Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/08/2017 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 | |
| HB20 | |
| HB121 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
1:05:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first 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 advised that the committee would discuss and vote
on the remaining amendments. He reminded the committee, at the
conclusion of the meeting on 3/6/17, there was a 5:00 p.m.
deadline for amendments, and the rule applied equally to every
member. He added that Representative Reinbold submitted
amendments well after 5:00 p.m. yesterday, and in his role as
chair he did not accept those amendments for consideration
today.
CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Fansler for the
duration of the hearing of HB 20.
1:06:13 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER recapped that Amendment 1 was adopted,
Amendments 2-9 failed.
1:06:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 10, Version 30-
LS0242\D.10, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 13, following "congregation;":
Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or
obligates a religious organization or congregation to
solemnize a marriage;"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
1:06:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 10 adds to those
currently not required to solemnize a marriage "a religious
organization or a congregation."
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that this language was covered by
adopted Amendment 1.
1:07:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked permission from the sponsor to
allow friendly Amendments 1 and 2 to Amendment 10.
1:07:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he was amenable to the amendments.
CHAIR CLAMAN objected to adding Amendments 1 and 2 to Amendment
10 as they were the exact amendments provided late to his
office. He reminded the committee that it has amendment
deadlines and these amendments should not be accepted.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that these were "his amendments
originally" so it is germane "to him," and germane to the topic.
Previously, members were allowed to offer friendly amendments,
and she asked whether this is a new process where members are
not allowed to amend amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that Representative Reinbold
had not offered a reason for adding the amendments.
1:09:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order. He stated that "friendly
amendment" is a topic that is periodically discussed and it has
an informal meaning. He continued that he didn't think [these
were] friendly amendments. He continued that it is either an
amendment that gets adopted or it doesn't get adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reiterated that the amendments were
germane and critical to the discussion of this bill. She stated
that if she was not allowed to speak to the amendments, she
wanted to speak to the topic.
1:10:10 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised Representative Eastman that in the
event he would like these to be friendly amendments, they would
be included, and if not, the committee would attend to Amendment
10 as written.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he believes they are.
1:10:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP spoke to the point of order, and said that
Amendment 4 was withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD explained that the amendments were
related to Version J, and not Version D.
1:11:28 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised the committee that Amendment 1 to
Amendment 10 - J.4, was not quite identical to Amendment 4, but
it was similar, and he asked for copies of the amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether Chair Claman's point of
order had been ruled on as to whether the "friendly" amendments
were out of order.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said "And he is the chair, and he said
that he was accepting them under the provision, so the point was
made by who actually has the gavel and agreed to accept them."
1:12:55 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER ruled that he accepted Amendment 1 to
Amendment 10, Version 30-LS0242\J.4, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 5 - 6 of the amendment:
Delete all material and insert:
"(c) A person authorized to solemnize a marriage
under (a) of this section may refuse to solemnize a
marriage for any reason, including for reasons of
religious scruple or conscience.""
VICE CHAIR FANSLER ruled that he accepted Amendment 2 to
Amendment 10, Version 30-LS0242\J.5, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 1 - 4:
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) A person authorized to solemnize a marriage
under (a) of this section may, for any reason,
including for reasons of religious scruple or
conscience, refuse 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) 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) 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.
1:12:57 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER ruled that Amendment 10 now encompassed two
amendments [Versions 30-LS0242\J.4 and J.5] and the original
Amendment 10 [Version 30-LS0242\D.10] together.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that he did withdraw Amendment 4
earlier and the committee did not take a position on it;
therefore, it is still an open question for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she was trying to send a clear
message by amending this amendment to prevent problems in the
courts. She related that it had become a huge issue across the
nation and she was trying to protect the right of conscience for
judges, atheists, business owners, and such. [She began
paraphrasing from: "Here it is: the Complete catalogue of 'same-
sex marriage' violations of faith" into the record, found at
"http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-
demands/#B7MEDfZlxuh3ldeX.99."]
1:16:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order. He pointed out that
Representative Reinbold was making reference to something that
has nothing to do with this bill.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER agreed, and he asked Representative Reinbold
to please stick to the facts of the bill and amendments, rather
than other scenarios.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed, and she said it was 100 percent
germane because Amendment 10 says, and she paraphrased as
follows: "A person authorized to solemnize marriage of this
section may refuse to solemnize marriage for any reason,
including reasons of religious scruple or conscience." She
stated that this does apply to judges, and in addition,
Amendment 2 to Amendment 10 talks ...
