Legislature(2015 - 2016)GRUENBERG 120
04/01/2016 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HJR29 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 339 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 236 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 236-RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE
2:08:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 236, "An Act relating to marriage solemnization."
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
2:09:11 PM
JOSHUA DECKER, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties
Union of Alaska (ACLU), said that the bill offers something good
as well as inadvertently dramatically changes the balance
between religious freedom and sex non-discrimination laws that
have existed in the country for 62 years. On the frontend, he
advised, the ACLU strongly supports the First Amendment right of
clergy to choose to solemnize or not solemnize marriages
comporting with their faith, and that the ACLU's letter
(directed to the committee) cited examples of the ACLU going to
court to vindicate one's practice of religion which it averages
approximately one lawsuit per month. He related that concerns
of the ACLU are that the bill disturbs a long-standing balance
point between the right of individuals to pray and practice
their faith with the right of the public to be treated fairly
and free from discrimination in public spaces. He explained
that since the original Civil Rights Act, society struck a
balance between private spaces and public spaces and when
organizations open themselves up to the public, it has to treat
all comers fairly, and HB 236 undoes this carefully constructed
balance. He commented that there is no less of a defender of
freedom of religion than United States Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia, who 26 years ago wrote about this balance. Mr.
Decker paraphrased the following, "we want to ensure that laws
of general applicability that apply to everyone equally should
in fact apply to everyone equally -- and that we should not lose
this equilibrium point away from religious organizations." Mr.
Decker then referred to his letter pages 4-5, that its
suggestions would allow the bill to "pass muster," in clarifying
the right of clergy and religious organizations to practice
their faith when it is not open to the public, and when they are
open to the public they should treat all comers equally.
2:13:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN requested his definition of a church being
"open to the public." Obviously, he offered people are members
of a church and it is open to membership, and he could not think
of any churches that wouldn't welcome a visitor.
2:13:45 PM
MR. DECKER, in response to Representative Lynn, said that by
open to the public, the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska
(ACLU) means open to the public in the secular space. Churches
open to anyone who would like to participate in the religious
service are exempt from non-discrimination laws in that
capacity. He referred to yesterday's testimony regarding the
Shrine of St. Therese in Juneau wherein it rents out event space
open to the public for secular purposes. For example, a
Lutheran couple renting out part of the banquet hall space for a
secular wedding reception. He explained that that is the ACLU's
definition of "open to the public," such that being open to all
comers in the secular non-religious sphere.
2:14:53 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to open to the public and offered a
scenario of a synagogue with an area it rents out to the public
for various functions, and the Klu Klux Klan or the American
Nazi Party want to have a celebration of Nazi-ism in that event
space of the Jewish community. She asked whether current law
forces the Jewish community to rent to the Klu Klux Klan or the
Nazi party.
2:16:19 PM
MR. DECKER answered no. In the event a synagogue or any
institution is opening up space to the public they are allowed
to turn away members of the Klu Klux Klan or members of the
American Nazi Party because the nation, as a society, has not
said that membership in the Klu Klux Klan or American Nazi Party
falls under what the law calls a "protected class." He
explained, there are certain categories the law has carved out
because society said "when one is open to the public, one should
not treat people on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or
physical disability, differently." Therefore, he said, it would
be within their rights to refuse to rent that space to a member
of the American Nazi Party or the Klu Klux Klan.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether religion is a protected category.
MR. DECKER answered that religion is a protected category and
one is not allowed ...
2:18:04 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that in other words, the Catholic Church
would have to rent out space under current law to a group that
identified themselves as witches.
2:18:23 PM
MR. DECKER answered that it would depend upon how that church
treated the space, and it would be perfectly fine if the
Catholic Church made the decision on the frontend that it will
only rent that space out to Catholics. The Catholic Church is
allowed to treat its spaces as private; however, if the church
says on certain days it will rent the to the Girl Scouts of
America and the Senior Citizens group, then the church made the
decision to treat that particular space as part of the public.
