Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/27/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2007
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to marriage.
- MOVED HJR 9 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 9
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
02/12/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/27/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
BOB DOLL
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HJR 9.
BOB HEAD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 9.
STEVEN JACQUIER
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HJR 9.
LOREN LEMAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 9.
SHIRLEY RIVAS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in
opposition to HJR 9.
DAVE BRONSON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 9.
JEANNE LAURENCELLE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HJR 9, highlighted the
need for equality and the protection of minorities, and asked
the committee to table the resolution.
HONDA HEAD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in support
of HJR 9.
MARY GRAHAM
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself that HJR 9
is a matter of equal rights and benefits for all Alaskan
citizens and is not an issue related to the definition of
marriage.
DEBBIE JOSLIN, Chair
Vote YES for Marriage
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
ROLANDO RIVAS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HJR 9.
ART GRISWOLD
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 9.
MARSHA BUCK
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Parents, Families
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) in opposition to HJR 9.
BARBARA BELKNAP
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in
opposition to HJR 9.
CHRISTINA JOHANNES
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in support
of HJR 9.
JANE HAIGH
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself and her
family in opposition to HJR 9.
PATTY GRISWOLD
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in support
of HJR 9.
PATRICK MARLOW
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HJR 9.
SID HEIDERSDORF
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 9.
LYDIA GARCIA, Interim Executive Director
National Education Association of Alaska (NEA-Alaska)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 9 and "to
all legislation that discriminates against Alaskans."
JOHN MONAGLE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 9.
MARY BISHOP
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in
opposition to HJR 9.
KEVIN DAUGHTERY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 9.
KATHERINE HOCKER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in
opposition to HJR 9.
MAC CARTER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HJR 9.
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HJR 9.
DIXIE HOOD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in
opposition to HJR 9.
LIN DAVIS
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in
opposition to HJR 9.
SHERRY MODROW
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Noted that she had signed up to testify in
opposition to HJR 9.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:09:46 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HJR 9-CONST. AM: BENEFITS & MARRIAGE
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Proposing an amendment to the section of
the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage.
CHAIR LYNN discussed the manner in which the committee would
hear testimony.
8:13:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, as prime sponsor of HJR 9, explained
that the resolution is a constitutional amendment that specifies
that the benefits, obligations, and qualities of marriage
pertain only between one man and one woman. He paraphrased his
sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HJR 9 is offered in response to the Supreme
Court ruling of October 28, 2005. The Court ruled
that same sex couples are similarly situated making
them equal to married couples with regard to
receiving health benefits from public employment.
The conclusion of the Court is that spousal
limitations are unconstitutional.
The people of Alaska in a constitutional
amendment vote in November 1998 by a 68% margin
thought the issue of marriage and its benefits for
same-sex couples was settled. The plaintiffs in
Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics treated marital
status and marital benefits as inseparable, thereby
recognizing that marriage is a special relationship
is society and law.
AS 25.05.013(b) passed by the Alaska Legislature
in 1996 prohibits any public employer from extending
marriage benefits to same-sex partners so the
constitutional language in HJR 9 is consistent with
the will of the legislature, which is consistent
with the 1998 vote of the people of Alaska.
AS 18.80.220(c) is a law ignored by the court.
It is under "unlawful Employment Practices" which
grants an exception to employers who "provide
greater health and retirement benefits to employees
who have a spouse or dependent children" enacted
into law in 1996. My intent is to show the public
good of a policy preserving marriage benefits as a
societal value for the health of families in Alaska.
As a Representative Democracy it falls upon us
to refer this to those who answer to the principle
"All political power is inherent in the people. All
government originates with the people, is founded
upon their will only, and is instituted solely for
the good of the people as a whole." Alaska
Constitution, Article 1, Sec.2.
Amending our constitution is a weighty matter
and should not be done lightly in my view. My
interest is asking the people of Alaska if they
agree with their Supreme Court, and if not, should
we amend the constitution to better reflect the
people's view. I appeal to you with Article 1,
Section 2. This is our only recourse in answering
this huge sociological question for those of us who
disagree with the Court's conclusion.
8:18:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to the proposed new
language to the constitution, [beginning on page 1, line 6,
through line 10], which read as follows:
No other union is similarly situated to a marriage
between a man and a woman and, therefore, a marriage
between a man and a woman is the only union that shall
be valid or recognized in this State and to which the
rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects
of marriage shall be extended or assigned.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained how the sentence was structured
to respond to the ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.
8:24:24 AM
BOB DOLL testified on behalf of himself in opposition to HJR 9.
He said when he joined the military, he took an oath to
"preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. He relayed
that a question often asked is, "What are we fighting for?" He
stated:
I believed ... that I was fighting to prevent the kind
of bullying that singles out some of our citizens for
inferior status, that applies some kind of test that
undermines their citizenship; the kind of bullying
that made possible totalitarian regimes in ... once
proud countries around the world and which ultimately
required all of the treasure and manpower we could
muster to overcome. I was, and I remain, proud of
whatever smaller role I was able to play in that
effort, and I believe that most Americans share in the
pride that goes with having overcome that kind of
bullying.
And so, I ask that the committee table this resolution
and reassure to those of us who thought we knew what
we were fighting for that the Alaska [State]
Legislature understands what we have all fought for.
