Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
03/31/2016 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 | |
| HB236 | |
| HB317 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 236 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 236-RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
1:08:35 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 236, "An Act relating to marriage solemnization."
1:08:57 PM
DAVID TALERICO, Representative, Alaska State Legislature,
paraphrased his sponsor statement as follows:
A key component of the United States Constitution is
the secure fundamental right to freely worship and
practice religion in America found in the First
Amendment. House Bill 236 clarifies the rights for
clergy in Alaska. It acknowledges that those
authorized to solemnize a marriage may not be forced
to violate their religious beliefs nor will their
religious freedom be coerced by the government or the
courts.
Alaska Statute 25.05.261 provides that three entities
are authorized to solemnize marriages - 1) religious
leaders of churches or congregations in the state, 2)
a marriage commissioner or judicial officer of the
state, or 3) any religious organization or
congregation according to the established ritual or
form commonly practiced in the organization or
congregation. The intent of this legislation is
narrowly focused on those individuals who are
authorized to solemnize a marriage in AS 25.05.261 (a)
(1) or (3).
HB 236 states that clergy in their official capacity
may refrain from participating in solemnizing a
marriage, providing services, accommodations,
facilities or goods related to the solemnization of a
marriage without legal ramifications. This bill will
not marginalize any marriage relationship, but simply
protects the right of all religious leaders to conduct
marriage ceremonies according to their beliefs.
While the Constitution clearly states that all
Americans, including clergy, have the right to freely
practice their religion, there is currently a
dangerous trend in America towards the erosion of
religious liberty. House Bill 236 affirms the crucial
freedom of clergy and religious institutions to
celebrate and solemnize marriages in accordance with
their deeply held beliefs.
1:11:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO acknowledged that initially people
assumed this was about same sex marriage and he pointed out that
there are several things within the tenets of faith and the
beliefs of many religious institutions that go well beyond that.
He offered that this bill is about the deeply held religious
beliefs of the clergy, and the state's inability to have courts
or government interfere with a person's deeply held religious
beliefs.
1:13:47 PM
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, said he is available for questions.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that the United States Constitution
provides clergy with the protection to decline performing a
ceremony, and asked whether this bill provides any greater
protection than is created by the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO responded that the intent is not to
provide a greater scope of protection but to clearly identify
that Alaska firmly holds to that constitutional belief and that
the state judicial system would probably be the first recourse
rather than the federal judicial system. Representative
Talerico related his strong feelings and said that many of the
religious institutions in the state provide services to their
communities with limited budgets, such as single mothers and
potentially battered spouses. He expressed concern for the
clergy being able to continue performing these services rather
than directing its time and money toward a legal defense.
1:18:05 PM
BISHOP EDWARD BURNS, Diocese of Juneau and Southeast Alaska,
paraphrased a letter signed by Roger L. Schwietz, Archdiocese of
Anchorage; Chad W. Zielinski, Diocese of Fairbanks; and Edward
Burns, Diocese of Juneau, as follows:
As pastors, we have watched as our religious liberties
have eroded over the last several years on a
nationwide level. As you know, our United States
Constitution ensures all people to freely practice
their religious beliefs according to the tennents
[sic] of their individual faith traditions. As leaders
of the Roman Catholic Church in Alaska, we are
grateful that Rep. Talerico and Senator Miccichi
introduced this legislation to clarify and codify our
rights here in Alaska.
From our perspective, the bill you have before you is
important on several fronts. First, it ensures that
neither we nor our priests or deacons Statewide would
be required to solemnize a same sex marriage. Our
Catholic faith tradition clearly professes that
marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.
While it is doubtful that a same sex couple would
present themselves to one of our pastors and ask him
to solemnize their marriage, this legislation would
uphold our religious liberties.
Our second reason for supporting this bill is based on
the assurances that we would not be required to allow
parish or church facilities to be used for services or
events that would be tied to a union that we do not
recognize.
Here in Juneau, many of you may be familiar with the
Shrine of St. Therese. St. Therese is the patron saint
of Alaska. In 1938, a little stone chapel was built
in her honor 22 miles north of here. Two previous
bishops of the Diocese of Juneau, Bishop Cremont and
Bishop Kenny are buried directly under the altar of
this sacred space. Over the last 75 years we have
welcomed guests from all over the world. Because of
the unique surroundings and the simple beauty of this
small chapel, many weddings have occurred here. In the
past we have allowed all faith traditions to use the
chapel. Now, we limit it strictly to Catholic weddings
between one man and one woman. Passage of this
legislation would ensure we could maintain our current
practice.
In the Archdiocese of Anchorage, we have a mission
parish in Girdwood, Our Lady of the Snows. This chapel
has been marketed through Alyeska Hotel as a
"destination wedding" location. A clause in the
contract that the Archdiocese has with the hotel
states that marriages or use of the facility may not
conflict with Catholic Church teaching. This
legislation would ensure that clause would remain true
to our church teaching and that the chapel would be
used for couples who support our definition of
marriage.
