Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/09/1998 01:35 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 42 - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE MARRIAGE
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN came forward to present the resolution on
behalf of the Senate Health, Education and Social Services
committee. SENATOR LEMAN explained that both the resolutions
respond to the recent ruling by Superior Court Judge Peter
Michalski, which decided that our society's traditional definition
of marriage may be unconstitutional. He explained that SJR 42
proposes an amendment to the state constitution that defines
marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
SENATOR LEMAN said the judge's ruling ignores the clear public
policy statement made by the Legislature in 1996 when it
overwhelmingly passed SB 308, known as the definition of marriage
bill. SENATOR LEMAN said this bill helped establish important
social policy in Alaska. He said Judge Michalski argued the statute
disallowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional unless the state
can show compelling governmental interest to the contrary. SENATOR
LEMAN commented that the judge arrived at this decision through
some ironic reasoning, alleging the constitutional right to public
recognition of one's choice of a life partner under the right to
privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution. SENATOR LEMAN said our
laws have never permitted granting licences to same sex marriages
and these marriages are currently not recognized in any of the 50
states nor, to the best of his knowledge, any country in the world.
SENATOR LEMAN predicted that if the Alaska court forces the state
to recognize same sex marriage, state law would be in conflict with
federal law in a multitude of ways, creating an explosion of
litigation. SENATOR LEMAN noted that the word marriage appears in
more than 800 sections of federal statute and the word spouse is
used 3,100 times. In all these statutes and regulations the federal
government recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one
woman, regardless of what the Alaska court says.
SENATOR LEMAN concluded that same sex marriage would cause a host
of conflict with programs and services ranging from the Internal
Revenue Service to Social Security benefits. He said some may argue
this demonstrates the need to change the federal statutes, but
SENATOR LEMAN maintained his disagreement and said the 1996 vote in
Congress on the Defense of Marriage Act shows these proponents have
their work cut out for them.
SENATOR LEMAN advised CHAIRMAN TAYLOR he would hear arguments on
both sides of this contentious issue and his belief is that the
preservation of the definition of marriage as a union between one
man and one woman is so important its loss would break down the
very foundation of our society. He proposed that the issue is so
profound, the people of Alaska should decide.
SENATOR LEMAN noted there were amendments to both SR 42 and SCR 25
and offered them to the committee for consideration. He then
introduced PROFESSOR LYNN WARDLE as an expert witness.
MR. JOHN GAGUINE, representing the Department of Law, replied "no"
to a question from CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asking if the amendment to the
bill significantly changed the issue. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MR.
GAGUINE if it was appropriate to place this amendment on the
ballot. MR. GAGUINE answered that he did not wish to speak for the
administration, but said it appears to him that the amendment would
moot the litigation, which seems to him its intent.
Number 200
PROFESSOR LYNN WARDLE stated he has taught family law for 20 years
and has done extensive research on the same issue. He indicated he
was speaking on his own behalf. PROF. WARDLE said same sex marriage
is not recognized by any jurisdiction in the world. He mentioned
that about six jurisdictions, mainly in Scandinavia, have
established same-sex domestic partnership, an institution quite
different from marriage. PROF. WARDLE suggested that even these
jurisdictions make a strong point of the fact that these
partnerships differ from marriage. In the past 25 years in this
country, many lawsuits have been filed in dozens of courts seeking
same-sex marriage and until a short time ago, not a single court
had accepted any one of these claims. However, in Hawaii, in 1996,
a judge ruled that the refusal to give marriage licences to same-
sex couples violated the state constitution. A few months later the
Hawaii legislature proposed an amendment to the constitution to
essentially overturn that decision, according to PROF. WARDLE. He
said that amendment is now awaiting a vote.
