HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS  2:13:42 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to marriage solemnization; and authorizing elected public officials in the state to solemnize marriages." CHAIR CLAMAN reminded the committee that he is the sponsor of HB 20, and passed the gavel to Vice Chair Fansler. 2:14:05 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER recapped that on 3/3/17, the House Judiciary Standing Committee adopted Amendment 1, and Amendment 2 failed to pass. He stressed that when the members speak to the amendments, to keep strictly to the amendment itself and not to the entirety of the bill. 2:14:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, Version 30- LS0242\D.1, which read as follows: Page 2, lines 1 - 3: Delete "; nothing in this paragraph requires or  obligates an individual holding an elective public  office in the state to solemnize a marriage" Page 2, following line 3: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (c) Nothing in this section requires or obligates an individual or organization authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a) of this section to solemnize a marriage." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. CHAIR CLAMAN objected. 2:15:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered that Amendment 3 is in response to [Version D] which added a provision of not requiring elected officials to solemnize marriage, and "we wouldn't want elected officials" to have to solemnize marriage if that is not what they were interested in doing. He explained that it would apply this to the section, rather than simply to elected officials only, and opined that if someone preferred not to solemnize a particular marriage for any reason, they should not have to do so. 2:16:08 PM CHAIR CLAMAN noted that this topic was adequately addressed in Amendment 1, and he maintained his objection. 2:16:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for clarification that this amendment exempts anyone or any organization wanting to solemnize a marriage, does not have to. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold, answered yes. In response to Chair Claman, he said that Amendment 3 "does cover portions of this." He then advise that Amendment 1 is substantially different from Amendment 3, because Amendment 1 specifically mentions a person and how a person does not have a duty. The language in Amendment 3 is different in that it refers to an individual or an organization, and this statute applies to congregations, religious organizations, as well as individuals. Under a strict reading of Amendment 1, he commented, only persons and individuals would be captured and it is the desire of the committee to make sure that religious organizations are also captured. Also, he said, Amendment 1 spoke specifically to having a duty, and the words in Amendment 3 are "requires or obligates," which is broader. Certainly, duty is one thing, but there are other expectations and obligations that may come into mind; therefore, this establishes, with greater clarity, that "we are not expecting or intending" for anyone on this list of those who can solemnize a marriage, to be under an obligation to do so, he remarked. 2:18:44 PM CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the [previously failed Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, which involved [Version J, Section 1], AS 25.05.261(a)(2), which read as follows: (a) Marriages may be solemnized (2) by a marriage commission or judicial officer of the state anywhere within the jurisdiction of the commissioner or officer; [OR] CHAIR CLAMAN stated that with the adoption of Amendment 3, it would now apply to court officials, which is another reason he does not support Amendment 3. 2:19:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Version D, AS 25.05.261(a)(3), page 1, lines 12-13, which read as follows: (3) before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced in the organization or congregation; REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he would like to hear from Legislative Legal and Research Services as to whether it believes the word "person" contained within Amendment 1, covers that. He opined that the law sees corporations and persons in more of a collective sense, and congregations are certainly made up of persons. He said in his plain reading, the language "nothing in this section creates or implies a duty on a person authorized to solemnize under [paragraph] (3)" refers to "religious organizations or congregations" which are all made up of persons. 2:20:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that, certainly, under elections law, persons means corporations, or a wide variety of things. Although, she said she was unsure that "persons" means that with respect to other law, and it would be good to hear from Legislative Legal and Research Services 2:21:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Amendment 1, page [1], lines 2-3, which read as follows: Delete all material and insert:   (4) by an individual holding an elective  public office in the state. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she wants it to read "anybody in the state," and that Sec. 2 excludes judges. She then paraphrased that it read "anybody who has authorization to solemnize marriage." She expressed that it does not make sense to her that on page 2, line 3, paragraph (4), she paraphrased as follows: "by an individual holding an elective office." 2:22:05 PM CHAIR CLAMAN recalled to Representative Kopp that they discussed AS 25.05.261(a)(3) regarding marriage ceremonies before any religious organization or congregation according to that established ritual or form. He opined that Representative Kopp's explanation was that there are certain congregations that do not have, for lack of a better description, an ordained minister. Paragraph (3) was designed to cover lay-led congregations wherein through the way the church manages their religious ceremonies, someone would take on that responsibility on behalf of that organization. He again referred to paragraph (3) and said he always understood that the statute was "designed to accommodate still an individual person," and not the organization, so it wouldn't be a business it would still be a person it's just that because they are not formally ordained by the Methodist Church, for lack of a better example. 