1:17:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order. He said he does not
believe [what Representative Reinbold was paraphrasing] fits
within the "germaneness definition" in terms of Representative
Eastman's Amendment 10. He said that Representative Eastman
offered the opinion that Amendment 10 was consistent with
Amendments 1 and 2 to Amendment 10, except that Amendment 1 to
Amendment 10 was far broader and covered topics the committee
previously rejected in amendments offered by Representative
Eastman. Therefore, he related, Amendment 1 to Amendment 10 was
not germane or consistent with Amendment 10, and there was not a
basis to find it was a friendly amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN stated he was making the same point of order
objection with regard to Amendment 2 to Amendment 10, because it
related to elected public officials and it was trying to do the
same thing as [withdrawn] Amendment 4. He continued that
Amendment 10 addresses a narrow and specific point in the bill
related to religious organizations. Therefore, he pointed out,
to then expand it by either Amendments 1 or 2 to Amendment 10
was not germane and well beyond the scope of Amendment 10. He
asked Vice Chair Fansler to reconsider his decision as to
whether these would be appropriate amendments given the prior
actions of this committee and the narrow focus of Amendment 10.
1:19:05 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:19 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.
1:21:01 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER ruled that with regard to the point of order
from Chair Claman, it should be duly noted on the record that
despite the germaneness issue, he would allow the committee to
continue hearing [Amendment 10] which was now all one amendment.
1:21:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related she would like to continue
reading [from "Here it is: the Complete catalogue of 'same-sex
marriage' violations of faith"] and said it speaks to Amendment
2 to Amendment 10, of which impacts different businesses.
CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order. He said that reference to
businesses is far outside the scope of this particular statute
and bill and that the entire reference to businesses was not
germane to Amendment 10, or to CSHB 20, Version J.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER said "absolutely," and ruled that
Representative Reinbold speak strictly to what is in front of
the committee, and wrap up.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stressed that she needs to be able to
express why this is important, and that it is absolutely germane
to solemnization of marriage. The bill is titled, "An Act
relating to marriage solemnization; and authorizing elected
public officials in the state to solemnize marriages," of which
she described as a broad title.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out that businesses cannot solemnize
marriages under this Act, and asked that she speak to her
amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Amendment 2 to Amendment 10,
page 1, lines 8-9, which read as follows:
(2) provide services, accommodations,
facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related
to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a
marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that it is germane, and she
doesn't appreciate being shut out of the process Alaska's
businesses will be affected. She continued that whether a
person is atheist, Christian, or Islamic, they will be affected
by this, and it is important to put on the record why Amendment
2 to Amendment 10 needs to be adopted, she said.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER thanked Representative Reinbold and advised
that she had just done that very well.
1:23:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked that he had already made his
case as to why Amendment 10 was a good amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the committee was amending
Amendment 10 with Amendments 1 and 2 to Amendment 10.
1:24:05 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
1:24:45 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER requested a roll call vote on Amendment 10,
which included Amendments 1 and 2 to Amendment 10.
1:24:52 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of the adoption of amended Amendment 10.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Fansler, Kopp, and
Claman voted against it. Therefore, amended Amendment 10 failed
to be adopted by a vote of 2-5.
1:25:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 11, 30-
LS0242\D.5, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 7 - 9:
Delete "minister, priest, or rabbi of a church or
congregation in the state, [OR] a judicial officer, a
[OR] marriage commissioner, or an individual holding
an elective public office in the state"
Insert "person authorized to solemnize marriages
in the state under AS 25.05.261(a) [MINISTER, PRIEST,
OR RABBI OF A CHURCH OR CONGREGATION IN THE STATE OR A
JUDICIAL OFFICER OR MARRIAGE COMMISSIONER]"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 11 relates to a
discrepancy in current statute, and that the bill was broken
into two sections, as follows: Section 1 [AS 25.05.261(a)]
contains a list of the various people allowed to solemnize
marriage; and Sec. 2 [AS 25.05.281] contains a second list that
includes most, but not all of the individuals and items
contained in Section 1. He referred to AS 25.05.281, and said
that when considering previous discussions, the committee can
quickly identify that "we've left out" principal officers or
elders of recognized churches or congregations, and also
commissioned officers of the Salvation Army. He commented that
while flying back to Juneau he sat next to three commissioned
officers of the Salvation Army who, in response to his question,
responded that they solemnize marriages on a fairly frequent
basis. Currently, he said, officers of the Salvation Army do
not receive the same treatment contained within Sec. 2, of
Version J. He explained that it deals specifically with a
situation wherein a couple was married by someone the couple
believed was a priest, rabbi, or elected official, the marriage
was consummated and later it turned out that the person who
married them was either misinformed about their authority to
perform marriages, or lied about it. In either case, the
statute said "We acted in good faith when we went to that person
or congregation and got married, and that marriage is valid for
purposes of law." He related that he could not think of a
reason why the committee would make that be the case with
ministers, priests, and rabbis, but exclude those who, in good
faith, go to a commissioned officer of the Salvation Army. He
reminded the committee that in many villages, that may be the
only person people can go to, which is probably why they were
added to the list in the first place. Certainly, he said, that
marriage ought to be every bit as valid as any other marriage.
1:29:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN withdrew his objection.
1:29:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected for discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that Representative Eastman
identified a more elegant and concise way to pull in all of
those persons authorized to solemnize marriages. It does appear
to be an oversight that the Salvation Army was left off, and it
does make the statute's intent more clear and easier for a lay
person to understand, he remarked.
1:31:04 PM
LINDA BRUCE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, said she
was available for questions.
1:31:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked why classes of people were
inadvertently left out of the statute of which Amendment 11
reconciles.
MS. BRUCE explained that the legislative history on this topic
is vague; however, she could speak briefly on the history of AS
25.05.281. She explained that the provisions had not been
amended since their adoption in 1963, and she could not locate
any documents addressing the intent of the legislature.
However, she pointed out, commissioned officers of the Salvation
Army were first authorized to solemnize marriages under the
Territorial Laws of Alaska, in 1929, and it is similar to
current statute under AS 25.05.281.
1:32:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he concurred with
Representative Kopp in that it was good clean-up.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that Amendment 11 is befitting
the individual with whom this room was named after.
Representative Gruenberg is probably looking down upon the
committee and appreciating Representative Eastman, she related.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD offered that she likes the intent as it
covers much of what "we've been trying to do with all these
other amendments."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 11 was adopted.
1:33:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 12, 30-
LS0242\D.13, which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 11:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 25.05.311 is amended to read:
Sec. 25.05.311. Marriage without solemnization. A
marriage contracted after January 1, 1964, is void
unless the marriage has been solemnized as provided in
this chapter. [IF THE PARTIES TO A MARRIAGE VOID FOR
FAILURE TO SOLEMNIZE THE MARRIAGE VALIDATE THE
MARRIAGE BY COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
CHAPTER, THE ISSUE OF THE VOID MARRIAGE ARE
LEGITIMATE.]"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN paraphrased AS 25.05.311, and read as
follows:
If the parties to a marriage void for failure to
solemnize the marriage validate the marriage by
complying with the requirements of this chapter, the
issue of the void marriage are legitimate.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that, under certain circumstances
the children from a marriage are legitimate in the state's eyes.
The legislative history indicates that this language has not
been changed since January 1, 1964, and in those days it was
thought appropriate for the state to have a definition of what a
legitimate and illegitimate child was. He opined that over the
passage of time, however, the state has come to see that that
was not necessarily a responsibility of the state. Currently,
he pointed out, the state has other laws dealing with paternity
at great length, such as, options for DNA testing that was not
available in 1964. Amendment 12 removes this language and
Legislative Legal and Research Services advised that this will
not deprive anyone of their inheritance and such, he said.
1:35:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Amendment 12, page 1, line 8,
and suggested changing the word from "issue" to "children." In
that manner, he pointed out, the entire reading of it becomes
apparent that the provision was saying that children of a void
marriage are legitimate, rather than the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Bruce whether she read
"issue" in the same manner as Representative Kopp.
1:36:51 PM
MS. BRUCE responded that she agrees with Representative Kopp's
suggestion that "issue" does mean "children."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Ms. Bruce, in the event this
amendment was adopted and removed the bracketed language, what
effect, if any, would this have on anything legal.
1:37:31 PM
MS. BRUCE answered that the legitimation in this context was the
process of establishing that a putative parent was the child's
biological parent. Under AS 25.20.050, it provides the process
for determining "legitimation," but it essentially means
determining that a putative parent was a biological parent. She
continued that the provision provides that a child born to
parents not legally married, is legitimated and considered heir
of the putative parent when the parents subsequently get married
legally. She explained that it is covered under another statute
and placing it under AS 25.05.311 may clarify the issue, but it
was covered under another provision of law.
1:38:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that it sounds like taking it
out might muddy the issue.
MS. BRUCE responded that it is possible this may confuse a
court, but it is hard to say how a court would consider it due
to the other statute. In the event there was an established
record with legislative intent on this section it may help to
clarify, she opined.
1:39:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX queried whether Ms. Bruce would recommend
that rather than taking it out now, to possibly flag it for the
revisor's cleanup work.
MS. BRUCE answered that this may be interpreted as a
clarification of another statute rather than cleanup, but she
would have to speak with the revisor on that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Ms. Bruce to advise the committee,
in her own words, what this amendment does.
MS. BRUCE replied that "this amendment removes the provision"
that if a marriage was determined to be void because the
marriage was not solemnized correctly under this chapter, then
the children of that marriage were considered legitimate if the
marriage was subsequently made legally binding.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that all it does is legitimize
children regardless of whether a marriage is void or not.
MS. BRUCE clarified that it is not that it legitimizes children
whether the marriage was void or not. Rather, she explained, it
provides that if a marriage was void due to an incorrect
solemnization of the marriage, and if children had been born to
that union, at the time the marriage was subsequently made
legally binding, those children were legitimated for both
parents.
1:42:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there would be any
intended or unintended consequences to, for example, the
Department of Health and Social Services, another statute,
entitlement programs, or the budget, or whether it was "pretty
clean."
MS. BRUCE responded that she was not aware of any unintended
consequences. Although, if this provision was removed, there is
the possibility that the court may interpret that children from
that union were not legitimate; however, since there is another
provision of law that performs a similar function, she opined,
it is unlikely.
1:43:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Ms. Bruce, in her legal opinion,
whether the provision should be removed, or left it in, and
which language would more precise.
MS. BRUCE responded that without knowing more about how this
provision had been interpreted in practice, said that she could
not say whether judges or individuals actually relied on this
provision. From a drafting standpoint, she offered, it could be
removed, but again, she was unsure based upon how it was
actually being employed in practice.
1:44:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that this issue was discussed
during drafting, and he elected to leave this section in the law
dealing with marriage without solemnization. He explained that
the more important part of this provision was that a marriage
was legally void unless it had been solemnized according to this
chapter. He reiterated Ms. Bruce's statement that there are
multiple parts of the statute that speaks to the same issue. He
related that there is no reason for the committee to speak to
this specific issue here, but if the committee feels that it
offers greater clarity and the public interest would be served
by leaving it, he had no objection.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that while she appreciates the maker
of the amendment trying to clarify the statute, without a firm
legal opinion it would not do something the committee didn't
want it to do, she felt uncomfortable changing it.
1:46:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS related that the amendment appears
to be a prudent course and a common sense amendment, and that a
future committee could attend to this if more diligence was
performed.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he went as far as he could with
Legislative Legal and Research Services and there was not a lot
of other knowledge to be had at the moment. He commented that
it would be good for the state to find another way of
characterizing the importance of paternity, marriage
solemnization, and so forth, as far as inheritance and such. He
remarked that he would like the state to move away from
declaring people legitimate or illegitimate, and he withdrew
Amendment 12.
1:47:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 13, Version 30-
LS02452\J.2, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 5 of the amendment, following "duty":
Insert "or obligation"
Page 1, line 6 of the amendment:
Delete the second occurrence of "a"
Insert "any"
VICE CHAIR FANSLER objected for purposes of discussion.
1:48:06 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:48 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.
2:05:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 13 amends
Amendment 1, and makes two small changes by adding the words "or
obligation" and "any." He asked Ms. Bruce to respond to the
significance this amendment.
2:06:51 PM
MS. BRUCE answered that the word "obligation" slightly expands
what is accomplished with this amendment because obligation
would include a moral obligation, a legal obligation, or a
commitment to do something.
2:07:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked her legal opinion as to whether
there is any significance in changing the word "a" to "any."
MS. BRUCE answered that "any" clarifies, for the purposes of
Amendment 13, that a person authorized to solemnize a marriage
wouldn't be required or obligated to solemnize any marriage.
Therefore, they could solemnize some marriages and choose to not
solemnize others.
2:08:11 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked Ms. Bruce the difference between a duty on a
person and an obligation on a person. He further asked whether,
in the manner in which Alaska's courts have applied it, the
language "or obligation" would change the way the courts would
apply something like this.
MS. BRUCE responded that she was not aware of any case wherein
the courts specifically looked at the use of these words;
however, the commonly understood meaning of "obligation" was
similar to duty except it expands it out to include a
commitment. The courts look at the commonly understood meaning
of these words, and it appears this might broaden the scope
slightly, she offered.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that inserting the language "any" would
basically indicate that, with this amendment, a person might
choose to marry two Hindu individuals and decline to marry two
Baathist individuals. Therefore, he asked whether the word
"any" would clarify the ability to pick and choose who they may
elect to marry.
MS. BRUCE opined that a person could choose to marry certain
people and not other people; however, it is possible that under
the state's antidiscrimination statute, at least as far as
elected officials, if they were choosing not to solemnize
certain marriages for reasons of the persons religion or race,
or one of the protected groups, that would possibly violate the
state's antidiscrimination law.
2:10:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that Amendment 13 adds clarity
and equal protection for all, and it empowers more equal
protections for anyone. She said she supports Amendment 13.
2:11:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the sponsor of the bill whether
this amendment would be an improvement to the bill.
2:11:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:11 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.
2:12:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN responded to Representative Eastman that he does
not object to this amendment.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER withdrew his objection. There being no
objection, Amendment 13 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER returned the committee to CSHB 20,
Version J, for further discussion. He put forth that there had
been a lot of discussion on this bill and that the members were
limited to two minutes with their discussion directly related to
the bill, and there would then be final comments, he advised.
2:13:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that her testimony was cut off
earlier and she returned to paraphrasing portions of: "Here it
is: the Complete catalogue of 'same-sex marriage' violations of
faith." She further commented that the constitution is at risk
by activists, and that almost 250 years of protected rights
making Alaska great are being violated. People are receiving
civil penalties for refusing to do things that are against their
conscience.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER said that the committee will move forth from
there, with a note that he sees nothing in this bill discussing
businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented the freedom to live out ones faith
in the marketplace is an important freedom to protect, and this
bill has absolutely nothing to do with businesses. He related
that he appreciates Amendment 13 because it expands protections
and emphasizes that the committee does want to protect the
freedom of the newly established class of persons authorized to
solemnize marriages, elected officials, and Alaska's faith
leaders and congregations. The protection of marriage is an
important institution in the eyes of the church and the state,
and he appreciates the bill sponsor bringing the bill forward.
2:17:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related that the two items of greatest
importance to him are adding elective officials to an expansive
list, and also, by merely having elective officials on a list of
those authorized to solemnize marriages brings cause for concern
when someone raises an issue of discrimination in the event
someone decides not to marry a particular couple. He pointed
out that because that language is lingering out there, there is
too much room for a judge to see unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER reminded the committee that the bill does
not deal with businesses, and to speak to solemnization of
marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX described CSHB 20 as a good bill, it
accomplishes the original purpose of the sponsor to add elective
officials to the group of people solemnizing a marriage, and
through the committee and amendment process it enhanced
protections given to the faith community to determine which
marriages to solemnize.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP informed that committee that, yesterday, the
Wyoming Supreme Court overruled the Wyoming Judicial Conduct
Board and reinstated Judge Ruth Neely. The court ruled that the
judge was able to express her personal opinion and not be
removed from the bench, he pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD argued that the bill does impact
businesses because some elected officials own businesses and it
can affect their churches. She said she is troubled because as
elected officials, "we're now being asked to not have to go down
to the courthouse and get a -- the bureaucracy in going down and
doing the paperwork and paying our $25 fee -- we're being held
to a different standard than maybe the average citizen." She
asked the sponsor of the bill whether it was his intention to
protect everyone equally and protect all branches of government,
all citizens, with the right to refuse based on the right of
conscience or for any religious scruple.
2:24:08 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:24 p.m. to 2:27 p.m.
2:27:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER asked whether there were further final
comments.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered that this bill is an improvement
over the bill that arrived from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee, and he acknowledged all of the hard work that went
into it.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER thanked the committee for its hard work on
the bill and noted that it is good to see there are times the
members can all agree. It is also good to debate and look at
the issues from all sides, and he looks forward to supporting
this bill as it moves forward, he commented.
CHAIR CLAMAN thanked the committee for taking its time on the
bill and going into great depth, and that as a product of that
depth the bill was improved. He related that in the end, this
bill is not about businesses, it's about one basic thing, which
is that elected public officials need to go get a $25 license to
marry people.
2:30:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report CSHB 20(STA) out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
20(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER returned the gavel to CHAIR CLAMAN.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB121 ver O 2.27.17.PDF |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121 Sponsor Statement 3.6.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121 Sectional Analysis 3.6.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121 Supporting Document-Federal Memo to State 2.23.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121 Supporting Document-OSHA Fact Sheet 3.6.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121 Fiscal Note DOLWD-OSH 2.24.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB020 Draft Proposed CS ver. J 3.1.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Amendments 1-13 3.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |
| HB020 Supporting Document-Emails of Support 3.7.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 20 |