PROF. WARDLE said the decision of the Alaska judge is even more
radical than that handed down in Hawaii. He said that court
rejected the claim that there is a constitutional right to same sex
marriage, reaching their claim through a convoluted route of legal
analysis. In the Alaska case, Judge Michalski interpreted
provisions of the Alaska Constitution as granting a fundamental
right to same-sex marriage. PROF. WARDLE commented that no other
court has ever reached this decision, which he sees as quite
radical. He said the ruling is not yet final, but it does establish
a clear legal standard that tells the world this is the view of
marriage held by the people of Alaska. PROF. WARDLE sees this as an
inaccurate portrayal.
PROFESSOR WARDLE said marriage is the foundation of society and has
always been understood to be between a man and a woman. He said it
is unique and uniquely beneficial as men and women have a
complementary relationship. He sees this to be the major flaw of
the decision: the failure to recognize the heterosexual
relationship provides more societal and individual benefits than
any other.
PROF. WARDLE said there is an honest answer to the question same-
sex couples might ask about why their unions, meaningful to them,
cannot be recognized in the same way as heterosexual marriage. He
said the answer is that a man and a woman contribute fundamental
things to society, unique to their relationship. Marriages meet
social policy goals and that is why they have been singled out,
historically, for preferred status. PROF. WARDLE identified some of
the social policy purposes that merit special standing as
PROF. WARDLE stressed another flaw in Judge Michalski decision was
the tenet that all choices of life partners are equal. PROF WARDLE
said the judge's opinion is lacking in the support, evidence and
judicial precedence necessary for this type of dramatic conclusion.
He believes that a right to privacy does not mandate a state must
confer a preferred public status on anyone. He said the logical
extension of this opinion would open the door for incestuous and
multiple marriages.
PROFESSOR WARDLE concluded that this matter goes beyond Alaska, as
this decision will affect other states and prompt a constitutional
crisis. He said the state has a compelling interest in not
redefining marriage in such a radical way, especially in a way that
will result in years of costly and confusing litigation. PROFESSOR
WARDLE said the case will bring up questions of alimony, property
interests, child support, inheritance, succession and benefits,
among others. He said other states may refuse to recognize same-sex
marriages from Alaska and he believes it is important for the
legislature to act now.
Finally, PROFESSOR WARDLE summed up by saying the legislature, who
are also guardians of the constitution, must represent the people
by allowing them to make the final decision regarding the
definition of marriage. He urged quick action on this legislation.
SENATOR ELLIS asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR if he would afford the same
time to Alaskans as he did to this out of town guest. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR replied he absolutely would and asked if there was a
spokesman for the opposition, as there were far too many people
present to allow unlimited testimony from each person. SENATOR
ELLIS asked how many people were signed up to testify and CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR said, counting those in the room as well as teleconference
participants, it looked to be approximately 70 total. SENATOR ELLIS
asked if the plan was to take two people and then cut off
testimony. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he would take one or two after
that, and would have to as they were running out of time.
Number 375
REVEREND DONALD CECIL, a Professor of Communications at the
University of Alaska Southeast, said he wished Alaska's slogan was
"Live free or die." He moved to Alaska in 1980 in search of a place
where he could live free from interference by the government and
others to the greatest possible extent. He wanted to live in a
state uncluttered by excessive laws, in a place that allows people
to march to the beat of a different drummer so long as no one got
hurt. He quoted U.S. Supreme Court justice Lewis Brandice who said,
"the makers of our Constitution sought to protect Americans in
their beliefs, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred
the right to be left alone, the most comprehensive of rights and
the right most valued by civilized man." He mentioned other Supreme
Court Justices who validated these sentiments in other writings.
REVEREND CECIL said the right to choose a marriage partner is a
right of individual freedom and the people testifying in favor of
that right are not asking for an endorsement. He said only a small
percentage of Alaskans would evermake this choice and other
Alaskans would continue living their lives according to their
beliefs, freely honoring what is inside themselves biologically and
emotionally. Likewise, the small minority of Alaskans would be able
to honor what is inside of them and lead their lives according to
their deepest beliefs. REVEREND CECIL remarked that the only injury
would be to someone else's sacred idea of how others should live
their lives.