Therefore, he said, the church would have to be open to the
public. He added that churches have the ability to decide
whether it wants to be open to the public because the law gives
a church complete freedom to restrict the uses of that space in
accordance with its faith. Although, he reiterated, for the
past 62 years when religious entities have decided to open space
to the public on the frontend and be open to all comers, they
must in fact be open to all comers.
2:19:36 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked "including witches?"
MR. DECKER responded that if, in the hypothetical, a church has
decided to open the space to the public then it would have to be
open to the public and it could not discriminate on the basis of
religions in the same it way it cannot discriminate on the basis
of race, national origin. He explained that it is in the same
way employers cannot tell an employee they are fired based upon
their religion, and those same protected classes apply to spaces
of public accommodation. Although, in the event the church
desires to control who is able to use their spaces, "they should
make the eminently reasonable choice to keep those spaces public
and not, in fact, open to all comers," he said.
2:20:26 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether he was saying that the bill in its
current form is unconstitutional, or rather that he disagrees
with the policy.
2:20:52 PM
MR. DECKER extended there are no constitutional cases on point,
but if this bill is passed in its current form it would
dramatically rewrite the balance the country and the state
struck for 62 years ...
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected "in your opinion."
2:21:15 PM
MR. DECKER explained that it is in the opinions of the United
States Supreme Court and the Alaska Supreme Court. He offered
that their letter cites both the U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Scalia's case of Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of
Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); and the Alaska Supreme
Court under Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Cornmn., 874 P.2d
274 (Alaska 1994). He offered that both clearly enunciate the
principle of the equilibrium point between the public's freedom
to be free from discrimination in public spaces, and religion's
freedom to exercise its religion and define it in private
spaces.
2:22:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that under AS 18.80, [State
Commission For Human Rights], if a church makes a property
available for leasing for whatever purpose, potentially there is
a problem because someone could allege that the church is
discriminating simply for denying access to the facility, and
this bill moves toward clarifying that issue.
MR. DECKER related that he did not understand his question.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that what Mr. Decker is saying,
under the recently enacted Alaska law, if a piece of property is
not leased, the owner becomes vulnerable due to denial for
access under the new "Human Rights Act." He asked whether he
was correct, that is what the law tries to clarify.
MR. DECKER advised that as the ACLU reads the bill in its
current form, it is trying to carve out, from existing non-
discrimination law, places of public accommodation that
religious organizations own and are renting out to the public
for wedding receptions and celebrations of marriages. He
apologized if he was not entirely following Representative
Keller's question.
MR. DECKER offered that the concern animating this bill in many
ways is a solution in search of a problem. Non-discrimination
protections are not new in Alaska or the United States. In
Anchorage, for example, in terms of protections of individuals
who are gay and transgender, Anchorage has had these protections
for the past six months, and neither for the past 62 years, or
in the past six months, the sky has not fallen, he said. The
ACLU is unaware of any churches that have been unable to
practice their religion as their faith teaches it on the basis
of civil rights, non-discrimination laws. He pointed out that
because this is a solution in search of a problem in a bill that
dramatically rewrites a balance the nation has had for over one-
half century. It is for these reasons the ACLU made
suggestions in its letter to reiterate the constitutional right
of churches to practice their faith as they see fit, as well as
to clarify that this bill should not undertake such a dramatic
change.
2:25:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Mr. Decker to abandon that question
for now and referred to the balance Mr. Decker said has existed
for 50 years, and asked whether he is using case law to form his
opinion, and asked for a list.
MR. DECKER reiterated that the ACLU's letter cites two cases,
one was authored by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia in an
eight to one decision, Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources
of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), and Swanner v.
Anchorage Equal Rights Cornmn., 874 P.2d 274 (Alaska 1994)].