8:28:27 AM
BOB HEAD testified on behalf of himself in support of HJR 9. He
expressed his respect for [Mr. Doll's] service to the country
and his status to the country. He opined that what is being
fought for is a form of government in the U.S. whereby the
people are the government. He said the people of [Alaska] have
made "a very clear statement." He said since there seems to
remain a lack of clarity regarding "the whole situation," the
people once again need to be given the opportunity to clearly
voice and define "what it is that we as a people want and don't
want." He stated, "This issue, as I see it, is not necessarily
one of ethics, morality, religion, or anything else. This is:
Do we the people really run our nation and this state, or do we
look at individuals other than those we elect to represent us to
make a change in what we are trying to accomplish as people?"
Mr. Head remarked that the state's representatives have done a
good job in bringing issues forward and representing those who
elected them. He said he finds it upsetting that a few,
unelected individuals can "turn that on its head and say, 'No,
we're going to make it go in this direction.'"
8:30:35 AM
STEVEN JACQUIER testified on behalf of himself in opposition to
HJR 9. He revealed that he has taught for many years in
Alaska's rural villages and operates a small business, while his
partner is a retired professor. He said both he and his partner
lost their previous partners after being together for 13 and 27
years, respectively, and after nearly six years together, he and
his partner will "doubtless remain a couple for the rest of our
lives." He spoke of his and his partner's daughter and son, and
of the expense of putting children through school. Mr. Jacquier
noted that he and his partner have put in 43 years combined
working for Alaska and pulling their own weight, and their
payroll contributions have funded the coverage of married
workers for decades.
MR. JACQUIER pointed out that he is currently covered by his
partner's insurance; however, that coverage would not longer be
available to him should HJR 9 pass, and he would be forced to
seek expensive, private insurance coverage.
MR. JACQUIER compared HJR 9 to "Jim Crow" laws in the South that
"marginalized and disenfranchised people of color, forced white
folks to be parasites upon the labor of people of color, and
were bad for everyone." He said those laws existed because "a
righteous majority was content to tyrannically exploit and abuse
a minority," which he remarked is not an admirable exercise of
good, Christian values. Mr. Jacquier said, "Gay people are just
as God created us. We have no more choice about that than we do
about our skin color." He said just as women should receive pay
equal with that of men for performing equal work, Alaskans in
long-standing, committed relationships, contributing to their
community, yet prohibited from marriage, absolutely do merit
treatment equal with that accorded to their married coworkers.
He stated, "The Alaska Constitution says so; the highest court
in the state says so; and common decency says so." He indicated
that same-sex couples would go to City Hall and sign a civil
marriage contract if they could. He said many same-sex partners
have been together as committed, unmarried couples far longer
than most heterosexual married couples. Mr. Jacquier concluded,
"If the situation were turned around, with this bill directly
targeting our married coworkers, and forcing us to become
parasites upon them, then as fair-minded, good neighbors, we
would not stand for it. Please, please, table this now; be
leaders."
8:33:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES invited Ex-Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman
to testify.
LOREN LEMAN testified on behalf of himself in support of HJR 9,
which he indicated would "restore the will of the people in
Alaska, establishing social policy." He said an enormous amount
is at stake when judges act as social engineers; when judges
overreach, the state is run by an oligarchy rather than a
democratic republic. He defined an oligarchy as "a government
by a few, black-robed elites." He said 12 years ago, two
homosexual men in his district sued the state for a marriage
license, claiming that they were denied equal protection,
because they could not receive the rights, privileges, and
benefits provided married men and women. Mr. Leman stated that
an Alaska Superior Court judge, "ignoring more than 6,000 years
of recorded history, which always identified marriage as a union
of men and women," ruled in their favor. Mr. Leman said that in
1998, in response to that ruling, two-thirds of Alaska's
legislators and "nearly 70 percent of Alaskans" passed "the
marriage amendment" - which now appears in Article I, Section
25, [of the Constitution of the State of Alaska]. That
amendment stated that marriage can exist only between one man
and one woman. Mr. Leman explained that although the amendment
defended marriage from judicial redefinition, it left open the
possibility that "the people" or the state's legislature could
voluntarily offer additional employment and retirement benefits
to people who are not married. He stated, "The legislature has
wisely - in my opinion - chosen not to do this." Mr. Leman
explained that the reason he is so familiar with the legislative
history relating to this issue is because at the time it
occurred, he was a Senator who participated in the debate.
8:38:03 AM
SHIRLEY RIVAS testified on behalf of herself in opposition to
HJR 9. She said she is a happily married woman, and she and her
husband have a blended family of five adult children and 12
grandchildren. She related that she does not see how the
proposed legislation will improve any of her family's lives.
Conversely, she said she sees the harmful effect HJR 9 will have
on her gay son and his partner, who, she stated, work hard at
their jobs and contribute to their family culture and society as
a whole. She said they are as dedicated to one another as she
and her husband are to each other, and to remove the benefits
from them that they worked for and earned is "hateful and
criminal." She said, "The basis for HJR 9 is hate ... for a
minority population of this state." She posited that the
Constitution of the State of Alaska should not have been amended
in 1998 and should not be amended further now. Ms. Rivas
stated, "HJR [9] is nothing more than a hate crime." She asked
the committee to vote against the resolution.