REVEREND CECIL affirmed that he would like to continue living in a
state that fully embraces the concept of personal freedom. In his
opinion, SJR 42 is an affront to freedom of choice. In the name of
freedom for all Alaskans, he recommends they throw out SJR 42 and
get back to the more important business before them.
In response to SENATOR LEMAN's remarks regarding decisions that are
out of the mainstream, REVEREND CECIL quoted Thomas Jefferson, who
said, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and
constitutions . . . laws and institutions must go hand in hand
with the progress of the human mind, as that becomes more
developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new
truths discovered and manners and opinions change, well, with the
change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep
pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still
a coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain
ever under the regimen of their ancestors."
MS. SARA BOESSER, representing the Statewide Committee for
Equality, said there were 30-40 people out in the hall and another
60 around the state who came to testify against this bill. She said
they worked hard to be there and all came expecting to be allowed
to speak against this amendment to the Constitution.
MS. BOESSER commented that if the remarks of the out-of-state
speaker were true, the Attorney General would have no trouble
showing the court a compelling reason why same-sex couples should
not marry. MS. BOESSER suggested if the committee took the time to
listen to all those assembled, they would hear plenty of reasons
why lesbians and gays should be allowed to take on the
responsibilities and rights of legal marriage. She said they'd hear
stories how the inability to marry hurts them and their children,
and also how gutting the constitution of fundamental privacy rights
is as unAlaskan a precedent as there could be.
MS. BOESSER emphasized that her point was the intense pain that the
ballot procedure itself will cause innumerable people. She does not
believe the committee understands how difficult it will be to face
the type of angry, anti-gay onslaught some Alaskans will mount. She
is sure over the next few weeks the legislators themselves will
receive many cards and letters asking them to drop this proposition
and let the court case proceed. Some of these letters may be from
angry, upset people; MS. BOESSER said there is nothing she can do
to control that, like there is nothing the legislature can do to
control the barrage of hateful, prejudiced rhetoric that will ensue
if this goes to the ballot. She said if they feel the
uncomfortable sting of angry words, they should realize that what
they suffer is only the tip of the iceberg when compared to the
hate speech, untrue stereotypes and misinformation that will be
spread about her and her partner of 17 years. She dreads that. She
suggested that when they feel stung, they should think about people
like her, hearing daily attacks in the coffee shop, on the radio
and in the press, attacks on themselves and their loved ones. MS.
BOESSER concluded that this bill, whether it is intended or not,
builds a podium for hate speech for eight long months of painful
discourse. She charged the committee to understand their personal
responsibility in unleashing that pain upon them and their loved
ones. She urged the committee to stop the bill now and allow the
courts to continue the appeals process.
MS. MARSHA BUCK, representing Parents and Friends of Gays and
Lesbians (PFLAG), said she is angry about SJR 42 and opposes it.
She said she is angry for two reasons: first, because she has a
daughter married to another woman and she knows this resolution
will increase the hatred, violence and name-calling against her and
she is a hardworking, churchgoing, voting person who doesn't
deserve that; second, she is angry because she understood the
Republican platform was to stay out of citizens' private business
and this gets into it in a way she never expected.
MS. BUCK noted that the legislature is now on resolution number 42,
meaning there are 42 ways in which this Legislature is trying to
change the Constitution. This also makes her angry, to see this
attack against the Constitution when there are so many other
important things to be done, like working on subsistence and school
funding. MARSHA BUCK stated that the Constitution protects
citizens' rights, including her daughter's rights. She wondered if
the Legislature sees the connection between this type of resolution
and the increase of hate crimes and violence against gays and
lesbians. MS. BUCK identified herself as a long time Juneau
resident and indicated she would use her time and resources to
oppose this legislation.
