Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/18/1995 10:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HSTA - 03/18/95 HB 226 - REPEAL OF MARITAL STATUS PROTECTIONS HSTA - 03/18/95 HB 227 - PROHIBIT SAME SEX MARRIAGES Number 524 CHAIR JAMES noted there had been requests that House Bill 226 and 227 be heard together for the sake of time, and added she wanted to hear all teleconference testimony today on both bills. Number 546 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 226, stated the Superior Court recently decided unmarried couples are entitled to the same employment benefits as married couples. This decision was the result of a broad interpretation in the Human Rights Act prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. The court concluded the University of Alaska violated this human rights directive when health benefits were refused to the unmarried partner of a University employee. It is feared this decision will have a far-reaching impact as other agencies and finally private industry are sued for failing to recognize domestic partner status in their benefit packages. Because the definition of domestic partner is not grounded in contract and tradition as is marriage, it is impossible to predict future relationships that would qualify. Workers' benefit packages are targeted for distribution to an unknown panoply of partners who are able to attach themselves to state employees. HB 226 attempts to reduce the uncertainty employers face as a result of this court decision and to close the door on a possible onslaught of domestic partnerships created solely to gain benefits under the court decision. CHAIR JAMES asked if the sponsor statement on HB 227 should be heard now. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he had no objection to hearing testimony on the two bills together, but wanted HB 226 considered separately. He passed out a letter from the Human Rights Commission supporting HB 226. CHAIR JAMES requested the teleconference testifiers be brief and invited written testimony by FAX. She asked testifiers to specify which bill they are addressing. Number 601 RANDALL BURNS, Executive Director of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, said the ACLU is opposed to HB 226 because he does not believe the concerns which Representative Kelly listed are legitimate. Judge Greene's decision stated the University could not discriminate on the basis of marital status in determining which employees would receive additional compensation in the form of third party health coverage. The ACLU also does not believe in allowing this discrimination and thinks the state should be ashamed for considering HB 226. He agreed with Judge Greene's statement that "certainly unmarried heterosexuals have no more claim to financial interdependence than unmarried homosexuals." He also agreed with the statement at the end of her decision that "this does nothing more than prohibit the University from using marital status to determine whether or not to provide its employees with additional compensation in the form of subsidized health care coverage for the employees' partners." He added HB 226 does nothing to solve the constitutionality of denying benefits to the partners of employees on the basis of marital status. Number 674 MIKE HUMPHREY, Statewide Director of Benefits for the University of Alaska system, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, stressing the importance of the University designing a benefits plans which meets the eligibility issues. He stated the University believes HB 226 will help clarify these issues and he supports the bill. Number 685 PAUL EAGLIN, Associate General Council employed by the University of Alaska, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HB 226. He stated he represented the University of Alaska in the Tumeo and Wattum v. University of Alaska litigation, and he felt HB 226 was well-tailored to address the difficulty they ran into in the litigation. Number 694 MARK TUMEO testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, referring to an amendment distributed earlier by Representative Robinson. CHAIR JAMES informed Mr. Tumeo the amendment had not been submitted yet, but he could testify on the amendment. MR. TUMEO said he was one of the litigants in the lawsuit Tumeo and Wattum v. University of Alaska. He asked the committee to accept Representative Robinson's amendment. TAPE 95-30, SIDE B Number 000 MR. TUMEO added HB 226 "guts the Human Rights Law of Alaska" and sets a precedent allowing the majority to create special rights for married individuals to be paid more than unmarried individuals. He said Representative Robinson's amendment addresses Representative Kelly's stated concerns without discriminating on the basis of marital status. States which have adopted laws similar to Representative Robinson's amendment have experienced no premium increases and only an average of .3 percent increase in applicants. Number 050 JENNINE WILLIAMSON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, encouraging the committee to accept Representative Robinson's amendment to HB 226. She believes it is wrong to discriminate against unmarried couples who are in long-term committed relationships. She added if economics is the issue, there are many other avenues to explore, such as "cafeteria-style benefits" where all employees are compensated equally. Number 087 SANDRA BOATWRIGHT testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, supporting Representative Robinson's amendment, and stating any couple in a long-term committed relationship should receive the same benefits as married couples. Number 102 NANCY WINFORD testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, stating HB 226 as currently written discriminates against people who are not legally married and asking the committee to accept the amendment which would help distinguish committed relationships from casual