Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
02/28/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB222 | |
| SB216 | |
| SB284 | |
| SJR20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 216 | ||
| = | SB 222 | ||
SJR 20-CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
9:55:20 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS announced SJR 20 to be up for consideration.
KRISTEN BOMENGEN testified in opposition to SJR 20. She
described her career and life as one steeped in public service,
including volunteering for Hurricane Katrina and serving as an
international election observer for Ukraine. She said she puts
as much effort as possible into serving her community, state,
country and world. She said it was important for the committee
to know that she was more than a lesbian.
MS. BOMENGEN described her 13-year relationship with her
partner. While she was employed as an assistant attorney
general, her uninsured partner suffered extensive medical
issues, which put them in serious financial distress for years
afterwards.
10:00:03 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS interrupted Ms. Bomengen to ask her to summarize.
MS. BOMENGEN continued describing the extensive medical
treatments sustained by her uninsured partner. She expressed
concern over whether SJR 20 would serve to allow a hospital to
keep her from visiting her partner during a medical emergency.
She urged committee members to consider the harm that could be
caused by the resolution and urged them to reject it.
10:02:13 AM
CID BLASE testified in opposition to SJR 20. As a school
teacher, she said her favorite subject to teach was history
because she could show her students the many amendments that
have been made to the United States Constitution creating laws
for the equal treatment of all, which benefit the people as a
whole. She suggested SJR 20 would reverse the historical tide of
making access to rights, benefits, obligations, and qualities of
life more equal. She said she wants to continue teaching her
students that Alaska sets good examples for other states.
10:04:44 AM
MARGOT KNUTH testified in opposition to SJR 20. She informed the
committee that she worked for the State of Alaska for 23 years
both in the Department of Law and in the Department of
Corrections. She said she is pleased with the Alaska Supreme
Court decision, which would allow her the same rights and
benefits as her colleagues.
MS. KNUTH described a letter to Dear Abby wherein Abby sided
with the parents who allowed their gay son and his longtime
partner to sleep in the same room while visiting, much to the
dislike of the son who was not married but was visiting with his
girlfriend and was not awarded the same courtesy. Abby noted,
like the parents did, that while the unmarried son and his
girlfriend had the option of marriage and weren't, the gay son
would have married if the option were available. She said the
unanimous Alaska Supreme Court decision was similar to the
thinking of those parents and, she said, if that makes sense to
five justices of the Alaska Supreme Court as well as Dear Abby,
it should be appropriate. She urged the committee to reject the
resolution.
10:08:15 AM
JOHN MONAGLE testified in support of SJR 20. He said the
taxpayers have a right to vote on the issue.
IDA BARNICK testified in support of SJR 20. She said the voters
have decided that marriage is between a man and a woman and
should not be interpreted any other way.
SUE SCHRADER testified in opposition of SJR 20. She said she and
her husband have enjoyed the benefits from his 15-year
employment with the State of Alaska. The benefits have provided
financial security and peace of mind, she noted, and they are a
good offset for the high cost of living in Alaska. The City and
Borough of Juneau and the University of Alaska offer domestic
partnership benefits without incurring excessive costs. Many
large companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Ford, Wells Fargo, and
Coors Brewing Company know that providing such benefits help to
attract and retain skilled employees.
MS. SCHRADER suggested the court wisely and appropriately ruled
to protect the rights of a minority group, a principle at the
heart of government. She said she could not comprehend how SJR
20 could strengthen her marriage. She suggested the issue was
not about letting the people vote and asked the committee how
the majority of voters in Alabama or Mississippi would have
voted on school segregation in 1956. She said she was proud that
the Alaska State Constitution protects the rights of minority
groups and that the judges uphold those constitutional rights.
She asserted it was an issue of fairness in a democratic society
and said it was wrong to seek to amend the Constitution to
deprive Alaskans of equal protections.