Number 475
MS. PAM NORTHRIP, a teacher of 25 years from Juneau, reflected on
the marriage of her Presbyterian son to his partner by a Catholic
priest in a Quaker church. She said the priest explained why he
performed the ceremony saying in a world filled with violence,
bitterness and hate crimes, it is inherent upon each one of us to
do what we can to promote love. She said she hopes none of the
committee, in the name of family values, would reject a son or
daughter who came to them and revealed that, in addition to all the
wonderful things they are, they are gay. MS. NORTHRIP said she has
learned in her experience that families come in all sizes, races,
and configurations. She said defining families as only mothers and
fathers with children excludes single parent, multi-parent,
divorced, widowed, multi-racial and adoptive families and tells
their children that there is something wrong with them. She said it
hurts families and increases our suicide rate.
MS. NORTHRIP suggested that acceptance and inclusion do not mandate
agreement, but only allow individual freedom and choice. She
indicated that the rights of the minority are as important as the
opinion of the majority and she is unable to see how the state has
any compelling interest to discourage caring, kindness, commitment
and love. MS. NORTHRIP hoped the committee would not pass this
resolution that defines marriage so narrowly and hurts so many
families.
SENATOR ELLIS asked CHAIRMAN TAYLOR why he had set up what SENATOR
ELLIS saw as an artificial time constraint. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied
he only had about an hour and a half to take up three different
matters. SENATOR ELLIS asked why this matter, due to all the public
interest, couldn't be carried over. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he
intended to move the bill today. SENATOR ELLIS asked why, saying
there were Alaskans who had come to testify and would not be able
to do so due to this artificial scheduling crisis. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
agreed, saying if they were to take the time to allow every person
to speak, because of the deeply felt emotions on this issue, he
thinks every Alaskan would speak. He added he thought that may be
part of the agenda also.
SENATOR PARNELL asked if testimony could be faxed into the
committee and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said certainly, people could send
their comments right through the Legislative Information Offices
(LIOs).
Number 515
MR. WILSON VALENTINE, an appointed member of the Commission for
Human Rights (Juneau) and an Episcopal priest, did not address the
right or wrong of homosexual marriages, but came to speak about the
goal of the Human Right's Commission, protecting the rights of all
people. He fears that if you write into the Constitution a
discrimination against any group, you are against human rights and
the work that modern people in the human family have been striving
to accomplish. MR. VALENTINE said putting into concrete something
that discriminates against anyone is wrong. He said the real
question is the treatment and protection of the people of Alaska,
which should be protected in our Constitution.
MR. PETER PINNEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, where
he spoke on behalf of the 20 people there at the LIO who opposed
the bill. MR. PINNEY said he looked at the issue like gun control,
if you start placing restrictions on it, who knows where they may
end. He mentioned other bills under consideration by the
Legislature, including those relating to "charter marriage" and
behavior of people with HIV asked if this is how this Legislature
wants to be remembered. He said there are other pressing issues.
MR. PINNY said, as a long time Republican, he has always disdained
intervention in people's lives. He said this action is not an
economic one, but rather a moral one and the state needs to pay
closer attention to economic issues. MR. PINNEY said the committee
could not prove to him that any two people getting married creates
a negative economic impact. He said for long time in Alaska, before
the pioneers, there was no marriage in Alaska and nothing fell
apart. Mr. PINNEY stated he did not feel comfortable with a
government legislating against any group, and he especially did not
feel comfortable with this Legislature presenting legislation
against him.
MS. ELLEN TWINAME testified via teleconference from a room of 15
people opposed to the bill at the Anchorage LIO. MS. TWINAME said
she does not support this attempt to change the Constitution, which
she feels will unfairly deny same-sex couples access to benefits
that mixed couples take for granted. She remarked that married
people enjoy privileges that have nothing to do with religion or
procreation such as tax-breaks, health insurance benefits and
rights to make health care and burial decisions for one another.
She does not see how same sex marriages could hurt society, and
suggested heterosexual couples are enjoying special rights that
should belong to everyone. MS. TWINAME concluded by saying that our
judiciary should not be afraid to set a precedent because that is
how the world gets changed. She believes being the first state to
allow same-sex marriages would be a reason for Alaskans to be
proud.