2:23:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that that is his understanding, and also with paragraph (3), "it does accommodate religious beliefs and practices that are non-Westernized, indigenous, to our people here." He pointed out that the language particularly makes clear that however a person brings two people together in this union, it is according to their established ritual or form that they commonly practice. The language goes back to the spirit of independence in Alaska where it is recognized that Alaskans want people to be free [according to their established ritual or form], and that he certainly hopes this applies to persons, he said. 2:24:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked why the committee adopted CSHB 20, Version J, with the great new language in it, and then turned around and took that language out in Amendment 1. CHAIR CLAMAN explained that through the amendment process, an amendment was proposed and then adopted by the committee, which is the standard process. He pointed out that she was in attendance and participated, and he didn't understand her question. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the committee agreed to adopt Version J, and noted that Version J brought forward good language. She reiterated that she didn't know why the committee wasted its time adopting Version J, if it was going to turn around and take the language out in the first amendment. CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that the committee adopted Version J for purposes of discussion, and the committee is using Version J as the basis to consider various amendments. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that now the committee is going back through the amendment process. She continued that it just didn't make sense to bring a brand new committee substitute forward with some incredible language in it, "and then to turn around and go out and then want it back in." She offered that her amendment would bring back that language. 2:26:43 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER noted that Legislative Legal and Research Services was still not on online, and he would hold Amendment 3 until Legislative Legal and Research Services was available. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN concurred. 2:27:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, Version 30- LS0242\D.17, which read as follows: Page 2, lines 1 - 3: Delete all material and insert: "(4) by an individual holding an elective  public office in the state. * Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section to (1) solemnize a marriage; or (2) provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage. (d) A person permitted to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section is not subject to criminal or civil liability for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage. (e) The state or a municipality may not penalize a person who is permitted to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage. In this subsection, "penalize" means to take an action affecting a benefit or privilege guaranteed to the person by law, including a tax exemption or state or municipal contract, grant, or license." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for discussion. 2:27:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that he had agreed to carry this amendment at a colleague's request, and he understands that this was a more comprehensive way of dealing with some of these issues. 2:28:18 PM CHAIR CLAMAN opined that Amendment 4 is inconsistent with the limited purpose of the bill and he does not support the amendment. VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised the committee to return to the discussion on Amendment 3. 2:28:55 PM LINDA BRUCE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, said she was available to answer questions. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to adopted Amendment 1, subsection (c), page 1, lines 5-6, which read as follows: (c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section to solemnize a marriage. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the word "person" covers the language in paragraph (3) with respect to those religious organizations or congregations, for purposes of this law 2:30:30 PM MS. BRUCE answered "Yes it does," under AS 01.10.060(8) the definition of person, read as follows: (8) "person" includes a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association, organization, business trust, or society, as well as a natural person; MS. BRUCE continued that the Supreme Court has interpreted this provision expansively, and in her opinion it would include those organizations. 2:30:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a home church with no 501(c)(3) status, would also be covered under this amendment with the word "person." MS. BRUCE responded that it would be covered if it's a commonly understood meaning. 2:31:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether home churches, with no legal status, can solemnize marriage under current statute. MS. BRUCE related that courts would interpret this broadly, although, she didn't know about the legal status of those churches. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether any organization could call itself a home church and solemnize a marriage under current statute. MS. BRUCE responded that current statute read "any religious organization or congregation" which is a broad term, and she opined that it could as long as it had an established ritual or form commonly practiced in the organization or congregation." 2:33:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this amendment would protect all Alaskans, with the authority to solemnize a marriage, to refuse for any reason. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD, in response to Vice Chair Fansler, advised that she was referring to Amendment 3. VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised Ms. Bruce that Amendment 3, Version 30-LS0242\D.1, was before the committee. MS. BRUCE pointed out that this amendment is similar to [Amendment 1], Version 30-LS0242\J.1, and the only difference being is that [Amendment 3] pertains to "all persons authorized to solemnize marriage" whereas [Amendment 1] applies to persons under (a)(1), (3) and (4). REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she did not hear an answer to her question as to whether this allows anyone, with the authority to solemnize a marriage, the right to refuse for any reason. MS. BRUCE responded that it does, as the statute is already permissive, and this does do what Representative Reinbold was asking. 