10:13:41 AM
DIXIE HOOD testified in opposition to SJR 20. She asserted that
representation of the people of the State of Alaska has been
undermined by political opportunism. Proposing an amendment to
the Alaska State Constitution to further deprive many Alaskans
of their civil rights is unjust and contrary to the ideals of
democracy, she stated. Discrimination based on self-interest,
ignorance or righteousness is all too common and has no place in
Alaska. She urged the committee to reject the resolution.
PAUL GRANT testified in opposition to SJR 20. He suggested it
was a discriminatory resolution that seeks to write
discrimination into the Alaska State Constitution. He said
African Americans would not be allowed to vote and segregation
would still be allowed in schools today if that issue were put
on the ballot in southern states. He suggested the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee was avoiding its responsibility for
upholding the anti-discriminatory provisions of the Constitution
by allowing SJR 20 to go forward.
SENATOR THERRIAULT questioned Mr. Grant's statement regarding
African Americans not being allowed to vote and said that wasn't
true since it would have been pre-empted by the United States
Constitution.
MR. GRANT said that was exactly the point. The judiciary was the
body that decided against the will of the people against
constitutional and statutory provisions. He cited the
interracial marriage case of Loving versus Virginia in which the
United States Supreme Court said state laws that prohibit
interracial marriage are unconstitutional. He said had the issue
been put to a popular vote, Virginia law would have
overwhelmingly been supported by voters in the South.
10:19:07 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said Senator Therriault's point was there is no
Supreme Court decision that addresses the topic of SJR 20.
MR. GRANT countered the Alaska Supreme Court decision is
standing. There is also the recent Romer versus Evans case in
Colorado.
10:20:00 AM
DIANE MAYER testified in opposition to SJR 20. She said it was
poorly drafted, confusing, and difficult to interpret. She
questioned the meaning of it and its affects. She asked the
definition of "qualities of marriage" and said the resolution
was misleading since same-sex couples are denied marriage in the
State of Alaska. She said the Alaska Supreme Court decision was
not about the benefits of marriage, it was about equal access to
the benefits of employment.
MS. MAYER said:
You can't sign up for life or health insurance for
your family, joint or survivor annuities, a death
benefit, or health insurance in retirement for your
life partner simply because of a marriage certificate.
To receive these benefits you have to successfully
compete for a job, you have to go to work every day,
you have to be productive, satisfactorily accomplish
your assignments. These benefits are all provided as
benefits of employment though they are currently
granted only to those employees who are allowed to
marry.
MS. MAYER said Article 1 of the Constitution states that all
persons have a natural right to the enjoyment of the rewards of
their industry. She asserted that the benefits in question are
linked to employment and not marriage. The opportunity for
family stability is a result of the person's industriousness in
the workplace, she stated. She urged the committee to uphold the
Alaska State Constitution and reject the resolution.
MS. MAYER pointed to a report from the Conference of Young
Alaskans held in January 2006. Fifty-five young Alaskans met to
th
commemorate the 50 anniversary of the Alaska State
Constitution. In their report they overwhelmingly voted to
approve language that specifically stated support of a diverse
culture. Item 4 in their report specifically says, "Because it
directly inhibits the rights of individuals, the Alaska State
th
Legislature shall repeal the 25 Amendment to the Alaska State
Constitution defining marriage."
th
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Ms. Mayer whether she supported the 25
Amendment.
MS. MAYER said no.
10:26:33 AM
JANELL HAFNER testified in opposition to SJR 20. She said the
Alaska Supreme Court decision could be read in conformity with
the Alaska State Constitution.
CANDACE BROWER testified in opposition to SJR 20. She strongly
urged members to dissolve the resolution in committee.
10:28:29 AM
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska American Civil
Liberties Union testified. He disagreed with earlier comments of
some committee members that their job is to pass the resolution
on to the people for a vote. He said they are mistaken to say
that the Alaska State Legislature has no real substantive role
to play in the matter and that its only duty is to simply pass
the question along to the people. He said it ignores the clear
obligation of the Legislature to vet the very serious matter of
amending the foundation document of Alaska State laws.
He encouraged the committee members to protect the individual
rights of all Alaskans. He said pollsters get the answers they
want when they design the question in the right way. A rigged
question will get a rigged answer, he said. He said the
question, in this case, is misleading and he is still unsure
what SJR 20 means.
