Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/09/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB18 | |
| HB62 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 62 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
3:35:52 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of
marriage."
3:36:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 62. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
3:36:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, prime sponsor of HB 62, said he had no
additional comments other than noting that the bill follows
House Bill 20, which expanded the list of people who could
solemnize marriage to include elected public officials. He
noted that House Bill 20 passed 29-6 in the House and 17-2 in
the Senate in 2018.
3:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 [labeled 32-
LS0272\A.2, Dunmire, 3/8/21], which read:
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 25.05.261(c) is amended to read:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a
duty or obligation on a person authorized to solemnize
a marriage under (a) [(a)(1), (3), OR (4)] of this
section to solemnize any marriage."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
3:38:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 1 would clarify
that [the legislature] is not trying to compel, coerce, or
legally force anyone to preside over a wedding in Alaska. He
pointed out that Alaska's only requirement is that the person
presiding over a wedding be [at-least] 18 years old and the
proposed amendment would clarify that he/she is not required to
solemnize the marriage.
3:40:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated his opposition to Amendment 1. He
noted that Representative Eastman proposed the same Amendment to
House Bill 20 in 2018, which failed by a vote of 6-29 on the
House floor. He explained that the real impact of this
amendment would implicate judges, who are statutorily required
to set their political, religious, and personal opinions aside
and perform certain ceremonial functions, which the court is
required to do. He recalled Nancy Meade explaining why
including subparagraph (a)(2) would be problematic, as it would
allow a judge's personal opinion to interfere with his/her
official duty. He deferred to Ms. Meade for further
explanation.
3:42:04 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, stated that
the proposed amendment was previously discussed with respect to
House Bill 20. She reiterated that it presents a problem and a
conflict for judges who have an ethical obligation to handle any
case that comes before them. She added that judges do not have
the ability to turn something down or not do a duty because of a
personal belief. Given that Amendment 1 would create that
conflict for judges, she said it would be problematic.
3:43:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned whether anyone other than
judges could be statutorily required to perform a marriage.
MS. MEADE said she could not think of a circumstance in which a
marriage commissioner would be forced to [perform a marriage]
because he/she would have said no to the couple and would not
show up at the court, nor pay $25 to become a marriage
commissioner in the first place.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about individuals who are
"standing" marriage commissioners. He asked whether that exists
or if it's a "one-time thing over and over."
MS. MEADE replied it's almost always a one-time thing, as in a
couple asks somebody to marry them and that person gets a one-
time commission for that couple. She noted that in some
districts, a person could get a longer-term marriage
commissioner appointment; however, AS 25.05.081 states that the
marriage commissioner must solemnize marriages in the same
manner as a district judge or magistrate, so the idea that the
marriage commissioner could be forced to perform a marriage is
theoretical. She stated her belief that it would be extremely
rare for a marriage commissioner to be, somehow, forced to
perform a marriage after expressing disinterest.
3:46:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that the
practical reality of marriage commissioners is that they get
requested to perform a ceremony and have already agreed to it
before obtaining the certificate. He shared a personal anecdote
regarding House Bill 20.
3:48:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained that Amendment 1 would provide
a solution for a problem created in a previous piece of
legislation. He indicated that some are equating marriage with
the idea that it's "just a rubber stamp and anyone should sign a
marriage certificate for no other reason than someone is asking
them to," which he saw as a departure from the way Alaska has
historically viewed marriage. He considered a situation in
which a judge or marriage commissioner expresses a desire not to
marry a couple and said [the legislature] ought to give him/her
the same right that legislators have been provided under
statute. He suggested that Amendment 1 would correct the
disparity in the law created by the passage of House Bill 20.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection.
3:50:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and
Eastman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1.
Representatives Claman, Tarr, Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 62 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 18 Amendment Packet 3.9.21.pdf |
HSTA 3/9/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 18 |