2:26:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to Mr. Decker's statement that
the balance was to protect the rights of people that were in
that public space. He requested an illustration because it is a
balance he had never considered, and asked what the balance was
between what and what.
MR. DECKER explained that, as a first principle, the nation as a
society decided, beginning 1964, that when a place is open to
all comers they cannot turn people away because of their race,
sex, physical disability, national origin or religion. Both the
United States Supreme Court and Alaska Supreme Court, he pointed
out, decided that when there are laws of general applicability
that apply to everyone equally, the balance that society struck
is that when religious organizations want to fully practice
their faith and shield out a space that is not open to all
comers, it should keep that space private. Although, he said,
when the decision is made on the frontend to open up a banquet
hall, it should be available to all comers. He reiterated that
the balance has worked well for the public as well as the
churches for 62 years.
2:29:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to a question he had asked Bishop
Edward Burns, and asked whether the Catholic Church would rent
the Shrine of St. Therese to a Lutheran couple who wanted their
wedding reception there, and a Catholic priest had not performed
the ceremony. He said he was advised that unless the Lutheran
couple converted just before their wedding they couldn't get the
priest to marry them.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked, in the context of the public
accommodations questions raised in the ACLU's letter and
proposed amendments, Mr. Decker's perspective about the Catholic
Church if it is renting to the Lutheran couple for a reception
after being married in the Lutheran Church. He further asked
whether that means they are now becoming public for purposes of
renting to a gay couple that wants to have their wedding
reception at the Shrine of St. Terese.
MR. DECKER responded that if the Catholic Church has taken the
position it will not marry this couple because they are Lutheran
that is certainly within its rights under the First Amendment.
He reiterated that separate from the religious ceremony, the
church made the decision that it is willing to rent to these
individuals, irrespective of the fact they are Lutheran and not
Catholic, then its decision to rent the secular reception space
to that couple makes it a place of public accommodation.
2:31:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that on the one hand it is a
solution in search of a problem, and on the other hand even if
the legislature passes the current bill, a potential lawsuit is
lurking for the Catholic Church if it is renting the Shrine of
St. Therese to a non-member of the church for a reception.
2:32:26 PM
MR. DECKER reiterated that if the Catholic Church decided to
rent part of the Shrine of St. Therese for secular purposes,
such as secular wedding receptions, then it is open to all
comers. A problem would arise if the Catholic Church then
decided to not rent that space to someone of the protected
class. In the event the Catholic Church is concerned about
that, and it does want to maintain its ability to choose to rent
or not rent that space on the basis of protected class, the
wiser course of action would be for the Catholic Church to
decide to not make that space open to the public and keep it
private and available to Catholic individuals.
2:33:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that from Mr. Decker's
perspective, even if the bill is passed as written without
either of his proposed amendments, the statute wouldn't protect
the church and he would still have the same public accommodation
arguments regardless of what the statute says.
MR. DECKER agreed, and he said, "Certainly under federal non-
discrimination law."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Mr. Decker's two suggested
amendments and asked how they solve the problems he raised.
MR. DECKER pointed to the robust constitutional freedoms of
clergy and religious organizations in that they do not have to
solemnize marriages if their faith teaches that a certain type
of marriage is outside the boundary of that faith. He added,
that freedom has existed under the First Amendment for over 200
years. Mr. Decker continued that the second proposed amendment
clarifies this public/private distinction and, he reiterated, if
churches want to continue unfettered discretion, the wiser
course of action is to designate spaces as private, thereby,
making it unavailable to all comers and the non-discrimination
laws do not apply, such as private places, private clubs,
private organizations and religious organizations. He
reiterated that once the decision is made to be open to the
public, it must be open to the public. He explained that the
two amendments focus on the constitutional right to choose which
marriages to solemnize, and clarifies that it is in private
spaces that they have unfettered discretion about whom to admit
and serve.
2:36:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered a scenario of the Catholic Church
deciding to make the Shrine of St. Therese a private club, and a
person submitted an application, met all of the criteria of that
club, and was granted access for a fee, she asked whether that
would be acceptable.
MR. DECKER responded that the Catholic Church wouldn't need to
go that far because it is a religious organization and it could
simply choose to rent the space only to Catholic individuals and
there would be no administrative hoops to go through.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the Catholic Church could decide to
rent the space only to Christians, such as groups similar to
Catholicism.
MR. DECKER answered that in both federal and state
constitutional law there is a well-established principle that
courts cannot interrogate the nuances of religious belief;
therefore, if the Catholic Church takes the position that
consistent with their religious faith, they only want to make
the space available to other individuals who believe that Jesus
is the Messiah they would have a strong argument that the space
is in fact private because the test in terms of public
accommodation is whether it is open to all comers. In the event
it is not open to all comers and if the reason the church
decided not to make it open to all comers is grounded in its
religious belief, it would have a strong argument that the space
is private and not public.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked why the church couldn't set out that one of
the tenets in the church is that it will rent the space to all
people who believe that marriage is between one man and one
woman.
2:39:41 PM
MR. DECKER replied that he does not want to get to the nuances
of ....
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed, that is exactly what the committee is
getting into, the nuances.
2:39:57 PM
MR. DECKER related that he does not want to get into the nuances
of Catholic doctrine because he is not an expert. The test in
terms of public accommodation is whether it is open to all
comers; therefore, if the Shrine of St. Therese is open to all
comers to rent for a secular reception space, it needs to be
open to all comers. The church can decide to open it up to the
private members of its community in which case ...
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that she did not believe Mr. Decker was
answering her question.
CHAIR LEDOUX restated her question and asked why the church
couldn't simply say that it would rent the space out to all
people who believe that marriage is between one man and one
woman. She pointed out that Mr. Decker said that the church
could only rent to people who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, so
why couldn't the church say it would only rent to people who
believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. She
expressed that that is a fundamental doctrine of the faith, and
then asked whether the Supreme Court actually said that sexual
orientation is a protected class.
MR. DECKER responded no, the United States Supreme Court has ...
CHAIR LEDOUX said, thank you.
2:42:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Mr. Decker is aware
of an instance in Alaska where this legislation would enable an
organization that wants to change its policies but thus far has
declined due to fear of exposing itself to liability.
MR. DECKER replied that he was not aware of any organization
that, but for the fear of liability, has been inhibited from
changing its policies. As the ACLU sees it, there are no
problems out there that this bill would solve, he said
2:43:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Mr. Decker's statement
that the United States Supreme Court has not defined sexual
orientation as a protected class, and commented that the basic
discussion here is gay marriages. With regard to the protected
class, where does a gay couple, that is getting married, fall
into this area of non-discrimination given that gay couples and
sexual orientation has not been defined as a protected class.
MR. DECKER reiterated that no couple, whether same sex or
opposite sex, has a constitutional right to have a particular
religious individual marry them, and there is nothing in Alaska
law or nationwide that obligates any religious person or clergy
to officiate any wedding. He explained that the intersection
between a same sex couple wishing to celebrate their marriage in
a secular wedding reception would interact with this law in
communities such as Anchorage, which decided to include sexual
orientation as part of its existing non-discrimination law.
That couple, if a space is open to the public, has the same
rights as everyone else to use the space, he said.
2:45:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised there isn't a protected
class on the federal or state level, but this law would trump
the definition of protected classes on a municipal level in
communities, such as Anchorage, that have defined sexual
orientation as a protected class. Therefore, protections that
exist for this protected class, on a municipal level, would be
trumped by this law, he asked.
MR. DECKER said that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was entirely
accurate as it would trump municipal protections, and it is also
accurate to say that both federally and statewide, sexual
orientation is not a protected class.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether sexual orientation
is a protected class in the City and Borough of Juneau.