8:40:15 AM
DAVE BRONSON told the committee that although he serves on the
board of the Alaska Family Council and Alaska Family Action, he
is testifying on behalf of himself in support of HJR 9. He
revealed that he spoke last year in support of House Joint
Resolution 32 and Senate Joint Resolution 20, two bills
regarding the same issue as HJR 9. He said he is tired of
hearing about this issue, which he indicated was resolved in
1998 with the addition of Article 1, Section 25 in the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. He said, "Then came a
small group of homosexual ... activists and their willing allies
in the judiciary [branch], which through very tortured logic
determined that since homosexual employees of the state could
not be married, they must be treated as if they were married -
and that is through same-sex benefits."
MR. BRONSON opined that this issue is not about same-sex
benefits. He explained, "This is simply an incremental attack
on the institution of marriage, with same-sex benefits used as a
primary weapon in that attack. Furthermore, during this attack,
the constitutional authority of the legislature has been
seriously abridged by the judiciary ...." One option is to do
nothing, he said; however, Mr. Bronson predicted that taking no
action would result in the aforementioned activists demanding
same sex marriage and prevailing in that demand. He said that
happened in Massachusetts and elsewhere. The other option, he
said, is for the legislature to pass HJR 9, to "bring this issue
to its rightful conclusion." He noted that he would submit the
testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Satinover [included in the committee
packet], which had been presented to the Massachusetts Senate
Judicial Committee on April 28, 2003.
8:43:36 AM
JEANNE LAURENCELLE testifying on behalf of herself, said she
thinks the question to ask is: "Will all Alaskan citizens be
treated equally, or will we allow a pressure group to institute
legislation to suppress a minority?" She mentioned the Bill of
Rights and said people's inherent rights are to have equal
rights, opportunities, and treatment under law. She asked, "So,
are we going to dispense with that in the interest of
fundamentalist Christians, or are we going to continue with our
great tradition of protecting minorities?"
MS. LAURENCELLE relayed that she is part of a blended family,
and she relies on domestic partner benefits through the
University of Alaska in order to insure her step-daughter.
8:45:29 AM
HONDA HEAD testified on behalf of herself in support of HJR 9.
She stated:
Where is the voice of the people? Don't we ...
matter? And as far as rights and being discriminated
against: Hey, you know, marriage is marriage - it's
between a man and a woman. It's not between a dog and
-- my dog loves us, but we can't marry him. So, if we
want coverage for him, we have to buy it. If we want
to take him to the doctor or to the hospital or
something for surgery, we have to pay for it. I mean,
if you're in a relationship that you -- it's just as
disgusting to me as being married to an animal. But
that's your ... right, but you can pay for it yourself
if you want coverage for them. Please pass this bill.
8:46:42 AM
MARY GRAHAM specified that although she is a state employee, she
is testifying on behalf of herself. She noted that she is a
member of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Juneau. She
stated that she disagrees with the many comments heard thus far
that the issue at hand is about marriage. She explained that
the issue of marriage was addressed in 1998, when the
aforementioned constitutional amendment occurred. She described
that campaign as "very hurtful and hateful." She said the
current issue is one regarding equal pay for equal work. She
said HJR 9 concerns her because it would take away health
benefits that have already been given to many domestic
partnerships in the state. Those domestic partnerships include
both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Some of those benefits, she
related, were negotiated through collective bargaining. She
stated, "I don't want to see the Alaska Constitution limit the
right of employees to collectively bargain with their employers
for benefits, which is equal pay for equal work." Ms. Graham
recalled that the bill sponsor spoke of a national debate. She
noted that Alaska's equal protection clause is stronger than the
federal [clause] and that of other states. She said she thinks
the Alaska Supreme Court rightly stated that all Alaska citizens
are created equal and should receive the benefits of being
Alaska citizens. She asked the committee to table HJR 9.
8:48:28 AM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, Chair, Vote YES for Marriage, testified in
support of HJR 9. She revealed that she had voted in favor of
the constitutional amendment in 1998. She specified that her
intent in voting in favor of that amendment was to say that
every aspect of marriage is between one man and one woman. She
stated that she feels that the judges of Alaska have ignored
what 70 percent of Alaskans voiced in 1998. She emphasized the
necessity of putting forth a constitutional amendment on the
ballot in 2008, so that "we could have a chance to weigh in on
this and explain further what apparently the judges did not
understand the first time, and further define marriage and what
that means to us." She stated that the will of the people has
been usurped by the court.
MS. JOSLIN said she has "no hate at all toward any of the people
(indisc. -- technical interference) in court," nor for anyone
who is homosexual. She reported having received daily phone
calls, e-mails, and letters filled with hate towards her and her
family, and she said she does not feel hatred toward those
people either. She said people have the right to live their
lives as they wish, but the people of Alaska have no obligation
to call [committed, same-sex couples] marriage or treat it as
such. She opined that children are so much better off if they
can be raised in "a healthy environment where they have a mother
and a father." She added, "That's not always possible, but it
is the best for our children, and we need to think about what is
best for children here, and not about somebody's sexual
preferences."
MS. JOSLIN related that she has been told by people that they
have a loving, committed relationship with another individual of
the same sex. She said she has a loving, committed relationship
with her mother-in-law. She added, "But we are not married, nor
could we ever be married, because she is a woman and so am I."
She concluded, "A marriage is special and unique and different
than any other relationship on the face of this earth."
8:51:22 AM
ROLANDO RIVAS testified on behalf of himself in opposition to
HJR 9. He stated that the resolution is not about marriage, but
rather is about taking away rights and benefits from a segment
of Alaska's population. He said the Constitution of the State
of Alaska guarantees equal rights to all citizens of the state,
and he opined that to have some members of the legislative body
attempt to take away those rights for political reasons is
wrong. He asked the committee to table HJR 9, which he said is
the right and just action to take.
8:52:32 AM
ART GRISWOLD testified in support of HJR 9. He described
himself as a 72-year-old man who has lived in Alaska since the
1950s and is married to a woman with whom he has raised eight
children, plus fostered other children from problem households.
He stated his belief that "marriage is a very critical part of
raising children," and "a man and a woman can raise the children
where you don't confuse them as to their sexuality." He said it
is the right of the people of Alaska to be allowed to vote on
whether or not to recognize same-sex partners, and he indicated
that HJR 9 would give people that opportunity. He concluded by
noting that he is a veteran.
8:53:57 AM
MARSHA BUCK testified on behalf of Parents, Families and Friends
of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) in opposition to HJR 9. She
indicated that through a recently passed initiative mandating a
90-day legislative session, the public is giving the message
that it wants its legislators to use time wisely, not
frivolously. She said this hearing and the upcoming, related
advisory vote together "give the appearance of a huge waste of
time and money." In response to a question from Chair Lynn, she
said she serves as mother to a woman whose partner is a state
employee, and that woman would lose her benefits if the proposed
constitutional amendment were to pass.
8:57:45 AM
BARBARA BELKNAP testified on behalf of herself in opposition to
HJR 9. She spoke of the issue of fairness, which she said is in
the eye of the beholder. When two parties cannot agree on what
is fair, she said, the issue goes to the courts for an impartial
decision. She relayed that some members of the legislature do
not like the decision made about fairness by the judicial
branch. She continued:
The judges ruled that it was not fair for some public
employees to get employment benefits by virtue of
marriage, while their coworkers, [who] were in
committed, same-sex relationships, were denied
benefits. This resolution appears to go even further,
prohibiting all employers from offering benefits to
any couples who are not married. The state
constitution guarantees equal protection, and since
the state workers were prohibited by their
constitution in marrying, the fair and just thing to
do is to provide equal benefits for equal work.
MS. BELKNAP said the goal of good government policy should be to
ensure as many people as possible have health benefits, not
taking them away. She said she disagrees with a recent
statement by former Representative Phillips that fairness is an
inherent moral value for Alaskans, because if it were, "we
wouldn't be here today." She said the attitude, "live and let
live" used to be an Alaskan philosophy, but that is no longer
true. Ms. Belknap warned that HJR 9 would further divide
Alaskans. She concluded:
The "us" versus "them" public discourse will continue
to hurt our gay and lesbian family members, friends,
and neighbors who contribute so much to our state.
Ultimately, if the two proposed amendments to the
constitution pass, existing and future benefits will
be taken away from hard working Alaskans. Now, that
is really unfair.
9:00:05 AM
CHRISTINA JOHANNES testified on behalf of herself in support of
HJR 9. She said she sees the resolution as a clarification of
what already exists in the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
She said she was dumbfounded by the court's decision to ignore
the implications of the 1998 amendment and give marital benefits
to same-sex unions. She said she hopes the wording of HJR 9 is
sufficient to "overcome the strong, ideological bent of the
court on this matter," because she said it would be a tragedy to
have to pass yet another amendment "in order to preserve the
natural law definition of marriage." Ms. Johannes opined that
homosexual unions are in no way similar to marriage, and thus it
was incorrect for the court to say that they are; therefore, she
added, "this is not an equal protections issue." She stated, "A
small group of people want to impose their own sexual values on
the majority of Alaskans, and they are using the court to do
it."
MS. JOHANNES said the language of the amendment states that no
other union is similarly situated to marriage, which is of the
utmost importance, because it gives the courts a clear
directive. She stated:
Marriage is the foundation of our civilization and the
foundation of our society. As a society we have an
interest in promoting marriage, because it is by
nature procreative and touches our future in a way
that no other relationship can. It is not [emphasis
on "not"] unfair to promote marriage over other
relationships.
MS. JOHANNES recollected that a previous testifier referred to
bullying. She remarked that she has never seen so much bullying
as she has seen from the opponents of the "natural law"
definition of marriage. She asked, "Protecting marriage is
called a hate crime?" She said that statement shows her how
important the protection of marriage is. She added, "Because if
we do not overturn the court's decision by clarifying the
marriage amendment, we can only expect more of this sort of
bullying to try to make us except the erroneous values of this
minority."
9:02:18 AM
JANE HAIGH testified on behalf of herself and her family in
opposition to HJR 9. She revealed that she has been in a
committed relationship for 25 years. She said she feels
privileged that she is female and her partner happens to be
male, so that they can be married and she and her children can
be covered by her husband's health benefits. She stated that it
seems extremely unfair that those types of benefits should be
denied to "other people who are not similarly situated."
MS. HAIGH said the writers of the Constitution of the State of
Alaska enshrined equal rights and benefits - including equal
rights to privacy - beyond what is in the national Constitution.
Furthermore, she noted, it states that all residents of Alaska
have corresponding obligations to the people and to the state.
She pointed out that means all people. She stated, "I just see
this amendment as extremely degrading to our constitution." She
expressed her hope that people would move toward a more
egalitarian society.
MS. HAIGH said, "To me, marriage is a sacrament that is
sanctified by religious communities, and some religious
communities decide not to sanctify gay marriages and other
religious communities decide that they will sanctify marriages
between people of the same sex." She said [the majority of] the
people of Alaska have defined marriage as one particular union
between a man and a woman; however, she stated, "The supposed
morality of one people cannot override the equal benefits
inferred to everyone in the state in our constitution." She
said there are moral people on both sides of the issue and "we
can't enshrine the morals of one side in the constitution."
MS. HAIGH said she is also offended by [Mr. Leman's] previous
characterization of the supreme court as a bunch of "black-robed
elites." She said people in society do not always agree, and
the supreme court is empowered by all Alaskans to make decisions
based on the constitution. She indicated that she thinks the
Alaska Supreme Court correctly interpreted the constitution.
9:05:44 AM
PATTY GRISWOLD testified on behalf of herself in support of HJR
9. She concurred with the previous testimony of Representative
Coghill. She said the United States was built upon religion and
religious values, and she indicated that the language of the
Bible depicts marriage as being between a man and a woman.
9:07:25 AM
PATRICK MARLOW testified on behalf of himself in opposition to
HJR 9. He said both he and his partner, Richard Collins, are
employees of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), thus, can
choose whether or not to receive benefits independently. Mr.
Marlow relayed that he and his partner have made the choice to
be covered under Mr. Collins' benefit plan for the last two
years, resulting in an annual savings of $1,000. He revealed
that he and his partner have been "registered partners with the
University" for over 10 years, have been partners for 15 years,
and have lived in Alaska for 12 years. He said if [HJR 9 passes
and the people vote to adopt the amendment], he would be
compelled to go to a lawyer and demand that the rights and
benefits that he has been receiving for the last decade be
continued. He said he anticipates there would be quite a few
others who would sue the state over the issue, as well.
MR. MARLOW stated that the larger issue is: "What are those
obligations, rights, benefits, et cetera, of marriage?" He
explained that he fears a consequence of this legislation would
be that if his partner became ill, he would be told that he has
no right to make decisions related to medical treatment on
behalf of his partner, because of the fact that he is not
married to him. He stated, "Yet that is the relationship we
have: I have responsibility for him; he has responsibility for
me. We are not a burden on the state. We are not a burden
precisely because we accept that responsibility for each other."
MR. MARLOW concluded: "Lastly, I'd like to say that personally
I'm offended by being compared to a dog."
9:11:27 AM
SID HEIDERSDORF testified on behalf of himself in support of HJR
9. He said it is incredible that this issue is being revisited
after the amendment made to the constitution (in 1998). He
stated that he thinks this issue is "exactly about marriage,"
and that view is supported by what the Alaska Supreme Court
determined. He explained that the court said that individuals
involved in same-sex unions are situated similarly to those
involved in marriage, and thus deserve to receive the same
benefits.
MR. HEIDERSDORF posited that if, in fact, denying benefits to
"the nonmarried" is discrimination, then the Alaska Supreme
Court should have a "hey-day" overruling the many forms of
discrimination in society, based, for example, on age, race,
economic status, and residence. He mentioned professional
licenses, Welfare programs, limited entry, and subsistence
hunting, and he said, "All of this discriminates against some
people." He noted that [this type of discrimination] is
accepted because it is for the good of society. He said he
thinks the supreme court ignored that issue and "failed to
recognize that marriage is a vital institution for the welfare
of our society." He added that there is nothing unusual in
denying marriage benefits for people who are not married. He
indicated that this is not an issue regarding equal pay for
equal work. He explained, "If you ask 10 people out in the
street what their pay was, they would not tell you what their
benefits were." He said they would simply tell you [the amount
of money they take home].
9:14:49 AM
LYDIA GARCIA, Interim Executive Director, National Education
Association of Alaska (NEA-Alaska), testified in opposition to
HJR 9 and "to all legislation that discriminates against
Alaskans." She said legislation such as HJR 9 has no place in
Alaska. She cited [Article I, Section 1] of the Constitution of
the State of Alaska, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
SECTION 1. Inherent Rights.This constitution is
dedicated to the principles 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, opportunities, and protection under
the law; and that all persons have corresponding
obligations to the people and to the State.
MS. GARCIA stated that HJR 9 would prevent equal pay for equal
work and deny access to health care for workers and their
families. She reported that on February 2, [2007], 400
delegates - elected by NEA-Alaska's 13,000 members - met in
Anchorage for the fifty-first annual NEA-Alaska delegate
assembly, at which time they set the policy that NEA-Alaska
would adamantly oppose legislation such as HJR 9. Ms. Garcia
said it is unfortunate that the proposed legislation is being
heard, considering the other legislation currently assigned to
the House State Affairs Standing Committee. She stated that
NEA-Alaska respects all the members of the committee, as well as
the legislative process. She asked that HJR 9 receive the same
fate as last year's Senate Joint Resolution 20 - to be stopped
in committee.