relationships. Number 148 CHAIR JAMES noted the arrival of Representative Brian Porter. CINDY BOESSER read the following testimony written by her mother, urging a no vote on HB 227. "HB 227, a bill opposing the possibility of two people of the same sex ever having the right to "marry" in this state, is aimed directly at gay and lesbian persons. Since eventually the courts of this country are going to deal with this issue, it seems to me that the great state of Alaska has much more important things to do with its time and energy at this point than to hassle this question. "The thing which brings me to this hearing is that I see in this seemingly innocuous bill only the bare beginning of oppression of homosexual people in this state. Bringing down what is referred to as the `Homosexual Agenda' is one of the misguided priorities of some people in this country right now. Since that `agenda' is really only to be treated as equal persons before the law and therefore is totally consistent with the Constitution of this state and this country, I find it unthinkable that any citizen would want to deny equal treatment to any other citizen. "I was born in 1925 and became a part of what I am ashamed to say was the "silent majority" when it came to Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jews. I feel the pain of my silence and the silence of most Americans at that time. What has come to me as a renewed shock is the discovery that at the same time, Hitler was attempting to annihilate the homosexuals in his country, a fact which didn't make much news at the time. I cannot stand by and let this new attempt by a vocal minority put a foot in that same door. HB 227 may be what some have called "not worth our time," but I see it as an insidious beginning which must be stopped in its tracks. "Mildred P. Boesser 17585 Lena Loop Juneau, AK 99801" MS. BOESSER also read her mother's statement urging a no vote on HB 226. "This bill is another thinly disguised attack on homosexual persons and runs in tandem with HB 227. "HB 226 is saying that unless two people are "married" they cannot have the benefits that "married" persons enjoy, even though their commitment to each other is for a lifetime and they hold property in common. This is a Catch-22 for homosexual persons, as they cannot be married, a fact that HB 227 would like to cast in concrete. "HB 226 discriminates on the basis of gender. Don't waste the state's time and energy on a bill which is contrary to the law. "Mildred P.Boesser 17585 Lena Loop Juneau, AK 99801" Number 207 MS. BOESSER next read a statement from Marsha Buck opposing HB 226. "Madam Chair and Members of the House State Affairs Committee. "I am Marsha Buck, Chairperson of the Juneau PFLAG Chapter. PFLAG stands for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. PFLAG is relatively new to Juneau and is one of more than 340 local PFLAG groups representing approximately 27,000 families of gay, lesbian and bisexual persons. PFLAG promotes the health and well-being of gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons and their families through support, education, and advocacy to end discrimination and to secure equal civil rights. "We are opposed to both HB 226 and 227 as currently written. "We are opposed to HB 226 because we feel that it illegally discriminates against our sons, daughters, and friends on the basis of their marital status, a discrimination that is clearly addressed by our Alaska Constitution. Our daughters and sons, in their pursuit of happiness similar to your pursuit and to my own, enter into committed, long-term domestic partnerships and while in those committed partnerships are entitled to compensation, including health coverage for their dependents, that is equal to that received by persons in the domestic partnerships that we call marriage. I would not come to you to seek special rights for my daughter, but am here today to insist upon the same rights for her as are legally available for dependents in other spousal situations. "My daughter's partner is working on her masters degree at a university in the Lower 48 in a state that is plagued by far greater financial concerns than our wonderful state. My daughter simply had to present 2 pieces of documentation from a list of 5 possible that showed financial dependency effective for at least 6 continuous months in order to be covered under her partner's health insurance plan. While my daughter, who already has her masters degree, was looking for work when they first moved to the university community, this coverage was crucial for her health and well-being. It would make me feel both sad and angry to think that she could not come home to Alaska where she was born and raised and be treated with the same equality and respect. "Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing that HB 226 has been removed from further consideration. "Marsha Buck 8445 Kimberly Street Juneau, AK 99801" MS. BOESSER read testimony from Marsha Buck opposing HB 227. "Madam Chair and Members of the House State Affairs Committee: "I am Marsha Buck, Chairperson of the Juneau PFLAG Chapter. PFLAG stands for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "We are opposed to HB 227. We are opposed to HB 227 because we feel that it illegally discriminates against our daughters and sons on the basis of gender. As you are aware, it is all but impossible here in Alaska for our sons and daughters to pursue the happiness of actual marriage at this time, and yet you now propose to add a further layer of discrimination on top of that which already exists. I am wondering if you have addressed important questions about the bill such as: "What existing problem does this bill solve? "How many couples who do not fit this bill's definition have requested marriage licenses? How many have been denied licenses? "Would this bill take our state back to the way the Deep South was when it was illegal for African Americans