03/24/2021 01:30 PM House JUDICIARY

                    HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:23:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the  final order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL  NO.  62,  "An   Act  relating  to  solemnization  of                                                               
marriage."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:23:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SOPHIE  JONAS, Staff,  Representative Matt  Claman, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, presented HB 62 on  behalf of Representative Claman,                                                               
prime sponsor.   She paraphrased the  sponsor statement [included                                                               
in  the  committee  packet],  which  read  as  follows  [original                                                               
punctuation provided]:                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     At  present,  during  the  solemnization  of  marriage,                                                                    
     couples must assent to the  marriage in the presence of                                                                    
     each other,  the person  solemnizing the  marriage, and                                                                    
     at  least  two  additional  witnesses.  Afterward,  all                                                                    
     parties  must  sign  the marriage  certificates.  House                                                                    
     Bill  62  would  eliminate   the  requirements  of  any                                                                    
     additional witnesses at  the marriage solemnization and                                                                    
     the   signatures  of   these   witnesses  on   marriage                                                                    
     certificates  in an  effort  to  help support  Alaska's                                                                    
     destination  wedding  industry   while  preserving  the                                                                    
     integrity of marriage solemnizations.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Alaska is  one of  20 states  that require  two wedding                                                                    
     witnessesthe    upper   limit    of   wedding   witness                                                                    
     requirements  nationwide.  Twenty-four states  and  the                                                                    
     District of  Columbia do not require  wedding witnesses                                                                    
     at all.  Wedding witnesses played a  more critical role                                                                    
     in  past   centuries  when  record  keeping   was  less                                                                    
     automated. Witnesses  could be contacted to  verify the                                                                    
     wedding had taken place in  the event that records were                                                                    
     damaged  or  missing. Today,  however,  the  role of  a                                                                    
     wedding  witness is  ceremonial. In  Alaska, while  the                                                                    
     person  solemnizing  the  marriage  must  meet  certain                                                                    
     criteria,  no form  of witness  verification (proof  of                                                                    
     identification,    language   comprehension,    address                                                                    
     validation,  etc.)  is  required.  HB  62  would  allow                                                                    
     Alaska to compete with states  like Hawaii and Florida,                                                                    
     which require no wedding witnesses  and lead the nation                                                                    
     in destination weddings.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     Destination weddings are a  growing business in Alaska,                                                                    
     especially   as  couples   opt   for  small,   intimate                                                                    
     ceremonies  rather   than  large  ones  due   to  risks                                                                    
     associated with  COVID-19. But  the requirement  of two                                                                    
     wedding  witnesses  makes   Alaska  a  less  attractive                                                                    
     location for many  who travel from farther  away or who                                                                    
     do not want the financial burden of a larger wedding.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Couples  who  come  to  the  state  without  their  own                                                                    
     witnesses are tasked with  finding strangers to witness                                                                    
     their wedding. The burden  of supplying these witnesses                                                                    
     often  falls  to those  who  work  in Alaska's  wedding                                                                    
     industry  who ask  friends and  family  to witness  the                                                                    
     weddings  of  their   out-of-town  clients.  Especially                                                                    
     during the  COVID-19 pandemic, it  is hard  for out-of-                                                                    
     state couples to find two  witnesses and couples may be                                                                    
     reluctant   to   have   strangers  as   their   wedding                                                                    
     witnesses. The additional  witness requirement can also                                                                    
     place an increased financial burden  on the couple. For                                                                    
     example,  for  a remote  location  wedding,  such as  a                                                                    
     glacier,  the couple  must pay  extra seating  costs to                                                                    
     transport the witnesses.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
     At present, destination weddings  bring in an estimated                                                                    
     $1 million in revenue to  Alaska in the form of roughly                                                                    
     500 destination  weddings a  year. This  revenue figure                                                                    
     doesn't consider  the fact  that more  than 90%  of the                                                                    
     out-of-state couples who come  to Alaska to get married                                                                    
     stay for  days and  weeks to  explore our  great state.                                                                    
     The resulting  benefit to Alaska's tourism  industry is                                                                    
     substantial.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:25:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS JONAS covered the sectional analysis [included in the                                                                        
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation                                                                  
provided]:                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section   1  AS   25.05.301.  Form   of  solemnization.                                                                    
     Eliminates requirement  of two witnesses at  a marriage                                                                    
     solemnization ceremony.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section  2   AS  25.05.321.   Certificates.  Eliminates                                                                    
     requirement  of  the  signatures of  two  witnesses  on                                                                    
     marriage certificates.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section  3  AS  25.05.361.  Unlawful  solemnization  of                                                                    