9:17:38 AM
JOHN MONAGLE testified on behalf of himself in support of HJR 9.
He stated that HJR 9 is an issue of marriage, and he indicated
that any other statement is "rhetoric," a "smoke screen," and
"an attack on marriage." He said he particularly likes the
wording in HJR 9 that specifies that marriage consists between
one man and one woman, and that no other union will be
recognized. He asked the committee to pass the resolution
quickly.
9:18:37 AM
MARY BISHOP testified on behalf of herself in opposition to HJR
9. She said she respectfully disagrees with Representative
Coghill and Mr. Leman. She continued:
It is a societal issue that we need to answer now, and
it's an issue that I've been wrapping my head around
for 60 or my 69 years. ... My ideas, my concepts,
have evolved over those 60 years. It's not easy for
me, as a Catholic or as a Republican ... to come out
on these issues, but it is a decision that I've made
in good conscience.
My 46-year marriage to Richard is not threatened by my
friends' same-sex union, nor is any other marriage.
Indeed, imitation is the most sincere form of
flattery, and I am thankful when committed gay couples
value the same sort of commitment found in a good
heterosexual marriage.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that New
Jersey must provide benefits to same-sex, domestic
partners. Instead of proposing a discriminatory
amendment to their state constitution, the New Jersey
legislature created a civil union law allowing
committed domestic partners to receive the same
benefits as married couples. And I urge our
legislators to do likewise.
To pass HJR 9 would mean that no matter how long-
standing the commitment of an unmarried, straight, or
gay couple, they could be denied - and they would be
denied - the right to visit a hospitalized partner,
end-of-life healthcare, child custody, and other
state-provided spousal rights. Equal rights under the
constitution would take a big hit in all kinds of ways
yet to be litigated.
We've got to get past the fear, ... the myths, and the
discrimination that understandably result in anger and
retaliation, drugs and alcohol, family despair, and
sometimes, unfortunately, suicide.
A state statute providing for civil unions among gay
and straight couples is the response our legislature
should make to our supreme court's unanimous ruling.
The will of the people can become the tyranny of the
majority, and I think all of us who have been involved
with government realize that, and that's why we have a
constitution that protects the minority.
9:22:06 AM
KEVIN DAUGHTERY testified on behalf of himself in support of HJR
9. He noted that the beginning of the Constitution of the State
of Alaska begins and ends with an emphasis on "we the people"
and the right of the people to amend the constitution, which Mr.
Daughtery noted has been done 27 times. He posited that it is
unnecessary to argue about the merits of the issue before the
committee, but rather, to put the issue before Alaskans and let
them vote.
9:23:28 AM
KATHERINE HOCKER testified on behalf of herself in opposition to
HJR 9. She stated that she thinks the proposed resolution is
damaging to the will of the people as shown in the constitution.
She said she is sorry to hear "what seems like a disrespect for
the [Alaska] Supreme Court. She asked the committee to table
HJR 9, adding, "In fact, you might as well just crumple it up
and throw it away."
9:24:14 AM
MAC CARTER testified on behalf of himself in support of HJR 9.
He noted that his wife is a part-time employee with the State of
Alaska and does not receive benefits, and he opined that the
fact that she receives no benefits is discrimination. He read
from the Bible, Hebrews, Chapter 13, Verse 4, as follows:
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage
bed kept pure. For God will judge the adulterer and
all the sexually immoral.
MR. CARTER expressed pride in Alaskans being "different than any
place else." He said a law should not be passed just to follow
the actions of another state when it goes against the voice of
the majority of Alaskans. He said passage of HJR 9 should close
all doors to any more discussion regarding the importance of
marriage between one man and one woman.
9:26:39 AM
MICHAEL MACLEOD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) Alaska, stated that ACLU Alaska was the proponent
of "the litigation that resulted in the October 2005 decision,"
and, thus, he said he thinks ACLU's position on this issue is
"fairly well known." He noted that 15 of the 16 people present
at the Anchorage Legislative Information Office (LIO) were
"firmly in opposition to this matter." He urged the committee
to consider: "Simply because 50.1 percent may be in favor of
something doesn't mean that we should amend our constitution,
which is considered one of the most progressive and protective
of individual rights of any constitution in the country."
CHAIR LYNN announced that the committee had time to hear only
two more testimonials.
9:27:53 AM
DIXIE HOOD testified on behalf of herself in opposition to HJR
9. She said she is a licensed marriage and family therapist in
private practice in Juneau. She read her testimony as follows:
Governing the diverse and independent citizens of
Alaska can sometimes be compared to herding cats.
Likewise can the indignant Alaskan public attempting
to keep the legislative Majority on a civil and
constructive track. I am here this morning to join an
effort to herd you cats toward a sense of
responsibility.
Alaska is a state that should be governed by humane
and just law, not intolerance and emotional tirades.
The slick mailers sent out in support of "Vote yes to
protect marriage and families" distorts the truth.
The ruling of the Alaska Supreme Court is not abusive.
The advisory vote and this proposed legislation is
abusive to a significant percent of Alaskans, both
adults and children who would lose health benefits
they already have.