SENATOR WARD remarked that the person who testified via
teleconference from Fairbanks said there was no marriage before
the pioneers. SENATOR WARD refuted this, saying Athabascans married
for thousands of years and did not have same-sex marriage.
MR. MICHAEL JONES testified via teleconference from Sitka. MR.
JONES suggested that publicity around this bill has expressed the
need for it in order to retain the sanctity of marriage. MR. JONES
said this amendment would not sanctify marriage, but only define
the exclusivity of marriage. He suggested if the act of marriage is
to be sanctified, perhaps outlawing divorce or making it more
difficult to obtain would be more appropriate. He said only one of
five dictionary definitions he looked at defines marriage in terms
of opposite sex partners. MR. JONES concluded by saying the
Legislature certainly has more important things to do and he urged
them to drop this proposal.
TAPE 98-15, SIDE B
Number 001
REVEREND HOWARD BESS, a Baptist minister, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su and said marriage is a part of our
society and stabilizes social structures and creates an orderly
society. However, when government seeks to interfere with a
person's choice of a life partner, it defeats the purpose of the
government, confuses property rights and disrupts orderly decision
making. REVEREND BESS believes the judge's ruling in this case was
right on target and was supported by sound legal reasoning. He
urged the committee to leave the ruling alone and allow the courts
to do their job.
MR. MICHAEL JOHNSTONE testified via teleconference from Los
Angeles, but said he had lived in Alaska for 23 years. MR.
JOHNSTONE is the head of a ministry dedicated to providing a
Christian view of homosexuality, and helping individuals who decide
to reject homosexuality. His ministry was founded in Alaska. He
serves on the board of the National Legal Council as well as the
Steering Committee for the National Campaign to protect marriage.
MR. JOHNSTONE stated he is a former homosexual, having rejected his
homosexuality in 1998. He is HIV+ and developed AIDS in 1997.
MR. JOHNSTONE said that the idea of rejecting same sex marriage in
terms of public policy is well entrenched, with 28 states already
having adopted legislation to prohibit the redefining of marriage.
He said the public is clearly against such a change, some would say
due to mass homophobia or mean-spirited religious bigots who want
to stomp on the freedoms of others, he says it is because people
instinctively understand that to redefine marriage is to destroy it
and to destroy marriage is to destroy the structure and meaning of
families, the glue that bonds society together. MR. JOHNSTONE said
despite the best intentions of some homosexuals to replicate the
family, they simply cannot, as the family bond is rooted in the
ability to create life. MR. JOHNSTONE said if traditional marriage
is the superglue of society, same sex marriage and the counterfeit
homosexual family is merely white paste. He said same sex marriage
is an experiment being played out by intellectual elites and social
scientists. He says we have been down this road before,
experimenting with marriage and the family through no-fault
divorce, which has resulted in destroyed homes, fatherless children
and serial marriages.
MR. JOHNSTONE said those who utilize the courts in an attempt to
thwart the fundamental understanding of the public are the same
people whose sexual philosophy is anti-family and anti-children,
and who envision a future that embraces the idea that all sex is
good and healthy recreation, without norms. MR. JOHNSTONE said
their belief is truly in sexual freedom and the ultimate extension
of this would be incest, pedophilism and other aberrations.
MR. JOHNSTONE concluded that the traditional family is the
foundation of strong society and deserves special social
privileges, providing fulfillment of important functions such as
procreation, education, protection and provision. He commented that
the right to privacy is not an absolute, and the state must foster
and protect the institution of marriage, as it has through the
ages. He believes this amendment does that.
MS. LIZ DODD, a local Juneau resident and representative of The
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said she was somewhat amused
to hear SENATOR LEMAN saying Alaska should defer to the federal
government on this issue. She hadn't counted him among those who
deferred to federal authorities on such things as subsistence,
management of the Tongass National Forest and others. She said she
grew up in Alaska and has seen a tendency to try and maintain
freedom from federal interference to the greatest extent possible.