In the Diocese of Fairbanks, we have Immaculate
Conception Church on the banks of the Chena River. The
distinctive white buildings with it tapering bell
tower and statue of our Holy Mother Mary is on the
National Historical Register. It attracts interest
from Catholic and non-Catholics alike as a venue for
marriage ceremonies. This bill would provide peace of
mind should we need to decline enquiries from
inappropriate parties.
We urge you to support this important piece of
legislation that will ensure our religious liberties
will be maintained.
1:23:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the facilities would be
rented to an event such as a high school graduation party.
BISHOP BURNS answered that the church would ascertain that the
event is upheld within the church's moral standard and tenets of
its faith as opposed to groups of people contrary to the
church's teachings.
1:24:37 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether, currently, facilities could be
rented to a Catholic and a non-Catholic couple marrying in a
non-religious ceremony.
BISHOP BURNS said that the facilities could be used by
individuals who were Catholic and non-Catholic ...
CHAIR LEDOUX clarified that it would be a Catholic and non-
Catholic couple marrying each other.
BISHOP BURNS said right, and explained that there are certain
regulations for the couples getting married, whether a Catholic
is marrying a non-baptized person or a non-Catholic, that they
would simply follow the tenets of the Catholic faith. He
expressed that the church would be more than open and welcoming
to their marriage in the chapel.
CHAIR LEDOUX continued the scenario of allowing a marriage in
the chapel with a non-Catholic person not agreeing to raise the
children in the church or follow the tenets of the faith, and
asked whether the church would still rent the facility to them
if they were married by a judge and wanted to celebrate their
reception at the church facility.
1:26:03 PM
BISHOP BURNS advised that the church would not rent its chapel
space out for such a use because the marriages taking place in
the chapel follow the rites of the church and it would not
afford the chapel for a Justice of the Peace to conduct weddings
because it is a Catholic chapel. It becomes a pastoral
discussion, he said, when there may be question between a bride
and groom regarding faith and he extended the tensions between
them would not necessarily preclude them from marrying there.
He reiterated that it doesn't necessarily preclude that the
church would not allow the wedding to take place.
CHAIR LEDOUX offered a scenario that a Baptist Church was in the
vicinity and two Baptists wanted to use the Catholic Church to
be married ...
BISHOP BURNS replied there was a day the church would have
allowed that. Times have changed, he said, and the Catholic
Church recognized it could be the recipient of a lawsuit if it
did not open it up to everyone, thereby, causing the church to
establish policies to only conduct Catholic weddings. He then
described a letter he received wherein a couple wished to be
married at the Shrine of St. Thérèse but due to the church's
current policy, all weddings are restricted to Catholic
weddings. He stated the church is before this committee asking
that the government not force the church to violate its
religious beliefs and the ability to exercise religious liberty.
It is within the church's tradition to go outside its walls
especially when given a mission to feed the hungry, clothe the
naked, and give drink to the thirsty. He related that the
church helps all people no matter their identity or their
orientation, and it embraces all people as brothers and sisters
and it is not discriminatory for the church to say no to certain
things and uphold its beliefs, he related.
1:30:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether the consistencies in the
church's policies statewide keeps it from opening itself up to a
lawsuit.
1:31:22 PM
BISHOP BURNS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised that this bill would not only
protect the Catholic Church from a lawsuit but also churches,
synagogues, mosques, or anyone with policies set in place
consistent with its beliefs.
BISHOP BURN agreed, and he pointed out that the image of the
shepherd is to protect the flock, protect the faith, defend the
faith, but also a responsibility to protect and defend the
resources of the church. In time society changes so the laws
begin to change and the church has seen it must take steps to
uphold and defend its faith and resources, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that the church is protecting
its religious freedoms.
BISHOP BURNS agreed.
1:33:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered a scenario of a Lutheran couple
asking the church whether they could get married at the Shrine
of St. Therese and asked whether they could be married there if
a Catholic priest performed the ceremony.
BISHOP BURNS responded "Yes," they could be married at the
Shrine of St. Therese if they then entered into the rites of the
Catholic Church.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that in order to be married in
the Catholic Church, a Catholic priest or someone wearing the
cloth performs the ceremony.
BISHOP BURNS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the Lutheran couple, and asked
whether the church would allow them to rent the Shrine of St.
Therese for the wedding reception.
BISHOP BURNS replied absolutely.
1:35:13 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether that is the current policy.
BISHOP BURNS said it would be allowed now because the church is
not performing a sacrament so it is not a religious ceremony.
He explained the couple would be allowed to use the facility in
a manner that is not contrary to the teaching of the church's
faith because the church rejoices in the marriage of a man and a
woman in all faiths. Although, he said, the wedding did not
take place within the Catholic Church's faith it upholds a
marriage between one man and one woman and they would be allowed
to use the facilities. Currently, people live in interesting
times it is important to look at these interesting times and
come forward, he said.
CHAIR LEDOUX commented that the phrase "May you live in
interesting times" is a Chinese curse.
CHAIR LEDOUX open public testimony.
1:37:32 PM
The committee took an at-ease from to 1:37 p.m. to 1:38 p.m.
1:38:33 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised the bill would be held over to give the
public an opportunity to testify.
[HB 236 was held over.]