2:35:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN mentioned there are two categories of people in subsection (a) paragraph (2), and marriage commissioners are involved, and the committee might inadvertently be leaving them out of this if they are not included. He commented that Amendment 3 includes everyone. 2:36:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that the marriage commissioner is a voluntary process, and by virtue of that fact, the person voluntarily wants to be a marriage commissioner or they don't apply for that opportunity. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that that might be the practice within which Representative Kopp was familiar, the state statute simply gives the judicial officer in each judicial district the ability to appoint marriage commissioners. He added that it does not read whether that will be voluntary, or any particular member of the judiciary, or a legislator, and he was unclear whether that was necessarily logically necessary that that be the case in all parts of Alaska. VICE CHAIR FANSLER called for the question on Amendment 3. 2:38:58 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted in favor of adopting Amendment 3. Representatives Fansler, Kopp, LeDoux, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, adoption of Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-4. 2:38:37 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised that Amendment 4 was before the committee. 2:39:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 4. 2:39:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, Version 30- LS0242\D.11, which read as follows: Page 2, following line 3: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (c) Nothing in this section requires or obligates an imam of any mosque in the state to solemnize a marriage." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. 2:39:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that current statute recognizes many different individuals, organizations, titles, and ministers, priests, and rabbis, and does not mentioned imam of any mosque. Mosques are located in Alaska and, he commented, it is important that mosques are equally recognized in statute. Therefore, it would not ever be in a situation of having an expectation or obligation to perform a marriage in which it wasn't enthusiastically behind, he said. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that her problem with it here is that it doesn't parallel the language of Section 1. She explained that the more appropriate place, if anyone believes it is necessary, would be in Section 1, (a)(1), which would read as follows: (1) by minister, priest, rabbi, or imam ... REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX continued that by putting it in Section 1, it would not be necessary to list them in Sec, 2 because they would be covered by the way Sec. 2 work anyway. She pointed out that to have it in Sec. 2 when it isn't in Section 1, is confusing. 2:41:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to AS 25.05.261(a)(3), which read as follows: (3) marriage may be solemnized before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced in the organization. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that it clearly covers imams and mosques. 2:42:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related that "in the amendment that was just voted down", all persons and organizations would have been covered equally without the need to list or refer to anyone specifically. Although, since the committee is continuing with listing pastors, rabbis, priests, and so forth, there is an argument that an imam should be mentioned as well, he said. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she doesn't have any concern with listing imams, but there are probably a myriad of religions and they are covered by minister, priest, or rabbi, which are the three major religions here. The caveat includes just about anything else that is considered a religion, she pointed out. In the event the committee lists Islam, then Buddhists, Hindus, and others must be mentioned which would require a world religion encyclopedia to make certain no religion was missed. 2:43:47 PM CHAIR CLAMAN said he agreed that subsection (a) paragraph (3) adequately includes Islam, Buddhism, and any number of religions. He offered that the Department of Defense has classifications of the different religions it recognizes, with a large group titled "other religions," of which would all be covered under paragraph (3) of this statute, and that Amendment 5 is overly specific. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she agreed with Representative Eastman in that if the committee had passed the previous amendment, it would have covered all. She explained that the purpose of Amendment 5 is to show that because that amendment failed, now the committee must go through each individual [religion], which might take weeks. The language should be inclusive for any individual and not just protect the rights of legislators. She said that Legislative Legal and Research Services previously testified that everyone would have been protected and had the right to refuse, except now the committee has the obligation to go through each and every single type of religion or whatever because the committee refuses to protect everyone. 