MS. DODD also remarked that it was interesting that SENATOR LEMAN
had brought a key person from out of state to comment on this bill,
specifically from Utah. She commented that Alaska is not Utah.
Alaska is governed by a wonderful, carefully deliberated
Constitution crafted by great minds; she said we should not usurp
that work without thinking long and hard about it.
MS. DODD asked why this proposed amendment would be added to the
back of the Constitution rather than being included in Article 1,
Section 1, the declaration of rights. LIZ DODD said this amendment
seems to make a cataclysmic change to that section of inherent
rights, critical rights. These rights affirm that all persons have
a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the
enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons
are equal, and entitled to equal rights and opportunities under the
law. MS. DODD said the amendment before them drops a footnote to
this section excluding some people from its protection when it
comes to marriage. She believes this is a dangerous leap, and once
it has been made it may never end. She said regardless of a
person's belief in same-sex marriage, anyone who cares about the
Constitution should be worried that, when a piece of legislation
was found to be unconstitutional, this Legislature tried to go back
and change it.
MS. DODD said, growing up in Juneau, she encountered a lot of
strange people, but was trained by her parents to leave people
alone. She agreed that it will be a big deal if the state allows
same-sex marriages, but explained that this change is coming and
why shouldn't it come first in the state that most prizes
individual rights and where a person can live and let live. She
said she did not hold out much hope, but urged the committee to
come to their senses and reject this bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked MS. DODD how she could characterize this as
a cataclysmic change when there has never been a different
interpretation than this amendment assumes. LIZ DODD replied that
there had never been a challenge to this assumption previously, as
far as she knew. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR argued that there had been a
ruling on benefit packages for same sex couples. He added that the
courts do not have a monopoly on interpretation of the
Constitution, as the Legislature must do it daily.
MS. DODD said what she meant was that it is an unprecedented idea,
as far as she knows, to take away from Article 1, Section 1, the
inherent rights of people. She said this amendment nullifies the
concept of inherent rights and allows for an exception that says
only some people are equal. She said this is a big change for
Alaska and that is why she used the term cataclysmic.
SENATOR LEMAN agreed that the change could be made to Article 1,
Section 1, but the drafter of the legislation was the person who
chose where it would be included. SENATOR LEMAN clarified that this
is not his bill, but a resolution, which he supports, by the SENATE
HESS COMMITTEE, the true sponsor of the legislation. He also
remarked that he did not invite PROF. WARDLE, nor did he pay for
his trip, and had only met him that very day. Having said that, he
expressed appreciation for the Professor's testimony and his
knowledge of the issue. SENATOR LEMAN also mentioned an article,
written by MS. DODD, in which she referred to him as a "moralist
extremist," saying if he is extreme, along with the 80 per cent of
Alaskans who believe in traditional marriage, she should not be
worried about the amendment, since the people of Alaska would not
support it. SENATOR LEMAN said he is not the aggressor in this
case, he is only trying to defend the institution of marriage and
put it in the Constitution so a judge cannot misinterpret it.
MS. DODD asked to respond, and said the reason she referred to
SENATOR LEMAN as an extremist, is because a state legislator should
defend the Constitution, not the Bible. She clarified that she was
not making a personal attack on LEMAN, only meant to defend against
his attack on our Constitution.
MR. TOM GORDY, state Chairman of the Christian Coalition, said this
decision has opened up a can of worms that could destroy the
traditional meaning of marriage as we know it. MR. GORDY referred
to several portions of the decision and commented that the decision
is what brought everyone there today and necessitated a
constitutional amendment. He said the state already has laws
prohibiting bigamy and incest, and asked if these prohibitions
implicate the right to privacy. MR. GORDY asked if we were prepared
as a state to recognize multiple person marriages or incestuous
marriages. He said he sees on t.v. sickening things that are being
done in our society and added that they will be pushing for these
rights, all of which are possible due to this decision.
