Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/06/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB120 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB120 ver. A 3.1.17.PDF |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Transmittal Letter 3.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Summary of Bill 3.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.24.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB020 Draft Proposed CS ver. J 3.1.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Amendments 1-12 3.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Amendment 1 replacement 3.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |