Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
02/16/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB41 | |
| SB206 | |
| SJR20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 41 | ||
| *+ | SJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SJR 20-CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
9:02:47 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SJR 20 to be up for consideration.
SJR 20 proposes to amend the Alaska State Constitution in
relation to marriage. He cited AS 25.05.013:
Sec. 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages.
(a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex,
either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by
another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and
contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including
its termination, are unenforceable in this state.
(b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the
state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage.
CHAIR SEEKINS said that statute has been challenged and the
Alaska Supreme Court ruled that people in a domestic
relationship did not have the ability to marry by constitutional
prohibition and therefore denial of spousal benefits by same-sex
couples is a violation of the equal protection clause.
9:04:19 AM
The people of the State of Alaska voted to amend the
constitution to define marriage to be a union between one man
and one woman. SJR 20 was designed to put the question to the
voters of whether the intent of AS 25.05.013 was to also
restrict spousal benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee was
asked to introduce SJR 20 and submit it to the people of the
State of Alaska so that they could vote on the issue, rather
than leave the interpretation to the courts.
9:06:15 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked for committee member comment prior to public
testimony.
9:06:48 AM
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS clarified for the record that it was not
a committee decision to introduce SJR 20 but a majority member
decision. She said:
I was not asked about this resolution, nor did I give
my sanction. We all know that here and how committee
bills work. The public doesn't. And I would like to be
clear for myself that I wasn't asked, nor do I approve
of putting this in as a committee bill. I did want to
ask if the attorney that has been hired by the
Legislature to work on this issue was going to testify
or if discussing the intent of the majority in this
committee in putting this on the bill was your
statement. I don't have a sponsor statement in my
packet or anything else to discuss the intent of the
legislation.
CHAIR SEEKINS said:
That was the intent as I laid it out and Mr. Clarkson
who had been retained is ill. He would have been here
but can barely speak.
9:08:11 AM
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS spoke in support of the resolution.
CHAIR SEEKINS stated that Senator Guess was correct in saying
SJR 20 was a request from the majority members and that he
agreed to introduce it as a committee bill. He called for public
testimony.
9:10:15 AM
MILDRED BOESSER testified in opposition to the resolution. She
suggested the committee should see the irony of SJR 20 since the
Constitution of the State of Alaska already bans gay marriage.
She described her daughter's 26-year relationship with another
woman. They are both responsible citizens who own their home
free and clear, pay all taxes due, vote at every election, and
are the kinds of persons that any family would be proud of. They
have lived all those years without consequential benefits given
to married couples. The Catch 22 is that the Constitution of the
State of Alaska does not allow them to be married. The proposed
resolution suggests that benefits can only be given to married
couples, yet marriage is denied, she stated.
9:12:34 AM
MARK BOESSER, retired priest and Archdeacon of the Southeast
Alaska Episcopal Church, asked the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee to reject SJR 20. He assured the committee that he and
his wife were aware of the values of a healthy marriage and the
benefits that accompany it. He said SJR 20, if passed, would
write discrimination into the Alaska State Constitution. The
Alaska Supreme Court ruled that denying gay couples the same
public employees benefits as married couples violates the equal
protection clause. He said the idea of using the Constitution of
the State of Alaska to intentionally remove the rights and
benefits of one segment of the population are unbelievable. It
sounds like codifying discrimination against a particular group
of people.
MR. BOESSER contended that allowing benefits for domestic
partners would not harm anyone's marriage. To couch the
resolution to make it sound as if it is about the issue of
marriage is to mislead the public on the basic issue of equal
rights for all. In 1976 the National Convention of the Episcopal
Church expressed its conviction that homosexual persons are
entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens
and called upon society to see that such protection is provided.
SJR 20 proposes to do the opposite. He urged the committee to
reject the resolution.
9:15:24 AM
SONNE KYLE-OLSON, Juneau Douglas High School (JDHS) student and
member of the Gay/Straight Alliance group (GSA), testified in
opposition to SJR 20 and suggested the resolution would put a
stamp of approval on discrimination. She questioned a society
that supports bigotry and violence.
9:18:40 AM
JOELLE BALLAM-SCHWAN, JDHS student and vice president of GSA,
said she was taught that discrimination is always wrong and she
believes the resolution to be discriminatory.
CHAIR SEEKINS advised Ms. Ballam-Schwan that SJR 20 is not
legislation but that it was a proposal to be submitted to the
people for their vote.
9:20:13 AM
MALLORY STORY, JDHS student and member of GSA, testified in
opposition to the resolution. She said the resolution was biased
toward one type of family and opens doors for discrimination.
9:21:17 AM
PAULA TERREL testified in opposition to the resolution. She
admitted that one reason she got married was so that her male
domestic partner could receive medical benefits. She lamented
the fact that same-sex partners are not allowed to share in the
same benefits. She said it was tremendously discriminatory.
9:24:23 AM
MARSHA BUCK, representing Parents and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays (PFLAG) Juneau chapter, testified against SJR 20. She
questioned the true reason behind the resolution and stated SJR
20 was not about marriage. If it really were about marriage it
would address the root causes to common problems in domestic
marriages. She suggested the resolution was designed to promote
discrimination. She said many same-sex couples own their own
homes, have 401Ks, professional careers, go to church, and also
have children. She questioned whether committee members thought
these were not important things to support.
As a long-time voter in Alaska, she said she votes for people
who keep all of their represented citizens in mind and for
people who are honest. She asked whether the supporters of the
resolution have an entire different set of values than the ones
she outlined earlier. She urged the committee to vote against
the resolution.
9:27:37 AM
SCOTT MILLER asked the committee to be mindful of the vision of
George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door arguing that it
was fine for Alabama to be racist because that's what the
residents wanted. He insisted SJR 20 would be bad for Alaska and
that it would detract desired professionals from moving to the
state. SJR 20 essentially places a priority on sexual
orientation over education and ability, and creates a strong
economic incentive for thousands of young Alaskans to seek
employment elsewhere.
9:30:18 AM
MAUREEN LONGWORTH, M.D., testified in opposition to SJR 20. She
relayed a story about her parents losing their home due to a
serious illness and a lack of medical insurance. She cited the
current astronomical cost of medical attention and insisted that
medical benefits are something every Alaskan should have.
9:35:34 AM
DEBBIE JOSLYN, President, Eagle Forum Alaska, testified in
support of SJR 20. She said since the beginning of history
marriage has been regarded as a special and unique relationship
between a man and a woman. She took issue with the Alaska
Supreme Court "attempting to legislate from the bench" and said
they undermined the will of the people. Alaskans overwhelmingly
voted in the marriage amendment in 1998 and SJR 20 further
defines what the people want, she said.
9:37:22 AM
CARRIE EVANS, Director, Human Rights Campaign, testified in
opposition to SJR 20. She said the resolution is a mean-spirited
and hurtful measure. It would attempt to deny hundreds of hard-
working Alaskans basic employment benefits. She speculated the
intent of the resolution was to encourage discrimination against
gays and lesbians.
9:39:24 AM
JOAN HAMILTON testified in opposition to SJR 20. She spoke as an
Alaskan Native and reminded committee members of a time when
Alaskan Natives were not allowed in some schools and businesses
because they didn't have the right physical features. Alaskans
who are in same-sex relationships make up a key part of Alaska
Native traditional culture and modern culture.
Many of the gay and lesbian people of Alaska work in
professional fields as attorneys, medical professional, judicial
officers and support staff. These people have the same concerns
of any Alaska family. Limiting benefits for same-sex couples is
like telling them they are not worth as much as other people.
She said Alaska is digressing to the days when it was acceptable
to discriminate against African Americans and Native Alaskans.
9:42:53 AM
JENNIFER GIBBONS testified in opposition to SJR 20. She
recognized the value in having family medical benefits and
questioned the fairness of the resolution. She said it was
discriminatory to dis-allow employment benefits to gay and
lesbian state workers. She urged the committee to vote against
the resolution.
Chair Seekins announced a brief recess at 9:45:28 AM.
9:54:52 AM
MAURY JAMESON testified in opposition to SJR 20. She referred to
AS 25.05.013 and stated she has not seen a rise in the quality
of marriage as a result of the 1998 amendment. Heterosexuals are
still getting divorced at a breathtaking rate and spousal abuse
is still rampant. SJR 20 is about equal pay for equal work. As a
self-employed small business owner, she and her own partner (as
Representative Bob Lynn said) "get their own healthcare." She
wondered who would stand up for her rights if not her elected
officials.
9:57:16 AM
ROZZ LEIGHT testified in opposition to SJR 20, which she said
would take away benefits that she and her nephew currently
receive through her partner, whose work supports the Alaska
State Legislature. Domestic partnership benefits saved her
nephew, she said, who came to live with them when he was eight
years old and destined for jail. He is now twenty years old and
attending trade school. They would not have been able to help
him without employment benefits. Employment benefits help
families raise their children so that they can contribute
positively to society. She said SJR 20 is already causing
divisiveness among many Alaskans at work and questioned the true
reason behind the resolution.
10:01:26 AM
ARTHUR CURTIS, retired minister, testified in opposition to SJR
20. He said the resolution would install prejudices into the
Alaska State Constitution and would make the Constitution
inconsistent. He expressed agreement with much of the previous
testimony. Most Alaskans are aware that a lack of medical
insurance could potentially bankrupt a family. He said SJR 20,
being discriminatory, would eat at the soul as well as the
pocketbook, and damage the morale of public employees, both
homosexual and heterosexual. For the moral and physical well
being of the State of Alaska, he urged the committee to vote
against the resolution.
10:04:30 AM
JEANNE LAUREUCELLE testified in opposition to SJR 20. She
testified as a mother and a member of a church in Fairbanks
where they just adopted a resolution welcoming and valuing all
people regardless of sexual orientation. She suggested that
equal protection under the law should protect the people
equally. She speculated the resolution would prohibit private
employers from offering domestic partnership benefits to both
their homosexual and heterosexual employees. She also expressed
concern that the University of Alaska benefit program, which
currently offers domestic partnership benefits, would be
negatively affected.
10:06:26 AM
MARINA DAY testified in opposition to SJR 20, which she said
attacks the equal protection clause of the Alaska State
Constitution only to discriminate against a few. She asserted
the recent Alaska Supreme Court ruling that prompted SJR 20 has
nothing to do with the marriage between one man and one woman
but everything to do with equal pay for equal work. She urged
the committee to reject SJR 20.
10:07:27 AM
TIM STALLARD testified in opposition to SJR 20. He said the
sponsors of the resolution are contemplating adding
discrimination to the Alaska State Constitution. He questioned
whether SJR 20 would prohibit him from legally owning the house
that he and his partner of 12 years are currently building. He
asserted that nothing is so fundamental to a person's existence
than their families and loved ones. He compared the current
issue in Alaska to the civil rights movement of the 1960s in the
southern United States and compared SJR 20 to Nazi Germany.
MR. STALLARD speculated the proponents of the legislation
operated out of hatred for homosexuals and that they supported
discrimination of the children of gays and lesbians. He
questioned the Christianity of that discrimination.
MR. STALLARD ADDED:
As a business owner, the ability to form contracts and
partnerships is fundamental to operating a business.
Contract law is one of the oldest parts of our legal
system dating back hundreds of years to English Common
Law. The ability to form contracts with those we care
about is similarly fundamental to a person's legal
standing.
He speculated that SJR 20 would prevent people from forming
contacts and urged the committee to vote against the resolution.
10:10:52 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS aired his resentment of the comment comparing
the resolution to Nazi Germany. The magnitude of people
sacrificed there does not present a parallel to the issue at
hand, he said.
CHAIR SEEKINS commented SJR 20 would not threaten joint tenancy
contracts. He promised to research the issue and get back to the
committee.
10:12:24 AM
CONNIE FAIPEAS testified in opposition to SJR 20. She suggested
that nobody should have the right to vote on another person's
marriage. She accused the sponsors of acting like bullies on a
playground. She reminded the sponsors that they represent all
Alaskans and that their jobs are to make Alaska a better place
for all of the people. She suggested that SJR 20 serves to pit
people against people and also creates classes of citizens.
MS. FAIPEAS commented on the irony of hearing the resolution on
the same day that the State of Alaska was honoring Elizabeth
Peratrovich and stated it was particularly offensive. She
commented on the comparison to Nazi Germany and said that Hitler
did not start out with concentration camps. He started out with
a slow withdrawal of rights for certain citizens.
10:14:46 AM
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, ACLU of Alaska,
testified in opposition to SJR 20 and said it writes
discrimination into the Constitution of the State of Alaska for
the first time and is a precedent that should be avoided at all
costs. He disputed the suggestion that SJR 20 has been drafted
in response to a majority who want to clarify the true intent of
AS 25.05.013. An editorial in the Alaska Daily News, the largest
newspaper in the state, said that they understood the marriage
amendment as not eliminating the possibility of domestic
partnership benefits. Case files from the Dodd versus Ulmer case
included the Legislature's own brief which stated, "The
amendment is intended only to address the public status and
recognition of marriage and is not intended to affect private
and or religiously recognized same-sex unions."
MR. MACLEOD-BALL quoted Representative Joe Green during a House
floor session:
I don't think it should be considered as a marriage,
perhaps a union, something else. I'm not even standing
here to say they shouldn't be entitled to the same
rights as marriage.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL disputed earlier comments that the Marriage Act
has been misconstrued and that the original intent was to
discriminate. He said the notion of protection from
discrimination is at the cornerstone of republican democracy.
The success of democracy rests upon the assurances provided to
those outside the majority, that their individual rights will be
protected and that the majority will not compel the minority to
conform to the standards that only the majority believes in. SJR
20 sets that standard on its head and protects the majority from
having to provide equal treatment to the minority.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL charged that discrimination against a minority
class seems to be the primary purpose of the resolution. He said
anytime the majority is asked whether the rights of a minority
should be protected, there is the risk that the majority acting
solely in its self-interest will vote to restrict the rights of
the minority. He said he could assume from some earlier comments
that one of the intentions of the resolution is to overturn the
court decision from last October and to deny public employee
benefits to gay public employees. Doing so is bad public policy
and bad policy for Alaska public employees.
Nearly 50 percent of Fortune 500 companies across America
provide domestic partnership benefits to employees. British
Petroleum, Chevron, Wells Fargo, Key Bank; all major employers
in Alaska, provide domestic partnership benefits to employees.
All of the major airlines provide domestic partnership benefits
to employees. Providence Hospital, the U.S. House of
Representatives and Fox News provide domestic partnership
benefits to employees. Companies recognize it is good for
business, provides a wider range of talent, and provides
financial security to employees, and it does so at virtually no
cost to employers.
MR. MACLEOD-BALL summarized by advising committee members that
if SJR 20 passes out of committee and to the Senate Finance
Standing Committee, the ACLU will provide proof that the cost of
providing public employment benefits to domestic partners
provides a net gain by reducing Medicaid and other costs. He
urged members to oppose the resolution.
10:23:23 AM
REVEREND ROBERT BUTTCANE, Spiritual Director, Unity Study Group
of Juneau, testified in opposition to SJR 20. He said he is a
proponent of the institution of marriage and that people in
happy, loving relationships tend to be healthier, more
successful people. Alaska precludes that opportunity to certain
members of its populace. The Alaska Supreme Court said the 1998
marriage amendment created an impossible situation for a group
of people to enjoy benefits that might otherwise be afforded to
those who could be married. He said:
The Alaska Supreme Court said, "You cannot have it
both ways. You cannot prohibit marriage to a certain
group of people and then on the other hand keep them
from having the opportunity to access benefits that
would otherwise be made to people who could marry."
MR. BUTTCANE noted unlike heterosexual people who live together
unmarried, same-sex people are prohibited from taking an action
to access health benefits. The language in SJR 20 is nebulous
and imprecise. He questioned the definition of "rights,
benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage" as
cited in the resolution and asked whether the painstaking work
has been done which would define what those are in Alaska
Statutes. He said SJR 20 came about because of the "unintended
consequences" of the Marriage Amendment and wondered what
unintended consequences will arise because of SJR 20.
10:32:04 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS commented he did not recall the Marriage
Amendment issue or whether he voted on it. He said he had great
faith in allowing the people to vote on the issue and suggested
opponents of the resolution didn't want to hear what the
majority had to say. He said SJR 20 came about due to questions
brought about by the recent Alaska Supreme Court ruling.
10:35:18 AM
JONATHAN ANDERSON, Professor of Public Administration with the
University of Alaska and member of the City and Borough of
Juneau Assembly, testified in opposition to SJR 20. He said as a
professor of government he knows that one purpose of the
Constitution is to protect rights. This year Alaska is
celebrating 50 years of the drafting of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska and Article 1 of that document says the
constitution is dedicated to the principle that all persons have
a natural right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and in
the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry and that all
persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities,
and protection under the law. The passage of SJR 20 would be
contradiction to Article 1, he said.
MR. ANDERSON expressed concern that SJR 20 explicitly excludes
one group of people from the rights and privileges extended to
others. He said Americans have fought and died throughout
history to oppose that kind of policy. He contended that there
was a delicate balance between pure democracy and protecting the
great principles underlying the nation. He said:
We have committed the protection of our freedom to
you, from the threat of the majority. James Madison
spoke eloquently of the dangers of majority factions
and the threat of the majority to overturn the
principles of freedom. Legislators, our elected
representatives, are given a sacred trust to protect
the principles of constitutional freedom even from a
majority that would seek to destroy it.
MR. ANDERSON said it was with incredible irony that SJR 20 was
being heard on the day that Alaska was honoring Elizabeth
Peratrovich for standing up against discrimination of Native
Alaskans. He urged committee members to vote against the
resolution.
10:40:15 AM
WILLIE ANDERSON testified against SJR 20. He challenged Senator
Huggins' suggestion that it was constitutional to put the vote
to the people. He spoke of growing up in South Carolina where
people consistently voted discrimination against African
Americans and suggested that SJR 20 would create the same type
of divisiveness. He asked committee members to vote against the
resolution.
10:44:19 AM
LIN DAVIS testified that she works for the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development, primarily helping people find
employment. She said her coworkers celebrated with her when the
Alaska Supreme Court ruled on domestic partnership benefits
because it meant equal pay for equal work. She said despite good
jobs it is reality that some families are one car accident or
one medical emergency away from a financial crisis.
MS. DAVIS said she liked what President George W. Bush said at
Coretta Scott King's funeral: "Her work made us whole." She said
SJR 20 is the opposite and has great potential to discriminate
and damage individuals, Alaskan communities, and businesses. She
reminded Senator Huggins that half a million gay people were
killed in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany and suggested
that SJR 20 contained Nazi-like impacts.
10:49:30 AM
CHRIS BEANES testified against SJR 20. He said he has
experienced discrimination because of his skin color but the
discrimination he has experienced due to his sexuality was of
greater impact. He suggested it was the job of the committee
members to provide equal protection for all.
CHAIR SEEKINS held SJR 20 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|