     marriage.  Deletes  language  to conform  with  changes                                                                    
     made in section 1 of the bill.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
     Section 4 AS 25.05.041.  Matters insufficient to render                                                                    
     marriage  voidable.  Repeals   subsections  (a)(3)  and                                                                    
     (a)(5) to  conform with  changes made  in section  1 of                                                                    
     the bill.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:26:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MS.  JONAS played  a "testimonial  video"  [provided by  upcoming                                                               
testifier, Joe Connelly].                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:32:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:32 p.m.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:32:33 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:32:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CIAN  MULHERN, Celtic  Ministries, stated  that he  has performed                                                               
weddings for over  21 years in many states, quite  a few of which                                                               
do not  require witnesses.   He emphasized  that the  presence of                                                               
witnesses does not influence the  seriousness with which a couple                                                               
takes their vows.   He said witnesses do not  make a wedding more                                                               
legitimate,  and  he  questioned  who  is  to  determine  whether                                                               
witnesses are competent.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:35:05 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE CONNELLY, Owner,  testified in support of HB 62.   He said HB
 would change only the  requirement for witnesses; it would not                                                               
affect  the definition  of  sanctity  of marriage.    He said  it                                                               
merely would  make it  easier for  two people  to commit  to each                                                               
other  without "government  forcing random  strangers into  their                                                               
ceremony."  He said HB 62  would not make a wedding ceremony more                                                               
serious or lead  to higher divorce rates.  He  said it would make                                                               
it  easier for  people to  get married,  and he  spoke about  the                                                               
locales  in Alaska  where he  has photographed  weddings.   Often                                                               
people  want a  private ceremony,  he remarked.   He  opined, "We                                                               
should  encourage  these  small   destination  weddings  and  the                                                               
tourist  dollars that  follow."   Florida and  Hawai'i, with  the                                                               
highest  destination  weddings,  do  not  require  witnesses;  30                                                               
states in total do not, he remarked.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:38:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  DRUMMOND  offered   her  understanding  that  Mr.                                                               
Connelly had  provided the  video and asked  him to  confirm that                                                               
one of  the couples in  the video had  to hold their  ceremony in                                                               
the helicopter office  rather than the destination  to which they                                                               
had hired the helicopter to go.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:38:46 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CONNELLY  confirmed that the  legal part of the  ceremony had                                                               
taken place  in the  helicopter hanger office  [in order  for two                                                               
witnesses to be present], then  the couple had the spiritual part                                                               
of  the ceremony  on the  glacier.   In response  to a  follow-up                                                               
question, he explained that other  than the couple, the others on                                                               
the helicopter were himself, as  photographer, and the pilot, who                                                               
obtained a special one-day license to marry the couple.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:40:29 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KURKA indicated  that  he had  not realized  [the                                                               
requirement to have  two witnesses] was an impediment.   He asked                                                               
for clarification regarding witnesses, timing, and location.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:41:38 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CONNELLY  emphasized that  the issue is  not about  where the                                                               
witnesses are but that there  must be two witnesses separate from                                                               
the  officiant.    In  response   to  a  follow-up  question,  he                                                               
confirmed  that  under  Alaska   law,  the  officiant  cannot  be                                                               
considered one  of the  two required witnesses.   He  argued that                                                               
the officiant  is sufficient, and  he reiterated that  already 30                                                               
states do not require the two witnesses.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:44:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN recollected  having heard  testimony from                                                               
those who  said there  have been  ceremonies where  the officiant                                                               
served as one of the two witnesses.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. CONNELLY interjected, "Not in Alaska."                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:44:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  said he  registered the objection  to two                                                               
witnesses being present  at the ceremony but  asked whether there                                                               
was objection  to "the documentation  having two  witnesses after                                                               
the fact."                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:45:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether  Representative Eastman was suggesting                                                               
an amendment  such that a couple  could get married on  a glacier                                                               
without  the  witnesses,  and then  those  witnesses  would  sign                                                               
afterward in recognition that the  newlyweds really had wanted to                                                               
get married.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
2:46:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTAIVE  EASTMAN  described  the   signing  of  a  marriage                                                               
license as  "official and  formal" and  suggested that  even when                                                               
that  happens separate  from a  marriage  ceremony, "there  might                                                               
still be  utility in maintaining  in statute or  requirement that                                                               
that document, whenever it's signed," has two witnesses.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:46:57 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CONNELLY  responded  that   when  he  first  envisioned  the                                                               