2:45:58 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER said that while he appreciates Representative Eastman's goal to be as inclusive as possible, his worry lends toward Representative LeDoux's worry that when the committee does these kinds of things, it creates legislative intent. The intent suddenly becomes that the committee chose to purposefully include one group, but perhaps it should have included something else, and "why did we not." Therefore, he said he prefers to leave it open to the widest possible group possible because when putting in lists and simply forgetting one person or one group suddenly opens a large can of worms. While he appreciates where Representative Eastman is coming from, he was not in favor of the amendment, he said. 2:47:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed that the committee was setting legislative intent in these decisions, and it will be difficult for courts involved in HB 20's legislative history search to see other than "we are setting up specific types of individuals and categories and organizations to effect marriages in this state." The committee specifically mentioned that some of those have to perform marriages only because, by the passage of this bill, there are other people who do not have to [solemnize marriages]. He related that the committee is setting the situation up wherein he is a marriage commissioner, before this bill happens, and he decides on the day of the wedding that he doesn't want to perform the marriage. He then offered the committee this question, "What about me," because the committee created the expectation that if he initially agreed to be a marriage commissioner, he must still want to do it, and he described that as a presumption. 2:48:46 PM CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order. Chair Claman pointed out that Amendment 5 has nothing to do with marriage commissioners, it has to do with imam and mosques and Representative Eastman is not on topic. 2:48:55 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised Representative Eastman to return to the topic of his amendment, imams and mosques. 2:49:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said imams and mosques are important to include because the language read that there are specific people who can and cannot perform marriages. He described it as an irony because elsewhere in statute "we kinda want everybody to be able to do marriages," and created ways for that to be accomplished. He said he would like to take a step away from the state coming up with a list. CHAIR CLAMAN objected. Chair Claman pointed out that Representative Eastman was "way off topic of this amendment." 2:49:52 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted in favor of the passage of Amendment 5. Representatives Kopp, LeDoux, Fansler, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 5 failed to be adopted by a vote of 4- 2. 2:50:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 6, Version 30- LS0242\D.6, which read as follows: Page 1, line 9, following "state;": Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or  obligates a minister, priest, or rabbi of any church  or congregation to solemnize a marriage;" CHAIR CLAMAN objected. 2:51:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that this amendment is similar to the previous discussion, and this amendment specifically lists ministers, priest, and rabbi, as deserving of protection under this statute. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that adopted Amendment 1 does the trick with respect to ministers, priests, and rabbis. CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection, and stressed that he agrees with Representative LeDoux. 2:52:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN wrapped up his testimony by stating his hope is that Representative LeDoux is correct and that Amendment 6 is captured, if not, he intends to vote for this amendment. 2:52:18 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted in favor of the passage of Amendment 6. Representatives Fansler, Kopp, LeDoux, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 6 failed to be adopted by a vote of 4- 2. 2:53:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 7, Version 30- LS0242\D.7, which read as follows: Page 1, line 9, following "state;": Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or  obligates a commissioned officer of the Salvation Army  to solemnize a marriage;" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment lists commissioned officers of the Salvation Army as deserving of protection under the statute. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her previous testimony with respect to Amendment 6, in that it is covered under Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that this is important and the committee should probably do 100 more amendments because the committee refused to sign off on the amendment that gave all Alaskans the right to refuse. She stated that the committee has an obligation to go through all of the people this might impact, and that this committee decided to protect only select individuals. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that she understands Representative Reinbold's philosophical concern with the protection of all Alaskans, as opposed to select Alaskans. She reiterated that Amendment 1 takes care of these select Alaskans that are the subject of Amendment 7, because there is no doubt that the people referred to in Amendment 7 are taken care of by Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated that she strongly disagrees with that statement. 2:55:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Reinbold whether it is her intent is to be certain everyone is covered. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she is hoping Representative LeDoux is correct, but this amendment will protect one more class. 2:55:53 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 7. Representatives LeDoux, Fansler, Kopp, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 7 failed to be adopted by a vote of 4- 2. 2:56:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 8, Version 30- LS0242\D.8, which read as follows: Page 1, line 9, following "state;": Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or  obligates the principal officer or elder of a  recognized church or congregation to solemnize a  marriage;" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment ensures that nothing in the statute requires or obligates the principal officer or elder of a recognized church or congregation to solemnize a marriage. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she is passionate about this amendment and supports it wholeheartedly. In the event the committee chooses to exclude one branch of government, it is "dead wrong." She asked permission of Representative Eastman to add her name as sponsor to Amendment 8, because it is a critical step in protecting anyone working in the judicial branch of government. 