MR. DECKER advised sexual orientation is not a protected class
in the City and Borough of Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether it is accurate to
say that the Catholic Church in Juneau could decline to rent out
the Shrine of St. Therese to a gay couple that is having a
secular non-religious celebration because gay couples and sexual
orientation is not a protected class.
MR. DECKER responded that Representative Kreiss-Tomkins was
correct in that sexual orientation is not a protected class in
the City and Borough of Juneau, the Catholic Church has the
legal ability to choose to rent or not rent space to individuals
based upon their sexual orientation.
2:47:37 PM
PAMELA SAMASH, asked whether she could ask questions of the
committee
CHAIR LEDOUX explained that testimony does not include
questions.
MS. SAMASH offered testimony, as follows:
Alrighty, thank you for your time and hearing our
testimonies today. Please vote yes on HB 236. I
believe this bill should pass because we as Christians
are being targeted and singled out and we need
protection. As a Christian myself, I cannot
participate in certain clubs or activities
contradicting to the Bible. And that's my right as an
American citizen to believe and serve any god I feel
is best for me. The Christian church, like me, cannot
support or participate in those organizations or
activities against the Bible either. It's important
that we have a law that keeps us from persecution and
from those who feel offended if we deny access to our
buildings or services for anti-Christian events. The
church's financial status is generally fragile and
that's because we are trying to help people in our
communities that have needs. Like those with
addictions, or single moms, homeless people, orphans
in other countries, et cetra. One lawsuit can shut
down not only the church but all of the services they
provide to those in dire need. This is America and it
makes me really sad that we need to testify to protect
our own Christian rights.
I'm asking, please, that you vote yes on HB 236 and
protect our religious freedoms. And since I can't ask
you a question, all I can respond to my interpretation
of the bill is when you were asking about ... does
people that believe in Jesus or believe in sex of one
man and one woman only allowed to use the church, you
know, like facility. And I thought that was a really
good question and I can't -- I'm not his lawyer and
I'm not Talerico, so if I'm messing this up, forgive
me. I feel like the answer to that question isn't
like everybody that walks through the door has to take
a quiz on if they believe the doctrine of church as
much as does the activity that they're participating
in support or contradict the doctrine of the church.
In other words, if you have 10 people in there that
want to participate in some homosexual event and the
doctrine says that homosexuality is wrong, you could
ask those 10 people and maybe 8 out of 10 of them
would say, we believe Jesus is the Son of God. But,
you know, the Bible says, and I'm not calling
homosexuals' demons okay, not sayin that. But the
Bible says even demons believe Jesus Christ is the Son
of God. Believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God
isn't -- is -- is not -- is wonderful, but the thing
is, does the activity support or go against the
Christian church's doctrine. That's, to me, the real
point, you know. So, I just wanna clarify that that's
my interpretation of what it means and it would be sad
to see a church, you know, that has strong religious
beliefs in certain areas, not just homosexuality but
any area, you know. Like you said Klu Klux Kan
somebody mentioned, you know. Nobody believes in
hurting somebody just cause of the color of their
skin, that's ridiculous, you know. And fer sure we
wouldn't -- I know my church wouldn't want the Klu
Klux Klan to do a ceremony because they're hurting
people no matter of their protected class or whatever,
by law or not, because they go against our doctrine of
love for each other and killing people is not love.
So, that's what I wanted to share with you. Thank
you.
2:53:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKIN offered a scenario of the NWACP
having a hall and it decided to open that hall in a non-private
manner beyond the functions of the NWACP chapter and rent it to
all comers. He asked whether the Klu Klux Klan could rent that
space in the category of "all comers" and would they have
grounds to do so and appeal for a non-discrimination in asking
to rent that facility.
MR. DECKER reiterated his previous testimony that the Klu Klux
Klan is not a protected class and if the NWACP does have a space
open to all comers it is still able to turn people away as long
as that decision is not based upon a protected class. The NWACP
is well within its rights to refuse to rent the space, he said.