and Caucasians to marry? "Could this bill be interpreted to mean that same sex marriage is a crime? "As I listened to the recent campaign speeches and the promises at the outset of this Legislative session, I heard this Legislature vow to remove government from the personal lives of Alaskans and focus on public needs. I heard promises to reduce government and only focus on what government really should be involved in. This bill does exactly the opposite! It would be difficult to get much more involved in the personal lives of Alaskans than HB 227 proposes to do! To give our daughters and sons an opportunity for the happiness that comes with both a legal and committed, long term relationship, I ask that you remove HB 227 from any further consideration. "Thank you for your time and attention. "Marsha Buck 8445 Kimberly Street Juneau, AK 99801" Number 284 SUE HARGIS, Chair of Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance (SEGLA), testified first on HB 226, urging the committee to stop the bill and not pass it from committee because it sets up discriminatory practices in paying some individuals more for equal work just because they have entered into the only acceptable legal contract. A spousal equivalency contract is also legally binding. The state should have the option to pay benefits to all who have entered into a contract, or none of those who have entered into a contract. Just because IRS and other agencies discriminate based on marital status, this does not give Alaska the right to discriminate upon that basis. MS. HARGIS testified in opposition to HB 227, stating it is not in the best interests of the state of Alaska to rewrite the statute to clarify who may enter into a marriage contract. HB 227 will likely end up creating expensive litigation and is discriminatory on the basis of gender. If HB 227 is intended to prevent homosexual committed relationships, this statute revision will not accomplish that. The state has no business regulating who may enter into civil contracts. Number 369 RANDALL BURNS, Executive Director of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, testified again via teleconference from Fairbanks, in opposition to HB 227. The ACLU sees no reason for the legislation. In addition, HB 227 would open the state to expensive litigation. To date, no state recognizes same-sex marriages, and Alaska is not at risk of this. Mr. Burns asked, "Why fix something that ain't broke?" Number 402 CAROL ANDERSON testified in opposition to HB 226, stating it would amend the Human Rights Statutes to allow denial of benefits to a person not legally married to the employee. Health benefits are a tangible and valuable part of an employee's salary, and married people in effect have higher wages than their single co-workers because their spouses are also covered by insurance. This amounts to married workers being paid over $300 a month more than single workers if they work for the state. Judge Greene rightfully concluded this practice is illegal discrimination on the basis of marital status. Employers need to either drop insurance benefits for spouses of employees or extend those benefits to the non-married partners of employees. HB 226 would codify an illegal practice. She added she supports Representative Robinson's amendment. MS. ANDERSON urged the committee to take no action on HB 227 and to let the current gender-neutral Alaska statute regarding marriage stand. Number 438 TALMIDGE BAILEY said many of the points he planned to cover have already been covered. He said, "We are told who we can go to the prom with, who we can take to the office picnic, and it continues....People who do that derive their authority from institutions such as the state, so the state is the one who needs to take the steps to right the wrong." Number 470 DANIEL COLLISON, Vice President of the Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance, testified in opposition to HB 226. He recalled a conversation with his father three years ago when he told his dad he was gay. Despite his apprehensions, his father and all his siblings freely and abundantly extended their love and support. He added he intends to marry in the future, and he knows his father and mother will extend to the man he chooses as a partner all the same warmth and graciousness which they have shown to all five of their other sons- and daughters-in-law. He asked, if the sex of his marriage partner is no concern of his parents, how can it be the concern of the members of the State Affairs Committee. Number 516 BOB STALNAKER, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration, testified in support of HB 226, stating it serves to support and certify the division's current policy. Under statute the state is required to provide health insurance for employees' spouses and dependent children. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Stalnaker if his department had any problems with her amendment which defines domestic partners of employees and outlines rigid standards for contracts between them. MR. STALNAKER replied he had read the draft and said it serves to qualify a legal relationship, which marriage also does. Absent marriage and absent a spousal relationship, his department would still interpret the law as they currently do, with traditional definitions. Number 548 MARY ALICE MCKEEN stated she is an attorney, licensed to practice law in Alaska since 1979, a mother of three, and happily married since 1979. She testified in opposition to HB 227 as an individual, with no formal affiliation. She believes people should be able to choose whom they marry unless there is a compelling state interest in preventing it, for example with very young people or people related by blood to a certain degree. Otherwise, it should be a personal choice, and the state has no compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriages. She believes same-sex relationships are as healthy as opposite-sex