2:57:47 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out that Amendment 8 does not speak to the judicial branch. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD apologized. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX called for the question. 2:58:11 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 8. Representatives LeDoux, Fansler, Kopp, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2- 4. 2:58:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 9, Version 30- LS0242\D.9, which read as follows: Page 1, line 11, following "officer;": Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or  obligates a marriage commissioner or judicial officer  to solemnize a marriage;" REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment specifies in statute that both a marriage commissioner and a judicial officer are not obligated or required to solemnize a marriage. 2:59:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that the committee previously heard her loud and clear that she does not want to exclude the judicial branch of government because it would be "dead wrong." CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection. REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reminded the committee that Legislative Legal and Research Services pointed out that the language is permissive. He referred to CSHB 20, Version J, page 1, line 5, and paraphrased as follows: "Marriages may be solemnized." He stated that the language does not say "Marriages shall be solemnized," and that within adopted Amendment 1, the committee basically "doubled down on legislative intent," even with respect to marriage commissioners and judicial officers. He reiterated that the language is permissive. 3:00:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to adopted Amendment 1, and asked why the sponsor excluded [Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261(a)] paragraph (2), and opined that it was with the intent to exclude the judicial branch. She said, "I think you're talking outa both sides of your mouth right now." 3:00:33 PM CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order, and explained that the topic of adding paragraph (2) to the bill is the subject of an amendment that previously failed. 3:00:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX called a point of order, and stipulated that it is not appropriate to say that another representative is "speaking out of both side of their mouth," in that it impugns the representative's motives. 3:00:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said "As long as we keep consistent all of the time, then I'm fine -- I'm fine with that. But we need to not just call it out randomly, it needs to be consistent." She explained that it is confusing when it is said that [marriage commissioners and judicial officers] are covered by one, and then exclude them on another. "I -- I think it's a very fair statement, but if he could clearly explained why -- why [paragraph (2)] is taken out. Now, he says they're covered in 9, I don't understand." 3:01:20 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out there are two points of order and ruled that Representative LeDoux's point of order is well taken and for the members to not impugn anyone as everyone is trying to do what they think is best. 3:01:36 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER commented that Representative Claman's point of order was that the committee previously spoke to this amendment arguably with Amendment 3. CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that prior to the adoption of Amendment 1 [Representative Reinbold] offered [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, adding paragraph (2) into Amendment 1. The motion to add paragraph (2) into Amendment 1 [was withdrawn] and; therefore, that topic had been addressed by the actions of this committee. VICE CHAIR FANSLER clarified that [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was withdrawn. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed, and said it was withdrawn because one of Representative Eastman's amendments spoke to this subject. VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out that, at the time, Representative Eastman said that Amendment 3 spoke to it, and he was inclined to agree that Amendment 3 characterizes it because it now includes marriage under subsection (a). 3:03:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the question was whether this subject had been spoken to previously, and the committee did determine, prior to the motion to adopt Amendment 1, that each amendment would be spoken to separately, which involves some amount of overlap. The committee could say that by passing Amendment 1, the committee undid the previously adopted committee substitute, and he said he is okay with that. He then noted that the question was "Well, what have we said," and he would like to be clear "what is it that we are trying to say as a committee on this particular issue." VICE CHAIR FANSLER stated that Chair Claman's point of order is well taken. 3:04:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated that the language in this statute is permissive, it's not prescriptive or directive. He commented that "perfect is always the enemy of good," and while Representative Reinbold and himself want protections to apply across all eligible persons, and it was his perspective that the judiciary already has some flexibility. Sometimes, he opined, when legislators choose the battles in front of them, they can end up damaging the entire goal of what the [legislation] is trying to accomplish. Currently, he said, he does not see this bill as the vehicle for the [judiciary] issue to be addressed, and that this bill does a lot of good by extending protections to congregations, religious leaders, elected officials, and it offers "some wonderful things." He concluded that by adding one more thing to it, the committee could end up undoing it. 3:06:07 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and Reinbold voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 9. Representatives Fansler, Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, and Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 9 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-5. 3:06:51 PM The committee took a brief at ease. 3:06:57 PM VICE CHAIR FANSLER passed the gavel to Chair Claman. [HB 20 was held over.]