10:31:55 AM
MR. MACLEOD-BALL said one thing it would do is amend the
Marriage Amendment but the court decision accepted the Marriage
Amendment in full and interpreted the Equal Protection Clause
and said the existing employment benefit system for state
workers was discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause of
Article 1. He suggested the real problem was with the question
that the proponents of SJR 20 would propose to offer to the
voters.
He said:
If you insist on passing on your obligation to stop
this now, then at least you ought to ask an honest
question about what you want to achieve. You want to
change the outcome of the case that was decided in
October and that means you want to change the meaning
of the Equal Protection Clause. If you want to let the
people decide, then at the very least, ask them the
right question. Do you want to restrict the Equal
Protection Clause so that it no longer applies to
unmarried individuals? Do you want to exempt unmarried
individuals from the benefits of equal protection? In
that case, I think, you will have sidestepped your
obligation to protect individual rights in this body
but at least you will have framed the issue arising
out of the case that came down in October and you'll
have raised it in the context of the Equal Protection
Clause, which I think is the more appropriate
question.
10:33:48 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS took exception Mr. Macleod-Ball's suggestion
that he was a party to a "rigging."
CHAIR SEEKINS advised Mr. Macleod-Ball that he could not respond
to Senator Huggins' comment.
SENATOR GUESS said:
Then I will speak up on it. I think it was a metaphor
and people need to listen to the entire argument. I
think the point that I heard was the question you ask
is very important and is something that actually we
haven't spent any time in this committee on, nor has
the person that we hired spent time explaining why the
question and why it's framed the way responds to the
[Alaska] Supreme Court decision.
She said she used to write polling questions for a living and it
is the case of spinning the question to get the desired result.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it was not the intent of the sponsors to
trump equal rights protection; and that SJR 20 was a legitimate
question to pose to the voters.
10:38:48 AM
SEINA ANIHETA expressed concern as an employee of the University
of Alaska that SJR 20 would jeopardize the ability of the
University to attract and retain highly trained workers. She
said the resolution in its broadness would have unintentional
effects.
KATE SUNWOOD testified in opposition to SJR 20. She contended
the resolution was ambiguous and unclear of intent. She said SJR
20 would wipe out people's opportunity to purchase medical
insurance.
10:41:07 AM
WILLIAM HILL testified in support of SJR 20. He suggested that
non-traditional marriages create at-risk youths. He said every
child in the state should have the opportunity to live in the
traditional atmosphere of a male husband and female wife since
that is what creates stable citizens. All cultures in the world
agree that marriage and family are traditional. For the sake of
at-risk youth, he said, Alaska citizens should do everything
possible to discourage non-traditional families, rather than
encourage them by providing benefits for them.
FRED TRABER testified in opposition to SJR 20. He said his
partner and he have been together for over 30 years. They
jointly own property, have well respected careers, and make a
positive contribution to their community. He said they have
decades of experience with discrimination and it has been their
experience that intolerant and mean-spirited people promote
discrimination and bigotry. There is no credible reason for the
legislative body of the people to put a ballot proposition
promoting discrimination before the people.
10:45:57 AM
GLEN BIEGEL commented on SJR 20. He said he supported the
resolution and that the Alaska Supreme Court overrode
precedence, original intent, lower court rulings, legislative
action, public intent, common sense, and the plain language of
the Alaska State Constitution. He suggested the problem was with
the judiciary and said they are not interested in being
constrained and will make their own interpretations. SJR 20 is
an attempt to redress a judiciary that does not understand the
Constitution.
He said the resolution is not apparent that it applies only to
public groups. He said the Alaska Supreme Court might also
ignore the amendment and create a new type of relationship and
therefore grant that relationship benefits.
10:49:31 AM
MR. BIEGEL summarized by suggesting there were difficulties with
the resolution being over broad. He suggested the Alaska Supreme
Court caused the need for SJR 20.
Chair Seekins held SJR 20 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|