Based on the equal protection clause of our Alaska
Constitution, the supreme court sought through its
ruling to protect persons in committed relationships
who are prohibited from marriage by the 1998
amendment. The ruling called for equal pay -
including benefits - for equal work. To characterize
that ruling as a demand for "special benefits" is
dishonest semantics. Every legislator swore to uphold
the [Alaska] State Constitution. Failing to support
equal protection for all Alaskans violates our
constitution and panders to prejudices based on
disregard for our system of justice and ignorance of
the nature of sexual orientation.
Whatever the outcome of the advisory vote, it is not a
representative scientific poll. This advisory vote
you approved foments fear, hatred, and divisiveness in
our communities. Recent letters to the editor are
shocking in their trampling of democratic values. The
special election is also a waste of the peoples'
money. And this bill, HJR 9, wastes your time and
ours when there are many high priority needs for
legislative action. I believe it is an exercise in
futility.
If you have homophobic constituents with whom you wish
to demonstrate an alliance, this bill is a political
ploy unworthy of elected state representatives. HJR 9
is shameful and should never come out of committee.
It is not the "cat's meow."
9:31:08 AM
LIN DAVIS testified on behalf of herself in opposition to HJR 9.
She said she is a state employee who has taken personal leave in
order to testify before the committee. She read from a portion
of her written testimony as follows:
... I like what President Bush said at Coretta Scott
King's funeral: "Her work made us whole." Let's use
Coretta's life and President Bush's words as a
measuring stick, and see how HJR 9 measures up.
First, HJR 9 will take away the health insurance and
survivor benefits that I am now able to offer my same-
sex life partner. Imagine, taking away health
benefits. We've been together 19 years, [and] we're
on our third set of dogs. My partner is self
employed, and my health insurance is all that she has.
As an older couple, we are very financially
vulnerable: If she had a major medical crisis and had
no health insurance, we could quickly lose our home
and slide into bankruptcy. If my partner had to enter
a nursing home, I would not be able to remain in our
home. We could lose so much so quickly. And how does
taking away her health insurance serve the public
good? How will it help our community if she is
prevented from getting my last paycheck and my death
benefits?
Because HJR 9 makes us financially very vulnerable,
our whole community loses if the two of us are in
health financial crisis. It costs everyone - local
businesses, the hospital, the city, the state - when
we can't financially survive. HJR 9 does not
strengthen our communities. It's clearly bad public
policy; it appears to be punishing those of us who are
different. This is clearly not a Coretta.
The intent of HJR 9 is to make sure that certain
groups of people are kept financially and socially
vulnerable and marginalized. Why would anyone want to
do that to a group of their fellow Americans?
At a time when most states are figuring out how to
provide health insurance for all citizens, Alaska will
be in a race to the bottom by proposing to take away
health benefits and survivor benefits from gay
employees who are in committed, same-sex, long-term
relationships. Note that the net has ... widened and
now unmarried men and women are also targets.
HJR 9 is so un-Alaskan; it's so undemocractic. We
know these exact words are imported from Michigan
where this policy has been damaging to the public
good.
Alaskans believe in fairness and equal pay for equal
work. What kind of example are we setting for our
youth when they see it's okay to treat gay people and
unmarried people as second-class citizens? My co-
workers at the job center where I work are pleased
that after 10 years, I'm finally making equal pay to
them.
Alaskans are proud of our constitution and its
eloquent equal protection, which indeed lives up to
Coretta's life work. HJR 9 appears to be another
prong in a movement called, "No Gays Left in the
Constitution."
What if the signers of this resolution are unknowingly
writing their child or niece or nephew or grandchild
out of constitutional equal protection? What a deeply
harmful action toward a family member.
HJR 9 will prevent employers here in Juneau from
providing work-related merit-based benefits that they
deem necessary. Here in Juneau we have CBJ [the City
and Borough of Juneau], [the] University [of Alaska
Southeast], Bartlett [Regional] Hospital, Alaska
Airlines, [and] actually about 10 or 12 others.
Thank you. Please table this; it's extraordinarily
harmful.
9:35:27 AM
CHAIR LYNN thanked everyone for their testimony. He asked
Representative Roses to state for the record the names of those
who had signed up to testify but had not been given the chance
due to time constraints.
9:35:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES offered his understanding that the
following people were opposed to HJR 9 but had not had a chance
to testify: Tim Stallard, Paul Adasiak, and Cheryl Humme of
Fairbanks; Jane Schlittler, Jeanette Aileen, Allison Mendel,
Stephen Gingrich, Cady Lister, and Scott Bailey of the Anchorage
area; and Paula Terrell of Juneau. He indicated that the
committee had received a letter of support for HJR 9 from Shelly
Hughes (ph) of Palmer, Alaska.
CHAIR LYNN encouraged everyone to submit his/her testimony in
writing or electronically to the committee.
9:36:26 AM
SHERRY MODROW related that she had signed up to testify in
opposition to HJR 9.
9:37:12 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:37:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Juneau has received a record
amount of snowfall, and he asked Mr. Doll if "having a special
election at this unusual time will affect the turnout."
9:38:14 AM
MR. DOLL noted that Juneau will be holding three separate
elections: One on April 3, another in June on a bond issue, and
the general election in the fall. He stated that he thinks the
public will be "somewhat tapped out on participation," but said
he hopes for voter turnout. He offered his belief that the
turnout in Juneau on this issue will be "substantial," simply
because of the number of state employees and people interested
in the topic.