MR. GORDY asked how we keep these things from happening as a result
of a liberal judicial system seeking to legislate rather than
interpreting laws. He said we must change the Constitution to avoid
the crumbling of our society. He suggests we learn from history,
saying every single society who has weakened marriage or even eased
divorce all came crumbling down. He urged the committee to pass the
bill in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage and protect our
society.
SENATOR MILLER moved amendment #1. SENATOR ELLIS objected to ask
what the purpose of the amendment is. SENATOR MILLER said it just
cleans up the language. SENATOR PARNELL asked if the new work draft
had been adopted and CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said it had not and asked
SENATOR MILLER to remove his motion in order to do so. SENATOR
MILLER withdrew his motion and SENATOR PARNELL made a motion to
adopt the work draft (version "E") as a judiciary committee
substitute. SENATOR ELLIS objected, asking what the changes from
the previous version are. SENATOR LEMAN said it is an attempt to
clarify and ensure the amendment covers what it is intended to do.
SENATOR LEMAN said the amendment to the amendment just clarifies
things further with some simplified language.
SENATOR ELLIS asked about MS. DODD's question about the placement
of the amendment. He asked if there was any difference in weight
given to any section of the Constitution due to its placement and
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied that everything in the Constitution is
given equal weight, regardless of location.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was objection maintained to the work
draft and SENATOR ELLIS said there was. Roll call was taken and the
work draft was adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved the amendment and SENATOR ELLIS objected,
again commenting on what he saw as a false time constraint imposed
by CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. SENATOR ELLIS also said there was insufficient
time for people around the state to receive the relevant materials
and he believed it to be an uninformed decision. He cited these as
reasons why he needed to object every chance he could. SENATOR
MILLER remarked that the public will have the ultimate input, on
the November ballot, if this amendment goes forward. SENATOR ELLIS
replied that it is the job of the committee to scrutinize and
discuss these issues, and to push it through so quickly in the
space of one hearing does a disservice. He said they are not really
giving it the consideration it deserves. SENATOR ELLIS said it is
all very transparent and rushed and he does not believe the
committee is doing an adequate job.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR remarked they had spent an hour and 25 minutes on
the matter and he did not consider that rushed. He said the concept
is not rocket science. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR commented that they had
testimony where every person in the room indicated they were going
to say the same thing. He said, in the room, there were three or so
witnesses in support and probably 15 in opposition. He concluded
that the testimony, in his opinion, was becoming repetitive and
there reaches a certain point where additional testimony is going
to do very little to embellish something that has repeatedly been
said before. SENATOR ELLIS countered that people on both sides of
the issue had taken off work and changed their schedules in order
to testify and in normal conditions would have been heard. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR said he was acting out of courtesy to people waiting to be
heard on some other matters that were supposed to come up.
Roll call was taken on the amendment and the amendment was
adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved CSSJR 42 out of committee with individual
recommendations and SENATOR ELLIS objected, saying he thinks those
supporting the bill would be better off doing what the judge asked
them to do, and show the judge a compelling state interest. SENATOR
ELLIS noted that if SENATOR LEMAN and the witness from Utah are
correct, it would be easy to prove and that is where they should
direct their energy and not attempt to subvert the court decision.
He said that this constitutional amendment seems like the easy way,
and when the decision was handed down he thought there would be
work by the sponsors to show the state's compelling interest.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what he suggested be done and SENATOR ELLIS
said the legal experts know what is required, he envisions the
marshaling of opinions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if this wouldn't be
done in the appeals process, and did he believe legislation was
necessary. SENATOR ELLIS replied he was not sure. SENATOR LEMAN
said SENATOR ELLIS had referred to him and indicated that he
participate in showing a compelling a state interest. He stated he
has not at all been involved in this litigation, but does support
a resolution introduced by the HESS committee regarding this
matter; specifically SCR 25.
With no further discussion, once again the roll was called and SJR
42 moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|