2:55:08 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX offered a scenario of a religion and one of its
tenets was anti-miscegenation law, and she asked whether the
NWACP must rent its space to an organization with a tenet that
white people can't marry black people.
MR. DECKER related that religion is a protected class and for
over one-half century the nation decided that public spaces
cannot decline to serve people simply based on the customer's
religion. He noted that the hypothetical is interesting, and
there may be a problem if the NWACP's decision not to rent a
public space, otherwise was made available to all comers, simply
based on the religion of a specific applicant. Although, this
hypothetical is unlikely to occur, but if it does the safer
course of action for the NWACP would be to decide it will not
rent the space to all comers and keep it private, he said.
CHAIR LEDOUX, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
2:58:15 PM
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, advised he is available.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the names of local
governments in Alaska that have defined sexual orientation as a
protected class.
MR. DECKER responded he was unaware of all of the communities
that have labeled sexual orientation as a protected class, but
this legislation is not targeted toward same sex marriages.
Although, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage
was the start of laws similar to HB 236, it is not identical.
The intention of the bill is not to target same sex marriage,
but to allow any religious organization to officiate weddings
based upon their religious views, he said.
3:00:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered that he was unsure whether
the solemnization of marriage is the crux here, but everyone
including the ACLU agreed that that is a "cumbiyah" point. He
opined that the crux of the differing perspectives is the
accommodation of a facility that could be related to the
solemnization formation or celebration of a wedding reception.
He asked, if this is not related to same sex marriage, what
class, besides sexual orientation and same sex marriages, is out
there that is creating a quandary for religious institutions.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS further asked whether there is an
institution in Anchorage that has definitively changed its
practices, such that instead of opening its facilities to the
public and all comers, has made itself private to avoid this
quandary in response to the Anchorage Assembly defining sexual
orientation as a protected class.
3:01:51 PM
MR. BANKS, in response to the first question, advised that to
his knowledge in the State of Alaska there are not any instances
of a pastor or any religious organization being forced to
officiate a wedding or have a reception at their church
facility. Although, he pointed out, Representative Talerico
received concerns from pastors and clergy that the U.S. Supreme
Court ruling would potentially put them in a position where they
would have to refuse to officiate the wedding or refuse to allow
a reception at their facility which would possibly lead to civil
litigation.
3:03:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that these
are Anchorage clergy that currently make space available to rent
to the public and all comers.
MR. BANKS clarified that the pastors are constituents and live
within District 6. He added that they spoke directly to
Representative Talerico and he was unaware of their locations
and whether they do open their facilities to the public, but he
would follow up on the question.
3:03:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether any community,
within District 6, has defined sexual orientation as a protected
class; therefore, creating this problem for religious
institutions.
MR. BANKS opined that he did not believe so.
3:04:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the two proposed amendments
within the letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of
Alaska and asked whether he had reviewed those amendments with
Representative Talerico prior to this hearing.
MR. BANKS responded that this bill was pre-filed in January and
the sponsor did not reach out to the ACLU of Alaska regarding
this. He added that outside of the quote from Mr. Decker in the
Alaska Dispatch News, the sponsor's office has not heard any
comments or had any contacts from the ACLU regarding this bill
and this is completely new to the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN restated his question and asked whether
Mr. Banks had an opportunity to show the sponsor this letter
prior to this hearing.
MR. BANKS responded, no.
3:05:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that Fundamentalist Mormons
believe in polygamy and performing a marriage is something a
religious organization wouldn't have to perform, as an example
of something outside of same sex marriage, that doesn't fit into
the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that before passing this bill out he
would be curious to see what Representative Talerico thinks of
either of the two proposed amendments.
3:06:12 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX advised she had reviewed the amendments and that
that issue will not hold up the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN related that this is a good bill and he
supports it because it is common sense.
3:06:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 236, labeled 29-
LS1290\A out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 236
passed from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.