HB 310-MARRIAGE AND MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE    3:27:37 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 310, "An Act relating to the minimum age of eligibility for marriage." 3:28:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON mentioned that her marriage would not have been allowed under the proposed legislation. She referred to page 1, line 8, of HB 310, requiring marriage partners to be 18 years of age or older and otherwise capable. She asked for an explanation of "otherwise capable." 3:29:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 310, answered that he believed that phrase to be in existing statute and not new language. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 1, lines 11-12, exempting a member of the U.S. Armed Force from the requirement to be 18 years of age or older or emancipated to be married. She asked whether a member of the national guard would also be exempt. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that he did not know. He offered that a person under 18 years of age can only join the military if he/she has parental consent. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that the proposed legislation specifies the U.S. military; she asked whether the national guard is part of the U.S. military. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that he did not believe that the national guard was part of U.S. military. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether someone in the [U.S. Army] Reserve would be exempt and suggested another scenario for consideration - one person [in the marriage] is active duty military, but the other person is a civilian. 3:31:33 PM CERI GODINEZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor of HB 310, relayed that for the member of the U.S. Armed Forces to marry, the other person must be either 18 years of age, emancipated, or also in the U.S. Armed Forces. The member of the U.S. Armed Forces could not marry a civilian under 18 years of age unless that person was emancipated. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 1, line 4, in which "one man and one woman" would be replaced with "two natural persons"; she asked for a definition of "natural person." MS. GODINAZ replied that Legislative Legal and Research Services recommended the substitution to make the statute [comply with the Alaska and U.S. Constitutions]. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that there is a definition for "natural persons." REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he was not aware of a definition for "natural persons" in Alaska statute. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered that "natural person" may refer to how someone is born and asked for more clarity in the use of the term. 3:34:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that emancipation is a legal action; he asked whether there is a parental permission clause in statute giving a minor permission to marry with the consent of his/her parents, or whether that clause had been removed from statute. MS. GODINAZ replied that to be emancipated, a minor needs parental consent unless the parents are unreasonably withholding their consent or cannot be reached. She added that the minor would also need judicial approval. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the consent for marriage is linked to emancipation or can be separate. MS. GODINEZ responded that under HB 310, parents would give their consent in court to the emancipation; the only reason for no parental consent in this instance, is if they were unreasonably withholding it. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her understanding that a minor must go to court for an emancipation and if underage, would need an attorney. She referred to her own situation by saying, "I know I wouldn't have ... even pursued emancipation out of respect for my parents." She suggested that it would be unfortunate to require emancipation for marriage. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 310 would be held over.