Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/20/2020 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 | |
| HB148 | |
| SB144 | |
| HB225 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 148 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 225 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 148-MARRIAGE WITNESSES
3:03:59 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 148, "An Act relating to
solemnization of marriage."
3:04:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased from his written statement, which read:
Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for
hearing House Bill 148 "An Act relating to
solemnization of marriage."
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 148 would eliminate the requirements for any
additional witnesses at the marriage solemnization and
the signatures of these witnesses on marriage
certificates. These changes will bring our ceremonial
requirements into the modern age and help support
Alaska's destination wedding industry while preserving
the integrity of marriage solemnization.
Alaska is one of only 17 states that require two
wedding witnesses in addition to the person
officiating the marriage. Twenty five states do not
require any wedding witnesses.
Wedding witnesses played a more critical role in past
centuries when record keeping was less automated. In
England, prior to the 18th century, the legal
requirements of marriage were governed by the canon
law of the Church of England. A marriage was
considered valid as long as the union was consented to
by both parties and celebrated by an Anglican
clergyman. This largely informal process that dictated
the validity of marriage allowed for the proliferation
of clandestine marriages.
In 1746, a woman laid claim to the recently deceased
Captain John Campbell's pension on the basis that she
married him in a clandestine ceremony. The problem
arose because another woman claimed she was the wife
of the Captain. The confusion that ensued from
inability to verify marriage claims led Parliament to
pass the Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine
Marriage, known as the Marriage Act of 1753. The Act
formalized the marriage process, requiring that
marriages be viewed by witnesses who could later be
called on to confirm that the marriage did or did not
take place- an extra precaution of record-keeping
should records of marriage be damaged or go missing.
The Marriage Act is the historical basis for the 2
witness requirement.
Today, however, the role of a wedding witness is
ceremonial. In Alaska, while the person solemnizing
the marriage must meet certain criteria, the law does
not require any form of witness verification (proof of
identification, language comprehension, address
validation, etc.). HB 148 would allow Alaska to
compete more directly with states like Hawaii and
Florida, which require no wedding witnesses and lead
the nation in destination weddings.
Destination weddings, often on mountain tops and
glaciers, are a growing business in Alaska. The
requirement of two wedding witnesses makes the state
less attractive for many couples 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.
In addition to the awkwardness of having strangers
witness the wedding, the additional witness
requirement can place an increased financial burden on
the couple. For example, in a wedding in a more remote
location like a glacier via helicopter, they must pay
extra seating costs to transport the witnesses. At
present, destination weddings bring in an estimated $1
million in revenue to the state 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. HB 148 would simplify the wedding process
by reducing the number of hurdles a couple must
address to get married.
3:08:45 PM
SOPHIE JONAS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor
of HB 148, reviewed the sectional analysis, which read:
Section 1
Amends AS 25.05.301:
Eliminates requirement of two witnesses at a marriage
solemnization.
Section 2
Amends AS 25.05.32:
Eliminates requirement of the signatures of two
witnesses on marriage certificates.
Section 3
Amends AS 25.05.361: Deletes language to conform with
changes made in section 1 of the bill.
Section 4
Repeals AS 25.05.041(a)(3) and AS 25.05.041(a)(5):
Repeals subsections to conform with changes made in
section 1 of the bill.
3:10:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to page 1, line 7-8, of HB 148,
which read in part, "... they take each other to be husband and
wife." He asked whether this was the standard language in
statute regardless of the allowance for same sex marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his belief that since the
federal courts ruled that [Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA),
2006] was unconstitutional, changing every reference in the
Alaska Statutes to comply with that ruling would just take time
away from more important legislative work, and it is possible
members would not achieve resolution on the language.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to his own marriage experience
and stated that the process was incredibly complicated. He
offered his support for the proposed legislation and suggested
there may be other statutory changes that would facilitate the
process.
3:13:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked whether any concerns have emerged for
states that do not require two witnesses.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN reiterated that over 25 states require no
witness [for marriage solemnization]; staff research on the
issue did not identify any resulting problems.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the states with no required
witnesses have seen an increase in the rate of marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that he does not know. He added
that the issue was brought to his attention by wedding
photographers who contacted his office. Hawaii leads the nation
in destination weddings; it does not have a witness requirement.