9:39:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL noted that the Bill of Rights was added to
the United States Constitution later. Since that time, she
said, preambles of state constitutions have been considered to
be separate from the constitution, in the sense that they cannot
be amended. She stated, "The freedoms and rights that we have
cannot be amended, and therefore, it's a protection for the
minority against the majority." She posited that the issue at
hand is not one regarding marriage, per se. The point, she
related, is that the proposed resolution is an attack against
the preamble and against the responsibilities of the judicial
system to uphold the constitutionality of the preamble. She
stated her opposition to HJR 9 and asked that the resolution be
tabled. She added that she appreciates each member of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee and his/her right to speak.
9:41:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his opposition to HJR 9 as a
denial of basic human rights. He said he took an oath to uphold
the constitution and the principles to which it stands, and the
most basic human principle is equal protection of the law. He
said the resolution "talks about a union, ... rights, benefits,
obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage," and he stated
that he thinks that is very broad. He said, "This will include
aspects of property law, worker's [compensation] law, criminal
law, inheritance, family law, spousal support, aggravators at
sentencing, the Human Rights Act, your insurance law, and
hospitalization, to name only a few." He said he would be
asking Legislative Legal and Research Services how many
different areas of the Constitution of the State of Alaska HJR 9
could touch. He relayed that he has grave doubts that the
resolution could survive a court challenge or would be
considered a revision.
9:43:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thinks the legal aspects can be
worked out in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He stated
his support of HJR 9 as "an overall policy call". He related
that he, too, took an oath to uphold the constitution. He said
he thinks one of the tenets that the country was founded upon is
the separation of powers. He said he thinks the [Alaska]
Supreme Court has stepped across the line from an interpretive
body to a policy making one, which concerns him. He expressed
his wish that the topic was a different one; however, he thinks
needed conversations will be generated to clearly establish the
legislature's role in government. He stated concern regarding
the abbreviation of public testimony. He explained that he
thinks HJR 9 is legislation that deserves to be heard and upon
which people have a right to speak.
9:45:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said taking an oath to uphold the
constitution means promising to uphold the entire constitution.
He stated, "Included ... is the ability to put forward questions
like this to the public, and also ... [for] the public ...,
through the initiative [process], to affect what we do here."
He stated that he has no problem "putting this question out
there." He said there is a high bar required - a three-quarter
vote of the legislature - to get this issue on the ballot. He
stated, "I'm not sure when it gets on the floor where it's all
going to shake out for me, but I will support this going through
the committee process."
9:46:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that of all his constituents, there
are as many in favor of HJR 9 as there are those opposed to it.
He said there have been many bills where his opinion has
differed from the way he voted on them. He explained that the
reason for that is that he was elected to represent those who
voted for him. He noted that his two daughters are on opposite
sides of this issue. He stated that he will support the
resolution now; however, he is not certain how he will vote when
the issue gets to the House floor.
9:48:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated his belief that the only appropriate legal
marriage is between one man and one woman. Other kinds of
partnerships do not constitute a legal marriage, he said, and
therefore are not a "proper ... base for benefits to one or more
of the partners." He stated:
To me, the fact that such partners are not permitted
by law to marry is irrelevant. If someone can't get
married, for whatever reason, they should not be
treated by law as if they were married.
CHAIR LYNN, regarding the issue of separation of powers between
the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches, said he
thinks [the judiciary branch] has overstepped its bounds and the
legislature should respond and give the people of Alaska the
chance to respond.
9:49:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said benefits were offered after WWII,
and a high value was placed on married people. He said there
was no contemplation of offering benefits to unmarried couples.
The assumption then, he said, was that a married couple
consisted of a man and a woman. The debate since then has been
whether or not to maintain that assumption. He said he stands
on the side that says marriage should be between a man and a
woman. He stated his belief that "a marriage between a man and
a woman gives us the best stability in our workforce." He said
he believes the people spoke clearly on that issue in 1998 and
the [Alaska] Supreme Court is wrong on this issue. He stressed
the importance of people speaking their views on both sides of
the issue. He said he does not believe that holding marriage in
a special way is discriminatory. He said he does not know that
the benefits offered by employers are an inherent, basic right.
He said after having been overruled by the supreme court, the
only recourse is to ask the people of Alaska if they concur. He
stated that he will not shrink from any legal questions. He
posited that if [HJR 9] is a revision of the constitution, then
so was the decision of the supreme court. He said every benefit
that a married couple has been afforded up to this point is
going to fall to the logic of the court.
9:55:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL [moved to report HJR 9 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
9:55:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to table HJR 9 to give those who
have not yet testified a chance to come before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Doll and Gruenberg
voted in favor of tabling HJR 9. Representatives Roses,
Coghill, Johansen, Johnson, and Lynn voted against it.
Therefore, the motion to table HJR 9 failed by a vote of 2-5.
9:56:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL renewed his motion to report HJR 9 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVES GRUENBERG AND DOLL objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johansen, Johnson, and Lynn voted in favor of moving HJR 9 out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representatives Gruenberg and Doll
voted against it. Therefore, HJR 9 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:57:24 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|