relationships. Homosexuality is no longer medically defined as deviant, and prohibiting such relationships facilitates nonstability. Number 615 CHAIR JAMES referred to Ms. McKeen's statement that there should be some rules set down for marriage, prohibiting close blood relationships for example, because it could cause a problem in the offspring. She asked if some time in the future same-sex marriages were allowed, should close blood relationships still be prohibited from marrying? MS. MCKEEN said there would be no offspring to be genetically harmed, but there might be other factors which could harm a child whose parents are closely related. She said if there would be no legitimate state interest in preventing harm to the children, it probably should not be prohibited. Number 640 SHERRIE GOLL spoke for the Alaska Women's Lobby in opposition to HB 226 and 227 and in support of Alaska's Human Rights laws as they stand today. She supported Representative Robinson's proposed amendment. She added the court provided options in the Tumeo case, giving eligibility for coverage only to those couples who have a legal and financial responsibility for each other, and suggesting couples in domestic partnerships could sign an affidavit substantiating an interdependent relationship. Number 690 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reminded the committee that "spousal equivalent" exists even in the legislative ethics code. She moved her amendment number 1. There were objections. TAPE 95-31, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said there are many reasons people enter into a long-term relationship without marrying, and her amendment would allow them to sign a contract and have the same benefits as those who use the legal contract of marriage. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY noted the amendment "takes HB 226 and makes it go away" while letting the problems it addresses, stand. He said the amendment creates discrimination based on finances. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied the amendment had five criteria, not all dealing with money. Number 082 CHAIR JAMES called for the vote on amendment number 1. Representatives Green, Ivan, Porter and James voted no. Representative Robinson voted yes. The amendment failed 4 to 1. Number 097 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to move HB 226 with attached zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, HB 226 was moved out of committee. Number 118 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG. sponsor of HB 227, informed the committee that in 1974 the Alaska Reviser of Statutes, in an attempt to create gender-neutral language, changed the marriage statute from the words "man and woman" to "person." Former Representative Clem Tillion, Chair of Judiciary at the time, was contacted, as was former Representative Genie Chance who championed "gender-neutralling" the statutes in Alaska; both confirmed there had been no testimony of any substance regarding the change. HB 227 merely returns the language to its proper form, as it appeared prior to the 1974 legislative session. Number 215 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reported that circumstances generated by Judge Greene's decision in the Tumeo-Wattum case in Alaska, as well as the Behr v. Lewin case in Hawaii, have created a compelling state interest to take action now. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the Hawaii Supreme Court had made an initial ruling that marriage licensing procedures in Hawaii allowed same sex marriages. This created a fire-storm in the Hawaiian Islands, and Representative Terrance Tom introduced a bill which says a marriage must include a man and a woman. The bill passed the Hawaiian Legislature in 1994. The primary impetus in passage of the bill was to re-insert the legislature into the development and passage of public policy; it was believed the Judicial system had usurped the legislature's power in formulation of public policy. Alaska's statutes are similar, and could be similarly interpreted to allow same-sex marriages, especially in light of Judge Greene's ruling. He referred to a footnote on page 15 in Judge Greene's decision which states, "The University would have to show that same-sex marriages are prohibited in Alaska. The Alaska Supreme Court has not been asked to decide whether Alaska's marriage statute allows for same-sex marriages....The University has provided no legal argument that such marriages are prohibited." Number 255 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concluded this is an open invitation to generate a lawsuit in the state of Alaska. This can be corrected very simply by amending the statute to read "by one man and one woman..." The purpose and intent of HB 227 is to explicitly clarify who is eligible to marry and to prohibit same-sex marriages. His intention is not to bring up a divisive issue, but to stop a debate which could become divisive and expensive, and to cut off potential lawsuits "at the pass." Number 270 MR. BURNS testified again via teleconference from Anchorage, asking Representative Rokeberg to explain for the record why he is opposed to same-sex marriages. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied there is a compelling state reason to maintain existing law that revolves around marriage and domestic relations in Alaska, relative to the impact of economic and other problems which could occur in matters such as child support, moral and legal obligations of primary breadwinners. The bill also makes a public statement about the importance of family. He believes the primary rationale in the legal contract of marriage is to have children. Number 312 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HB 227 with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There were no objections, so HB 227 was moved out of committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|