Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/04/2021 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
3:40:15 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of
marriage."
3:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, prime sponsor, introduced HB 62 by
paraphrasing 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.
3:44:12 PM
SOPHIE JONAS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor,
presented a sectional analysis of HB 62 [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.
3:45:04 PM
MS. JONAS introduced a testimonial video, which was viewed by
the committee from 3:45 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.
3:49:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled hearing this legislation two years
ago. He offered his belief that "it was great legislation, and
nothing has changed."
3:49:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether weddings are taking place
via Zoom. After receiving confirmation, he asked if the bill
would affect Zoom weddings.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that the bill would not affect
weddings attended via Zoom. Further, he shared his
understanding that the witness requirement could not be
satisfied by a Zoom witness and would still require a person to
be physically present. He questioned why Alaska is still
following a law from 1700s era England, during which time the
church was keeping records instead of the state. He reiterated
that people are attending weddings via Zoom, but this bill has
no impact on that.
3:51:06 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened invited testimony.
3:51:38 PM
CIAN MULHERN, Reverend, Celtic Ministries, informed the
committee that he is an ordained minister with 21 years of
experience performing weddings in other states, including those
with no witness requirement. He said this is a big problem in
Alaska, noting that over 90 percent of his clientele are coming
from other parts of the world and don't know anyone in the
state. He explained that couples become uneasy when they are
required to have a stranger attend their wedding as a witness,
especially during the exchange of vows. Furthermore, he
reported that witnesses are not being used to verify the
couples' identity - as the Bureau of Vital Statistics [Health
analytics & Vital Records Section, DHSS] is responsible for
checking IDs - nor to verify that the wedding took place and was
performed in the proper manner. He opined that the bill is
smart for the wedding industry in Alaska. He offered to address
the previous inquiry regarding Zoom weddings.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed his perspective on the subject of
Zoom weddings.
3:53:57 PM
MR. MULHERN said prior to COVID-19, no states allowed Zoom
weddings; however, two states, including New York, currently
allow people to marry via Zoom due to COVID-19. He opined that
the practice would not last a long, adding that it is not
significant to the witness requirement. Returning to
Representative Kaufman's question, he said, "no, you could not
perform a wedding on Zoom because the witnesses do have to be
present at the time of the wedding."
3:54:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 62 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 18 Letter of Support from ASA.pdf |
HSTA 3/4/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 18 |