is obligated to provide an impartial licensing system for
many things, marriage being one. Religious interpretation is not
the job of the state; it is the job of individual churches and
their members. The state subsidizes marriage in the form of tax
and inheritance laws, and denying those benefits to some is blatant
discrimination. She asked Senator Taylor if he was implying that
because inheritance laws only affect estates over $600,000, those
laws are non-discriminatory because they only affect a small number
of people.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified he was trying to explain the difference
between the inheritance laws and the opportunity to avoid probate
in the conveyance of real property. He agreed that law is
discriminatory in that there is a distinction and a difference
within the federal tax code between single individuals and married
couples, but that discrimination has been sanctioned by both the
Constitution and federal government, because it has been challenged
and upheld in court several times.
JANINE WILLIAMSON, testifying via teleconference from Fairbanks,
believed both SB 308 and HB 226 to be hypocritical as they deny
people in committed relationships benefits solely because their
partners are the same gender. Married couples can partake in all
kinds of immoral behavior and still receive benefits. Both bills
deny her not only the ability to marry, but benefits also.
LYNN STIMLER, representing the Alaska Civil Liberties Union,
expressed concern that SB 308 will not meet constitutional muster.
She made the following points. Marriage has traditionally been
defined as a union between people of different sexes. As recently
as 1967, state governments were able to deny interracial couples
the right to marry. Marriage requirements differ from state to
state, in terms of parental consent for certain ages, and blood
tests, therefore denying full faith and credit for marriages
recognized in one state and not another will create a climate of
uncertainty. Any marriage recognized in any state could be denied
the recognition of other states unless it was performed in the
exact same way which leads directly to the full faith and credit
analysis. The U.S. Constitution and Alaska Constitution provide
that judgments of one state be recognized as valid in another
state. This clause has only been addressed by the Supreme Court;
it has never ruled on whether marriages must be accorded full faith
and credit. She discussed the legal analysis of both sides of the
argument and warned that if SB 308 passes, Alaska faces a very
expensive court challenge. She also believed the right to
interstate travel might also be implicated. The ACLU recommends
Alaska not pass SB 308 at this time, and wait for other states to
bear the cost of this challenge.
Number 229
RUSSELL BOWDRE, a farmer from Delta Junction, testified in
opposition to SB 308. He discussed his belief that homosexuality
is not biologically based, because he has never seen same gender
sexual relationships among animals, and believes that does not
occur because the species could not procreate.
MARY ELIZABETH RIDER testified on HB 226 from Anchorage. In the
last few years she has worked to decrease the state's cost of
health care through the medicaid program by encouraging people to
take personal responsibility for themselves and family members. HB
226 places one more barrier in front of people who are trying to
take responsibility for people for whom they are morally, if not
legally, responsible. She discussed a personal situation in which
she cared for a foster child but was not legally able to provide
the child with health insurance coverage. The child became very
ill and died; she was forced to pay $24,000 in medical bills out of
pocket. She likened the situation to gay couples who are unable to
provide coverage for partners, forcing many to use medicaid, which
can be degrading, and expensive to the state.
DEBBIE MARTINEZ, testifying from Fairbanks, urged committee members
to throw out SB 308 and HB 226 as they are motivated by fear and
bigotry. A state marriage is a legal document and should not be
denied to any two adults who choose to enter into it. Hospitals
can deny visitation to same sex partners, families can contest
wills, and although gays and lesbians must pay taxes, they do not
reap benefits.
Number 354
SENATOR TAYLOR commented families cannot contest wills if the
deceased disinherited family members, and encouraged Ms. Martinez
to seek legal advice. If a person disinherits family members,
he/she can leave his/her estate to a chicken if desired.
CINDY BOESSER, a Juneau resident, stated she has many friends and
family members who are gay and lesbian. She believes it is wrong
that those friends cannot have the same benefits she does as a
spouse. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children and
are not horrible people.