The photographers maintained that in their line of work, they
would do a much better job of serving their clients if they
didn't have to recruit two witnesses.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE maintained that marriage is one of the more
respected unions; it is a legal process. She offered that she
struggles with the idea of removing the two witnesses for the
sake of commerce. She mentioned that she is not aware of the
requirement of two witnesses being a burden. She acknowledged
the desire to promote Alaska as a destination marriage location
but said that she wanted stronger data demonstrating that the
requirement for two witnesses is burdensome.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that the interest of commerce
brought the proposed legislation to his attention; however, the
real issue is the purpose that wedding witnesses serve as a
matter of law and procedure. He referred to the Marriage Act of
1753 in England as being the foundation for the requirement of
witnesses. The problem of clandestine marriages in England in
the 1700s was due to the lack of proof of marriage and central
record keeping authority. With Alaska's very detailed current
recordkeeping requirement within the Health Analytics & Vital
Record Section (HAVRS), the need for witnesses does not exist,
and in fact, no one looks for the witnesses to authenticate a
marriage. He maintained that he was involved in a case in which
a marriage needed to be verified; he relied on the vital
statistics records and not the witnesses. He concluded that
wedding witnesses originally served the purpose of proving the
validity of a marriage; they do not serve that purpose today.
3:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked whether an underage legal marriage
requires certification from the parents.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his belief that proof of age is
required for a marriage license; the witness requirement is not
involved.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked about the procedure for a 15-year-
old getting married.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN answered that he assumes the parents would
need to give consent at the courthouse. He acknowledged the
possibility that an underage person might use a fraudulent
identification (ID) to circumvent the requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS maintained that completing the marriage
paperwork correctly, mailing it to HAVRS, and needing additional
signers made his wedding less romantic with less of a feeling of
being sanctified. He said that getting witnesses to sign the
forms and all that entailed was not optimal.
3:22:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW relayed a personal experience with his own
wedding, in which the requirement of witnesses was not a burden.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE compared the requirement of witnesses for
marriage to the requirement of witnesses for a permanent fund
dividend (PFD) application to verify residency and intent to
remain in Alaska. She asked, "What's the difference in ... the
burden on providing two witnesses?"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied that there is a substantial
history of fraud in connection with PFD applications. Every
year there are prosecutions of people fraudulently filing for
PFD applications. He stated that he is not aware of any cases
in Alaska of a false marriage claim. He said they are two very
different situations; the PFD is an appropriation from the
state, and fraudulently getting a PFD constitutes theft from the
state, which is why there is a verification requirement.
3:25:37 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened invited testimony on HB 144.
3:26:15 PM
CIAN MULHERN, Reverend, Celtic Ministries, testified that he has
performed weddings for over 21 years. He said that it is a
great burden for ministers to find witnesses and described the
inconvenience to himself and to the witnesses. He stated that
he does about 150 weddings per year, and over 90 percent are
destination weddings in Alaska. Couples come from all over the
world; most come for a small intimate elopement; they then
"spend lots of time here honeymooning in the state." These
couples do not know anyone in Alaska; therefore, the burden is
on him or another person in the wedding industry to find
witnesses. He maintained that most couples are not thrilled to
have two people, whom they have never met, as part of their very
special day and find it intrusive.
REVEREND MULHERN relayed that he also performs many wedding for
military personnel; many are new to Alaska and don't have many
acquaintances yet. The witnesses are not being used to verify
who the couples are or to check IDs. That is what HAVRS does
when a couple applies for a marriage license. Witnesses are not
used to verify the wedding or its legitimacy. He mentioned that
witnesses for the PFD application are people that the applicant
knows.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Reverend Mulhern
solemnizes the destination wedding marriages.
REVEREND MULHERN responded affirmatively.