proposed  legislation  and  brought the  idea  to  Representative                                                               
Claman, his initial thought was  to leave the marriage license as                                                               
is.   He  explained that  currently  a marriage  license has  two                                                               
blank spaces  on it for  witness signatures.  Those  spaces could                                                               
be left  for those who want  witnesses to sign but  be left blank                                                               
for those who do not.   Either license, signed or unsigned, would                                                               
be legal and processed by the state.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  EASTMAN  said  that  makes  sense  and  he  would                                                               
support  it, but  his question  pertains to  "a little  bit after                                                               
that."  He asked, "Is there  any reason that we wouldn't require,                                                               
you  know, when  you're going  to get  ... your  marriage license                                                               
document, that  ... your  signature at that  point should  not be                                                               
witnessed?"                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR. CONNELLY responded  that prior to COVID-19,  either the bride                                                               
or groom  would pick up the  marriage license from the  Bureau of                                                               
Vital Records,  where he or she  would sign it; the  other person                                                               
would sign  in front  of the  marriage officiant.   He  said that                                                               
served as a check.  He  said the requirement for two witnesses on                                                               
top of that is antiquated and stems  from a time in the past when                                                               
the  church  in  England  was  not  able  to  "properly  maintain                                                               
documents."   Now, Mr. Connelly proffered,  people typically take                                                               
photos  with a  mobile phone.   He  said anyone  could write  any                                                               
name, even  fictitious, on the  witness line of  the certificate,                                                               
because there  is "no  auditing" or  "verification of  the people                                                               
who are actually listed on the  marriage license."  He said it is                                                               
probably best to have the  officiant, who was certainly a witness                                                               
to the marriage, sign the document.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:50:40 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS,  having heard this  legislation in                                                               
two legislatures  and two committees, opined  that [requiring two                                                               
witness signatures] is one of the  most stupid things he has ever                                                               
heard state government do.   He said the law complicates people's                                                               
lives and  "the sooner we can  dispense with this and  get rid of                                                               
this requirement, the better."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:51:19 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about the  increase in cost to take                                                               
two extra people on a helicopter  [to serve as witnesses during a                                                               
wedding in a remote location].                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:52:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. CONNELLY  confirmed the  cost is  significantly more  and the                                                               
result  is  sometimes  couples  will  cancel,  which  means  less                                                               
revenue.   He  suggested  that  some go  ahead  with the  wedding                                                               
without  the  witnesses,  who  afterward  sign  "Donald  Duck  or                                                               
something on the license, because  nobody checks it anyways."  In                                                               
response  to a  request for  specific  costs, he  offered that  a                                                               
four-seater  helicopter could  cost $1,500  and a  6-seater could                                                               
cost  $3,000,  so   basically  double  the  cost   for  a  bigger                                                               
helicopter.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:54:37 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  CLAMAN   opened  public  testimony   on  HB  62.     After                                                               
ascertaining  that there  was no  one who  wished to  testify, he                                                               
closed public testimony.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:55:13 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said,  "I'm one of those who  feels that the                                                               
two witnesses  is highly significant."   She drew attention  to a                                                               
sentence beginning  on page  1, line  10, of  HB 62,  which read:                                                               
"At  the  time  of  the  ceremony,  the  person  solemnizing  the                                                               
marriage  shall  complete  the   certification  on  the  original                                                               
marriage  certificate."    She  said   she  thinks  that  is  the                                                               
difficulty,  that  the witnesses  have  to  be there  during  the                                                               
ceremony  to  make  the  certificate   fully  legal.    She  then                                                               
paraphrased  [the third  paragraph  from  "Solemnization Law  and                                                               
Legal Definition"], from USLegal.com, which read as follows:                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Similarly,  in   the  solemnization  of   marriage,  no                                                                    
     particular  form is  required except  that the  parties                                                                    
     must declare in the presence  of the judge, minister or                                                                    
     magistrate,  and  the  attending witnesses,  that  they                                                                    
     take  each other  as husband  and wife.  In every  case                                                                    
     there shall  be at least two  witnesses present besides                                                                    
        the person performing the ceremony.[ Barnett v.                                                                         
      Hudspeth, 211 Cal. App. 2d 310 (Cal. App. 1st Dist.                                                                       
     1962)]                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  VANCE suggested  the  challenge  is separating  a                                                               
religious ceremony [from] the legal  action of the two witnesses,                                                               
who,  "after a  ceremony  can say,  'Do you  take  each other  as                                                               
husband and  wife?' in front  two witnesses, and they  say, 'Yes,                                                               
yes we  do.'"  She said  she thinks that could  fulfill the legal                                                               
requirement.   She said she  thinks amending line 10  would serve                                                               
this purpose.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:57:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 62 was held over.