SENATOR ELLIS asked about the basis for some of the criticism of
the bill in regard to constitutional problems, specifically the
immunities clause, full faith and credit clause, and the privacy
clause of the Alaska Constitution. He believed it is the Judiciary
Committee's responsibility to make recommendations to the full
legislature on those questions.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted he was relying on the materials provided at
this point, and had not done any separate research on those
questions. He referred to a legal opinion in committee packets
from Assistant Attorney General John Gaguine who believes the bill
is constitutional.
SENATOR MILLER added the Department of Law wrote an additional
analysis on its fiscal note which states SB 308 reinforces existing
law.
Number 407
SENATOR TAYLOR believed the fundamental question to be whether a
society has a right to discriminate between various groups. The
Supreme Court has routinely allowed discrimination based on various
subjects and purposes, if those purposes are well founded. There
is a lengthy listing of existing Alaska statutes that discriminate
in that fashion, listed in the brief filed against the University
of Alaska. He believed to discriminate in that fashion to be
constitutional.
SENATOR ELLIS questioned which part of the U.S. Constitution speaks
to comity of contracts.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied that is the full faith and credit provision;
each state should give due deference and respect to each other
state. He added the Uniform Probate Code and Uniform Child
Protection Act were passed because different states have different
laws.
SENATOR ELLIS noted uniform laws are passed to make it easy for
people, not because it is required. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed the
purpose is to make people's lives better.
SENATOR ELLIS repeated his question about whether Senator Taylor
believes SB 308 is constitutional under the state and federal
constitutions. SENATOR TAYLOR answered that is the Attorney
General's opinion, and he believed that opinion to be well founded
in the cases cited and in the discussion in the memorandum.
SENATOR MILLER moved SB 308 out of committee with individual
recommendations. SENATOR ELLIS objected. The motion carried with
Senators Green, Miller and Taylor voting "yea," and Senators Adams
and Ellis voting "nay."
HB 226 BENEFIT DISCRIM BASED ON SPOUSE OR KIDS
SENATOR GREEN moved to adopt the Senate Judiciary committee
substitute (Cramer, version D) of HB 226. SENATOR ELLIS objected.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained the committee substitute was prepared to
address questions that had arisen in the House.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of the measure, reviewed changes
made to the proposed committee substitute. Previous language
provided for different health benefits to employees who have a
spouse or dependent children, than to other employees. The word
"different" was changed to "greater." The second change defines in
the Alaskan Human Rights Code "dependent children."
There being no further discussion on the motion to adopt the
committee substitute, the motion carried with Senators Adams and
Ellis voting "nay," and Senators Miller, Green and Taylor voting
"yea."
Number 475
MILDRED BOESSER testified in opposition to SCSHB 226 because there
are no legal or financial reasons to pass the bill, and it is
unnecessary to discriminate on the basis of marital status. The
bill should be amended to include domestic partners, as it was in
the House. It would then follow Judge Green's court decision.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the House action on the amendment
referred to by Ms. Boesser. MS. BOESSER replied the amendment was
added, then removed, in the House and allowed benefits to domestic
partners as well as married couples. Many universities and
businesses have adopted such a policy and find it to be good for
business.
SENATOR ELLIS moved to amend SCSHB 226. SENATOR GREEN objected.
SENATOR ELLIS described the amendment as the domestic partners'
provision. The amendment clearly defines what a domestic
partnership is, and requires that financial interdependency must
exist for these kinds of relationships to be recognized. It
addresses economic concerns stated by the sponsor, protects the
state's human rights statute and continues the prohibition on
discrimination against Alaskans based on marital status. In
addition, it promotes long term stable relationships that are of
social and financial benefit to the state.
There being no further discussion on the motion to adopt the
amendment, the motion failed with Senators Taylor, Green, and
Miller voting "nay," and Senators Ellis and Adams voting "yea."
SENATOR ELLIS expressed concern about the lack of consideration
given to the amendment by the committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR acknowledged Senator Green's previous attempt to
move SCSCSHB 226 out of committee with individual recommendations,
and objection. The motion carried with Senators Taylor, Green, and
Miller voting "yea," and Senators Ellis and Adams voting "nay."
Senator Taylor adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|