3:29:31 PM
ERICA ROSE, Erica Rose Photography, testified that she has been
a wedding photographer for 10 years and shoots about 40 wedding
each year; many are small elopements for people who come from
out of state. Hundreds of people come to Alaska each year to
get married. She expressed that one of the best facets of her
work is the privilege of being part of a very sacred moment in
people's lives; although it is her business, she takes seriously
the gravity of the event. She said that she has learned through
her business that Alaska is an incredibly desirable destination
for weddings, and she believes there is potential for growth in
the industry. She relayed that the current trend is weddings in
adventure and mountain locations like Alaska, and the benefits
are felt by many other businesses. She maintained that when
people decide to elope, it is not always to save money, but to
spend the money on experiences.
MS. ROSE asserted that the two-witness rule presents a large
hurdle for the industry. When people choose to elope, they
often do it for the privacy; they don't want extra people
around; and they go out of their way to find an intimate
setting. They often look for a stunningly beautiful location;
it can be difficult and expensive to transport two extra people
to the location. She relayed an experience of a wedding in a
remote area, in which they waited in the parking to ask the next
hiker to witness the wedding; it detracted from the event. She
said that anyone in the business has similar stories. She
concluded by saying that the main goal for her as a wedding
professional is to make the important day in her clients' lives
as special as possible and provide good service, and these
stories [regarding marriage witnesses] feel like small failures
in that effort.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the meaning of the term
"elopement" in the wedding industry.
MS. ROSE explained that elopement is currently a trend, and it
refers to a bride and a groom "going off to do their own private
wedding."
3:33:52 PM
ERIN VELANDER, Alaska Destination Weddings, testified that the
proposed legislation impacts many small businesses and small
business owners. She stated that she has been an adventure
wedding planner for about 20 years. She assists couples who
want to elope in Alaska and be married in extreme places. She
relayed that she also operates her business in Hawaii; she has
planned hundreds of weddings; and [the requirement of witnesses]
deters people from eloping in Alaska. She maintained that data
shows the discrepancy between the two states as far as numbers
of destination weddings.
MS. VELANDER stated that she used to plan very large weddings
and from her experience, the number of witnesses at a wedding
does not determine "the sacredness of that moment." She
maintained that couples should be able to choose how they get
married. She offered that the very small wedding with just the
couple and the officiant often feels more sacred than the
wedding that is a "huge production." She implored the committee
to consider that the two witnesses, who are often strangers to
the couple eloping in Alaska, do not make the marriage any more
sacred, and at times, even less sacred, because they are
strangers. She asserted that Alaska does not have the right to
deny the wishes of people who choose to get married "just the
two of them."
3:37:05 PM
JOE CONNOLLY, Chugach Peaks Photography, offered a definition
for elopement: Elopement is often used to refer to a marriage
conducted in sudden and secretive fashion, usually involving a
hurried flight away from one's place of residence together with
one's beloved with the intention of getting married. He added
that in most cases it is less sudden but equally private and
small.
MR. CONNOLLY relayed that the economic impact that weddings have
on the state is probably more significant than one would expect.
He said that requiring the presence of two witnesses is an
unfair burden and an awkward intrusion into what the couple
intended - a private and personal event. He said that the act
of eloping is for the purpose of getting away to have a small
wedding with no family and friends present. He maintained that
for those who had a big wedding with family and friends,
elopement might seem unusual. He offered that there are many
people who do not want a big fancy wedding with many guests.
Hundreds of couples from the Lower 48 and from all over the
world come to Alaska every year to get married in one of the
last truly "free and wild" places in the U.S. They come up to
Alaska without family and friends; they don't know anyone in
Alaska; marketing has attracted them to the state; they all want
to get married on a glacier, a rocky beach, next to a waterfall,
or in a flowering meadow, with mountains and glaciers behind
them; none want random strangers at their wedding. If a couple
needs to hire a helicopter to get to the destination, most
helicopters can only seat three people plus the pilot;
therefore, they must hire another helicopter to fly the
witnesses. Often people back off due to the extra expense - all
because of an "ancient state law that is probably not relevant
anymore." Mr. Connolly relayed that when hiking into a
wilderness area, he is tasked with finding witnesses to
accompany the hike and "give up a day." He maintained that the
economic impact of the weddings far exceeds the direct benefits
to the vendors in the wedding industry. The couples typically
spend a week to ten days, rent a car, spend money on food, and
book tours. He asserted that HB 148 would put Alaska in a more
competitive place within the destination wedding market.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS stated that HB 148 would be held over.