HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES  2:23:05 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of marriage." 2:23:22 PM SOPHIE JONAS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 62 on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor. She paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: At present, during the solemnization of marriage, couples must assent to the marriage in the presence of each other, the person solemnizing the marriage, and at least two additional witnesses. Afterward, all parties must sign the marriage certificates. House Bill 62 would eliminate the requirements of any additional witnesses at the marriage solemnization and the signatures of these witnesses on marriage certificates in an effort to help support Alaska's destination wedding industry while preserving the integrity of marriage solemnizations. Alaska is one of 20 states that require two wedding witnessesthe upper limit of wedding witness requirements nationwide. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia do not require wedding witnesses at all. Wedding witnesses played a more critical role in past centuries when record keeping was less automated. Witnesses could be contacted to verify the wedding had taken place in the event that records were damaged or missing. Today, however, the role of a wedding witness is ceremonial. In Alaska, while the person solemnizing the marriage must meet certain criteria, no form of witness verification (proof of identification, language comprehension, address validation, etc.) is required. HB 62 would allow Alaska to compete with states like Hawaii and Florida, which require no wedding witnesses and lead the nation in destination weddings. Destination weddings are a growing business in Alaska, especially as couples opt for small, intimate ceremonies rather than large ones due to risks associated with COVID-19. But the requirement of two wedding witnesses makes Alaska a less attractive location for many who travel from farther away or who do not want the financial burden of a larger wedding. Couples who come to the state without their own witnesses are tasked with finding strangers to witness their wedding. The burden of supplying these witnesses often falls to those who work in Alaska's wedding industry who ask friends and family to witness the weddings of their out-of-town clients. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is hard for out-of- state couples to find two witnesses and couples may be reluctant to have strangers as their wedding witnesses. The additional witness requirement can also place an increased financial burden on the couple. For example, for a remote location wedding, such as a glacier, the couple must pay extra seating costs to transport the witnesses. At present, destination weddings bring in an estimated $1 million in revenue to Alaska in the form of roughly 500 destination weddings a year. This revenue figure doesn't consider the fact that more than 90% of the out-of-state couples who come to Alaska to get married stay for days and weeks to explore our great state. The resulting benefit to Alaska's tourism industry is substantial. 2:25:48 PM MS JONAS covered the sectional analysis [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1 AS 25.05.301. Form of solemnization. Eliminates requirement of two witnesses at a marriage solemnization ceremony. Section 2 AS 25.05.321. Certificates. Eliminates requirement of the signatures of two witnesses on marriage certificates. Section 3 AS 25.05.361. Unlawful solemnization of marriage. Deletes language to conform with changes made in section 1 of the bill. Section 4 AS 25.05.041. Matters insufficient to render marriage voidable. Repeals subsections (a)(3) and (a)(5) to conform with changes made in section 1 of the bill. 2:26:39 PM MS. JONAS played a "testimonial video" [provided by upcoming testifier, Joe Connelly]. 2:32:17 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:32 p.m. 2:32:33 PM CHAIR CLAMAN opened invited testimony. 2:32:55 PM CIAN MULHERN, Celtic Ministries, stated that he has performed weddings for over 21 years in many states, quite a few of which do not require witnesses. He emphasized that the presence of witnesses does not influence the seriousness with which a couple takes their vows. He said witnesses do not make a wedding more legitimate, and he questioned who is to determine whether witnesses are competent. 2:35:05 PM JOE CONNELLY, Owner, testified in support of HB 62. He said HB 62 would change only the requirement for witnesses; it would not affect the definition of sanctity of marriage. He said it merely would make it easier for two people to commit to each other without "government forcing random strangers into their ceremony." He said HB 62 would not make a wedding ceremony more serious or lead to higher divorce rates. He said it would make it easier for people to get married, and he spoke about the locales in Alaska where he has photographed weddings. Often people want a private ceremony, he remarked. He opined, "We should encourage these small destination weddings and the tourist dollars that follow." Florida and Hawai'i, with the highest destination weddings, do not require witnesses; 30 states in total do not, he remarked. 2:38:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that Mr. Connelly had provided the video and asked him to confirm that one of the couples in the video had to hold their ceremony in the helicopter office rather than the destination to which they had hired the helicopter to go. 2:38:46 PM MR. CONNELLY confirmed that the legal part of the ceremony had taken place in the helicopter hanger office [in order for two witnesses to be present], then the couple had the spiritual part of the ceremony on the glacier. In response to a follow-up question, he explained that other than the couple, the others on the helicopter were himself, as photographer, and the pilot, who obtained a special one-day license to marry the couple. 2:40:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE KURKA indicated that he had not realized [the requirement to have two witnesses] was an impediment. He asked for clarification regarding witnesses, timing, and location. 2:41:38 PM MR. CONNELLY emphasized that the issue is not about where the witnesses are but that there must be two witnesses separate from the officiant. In response to a follow-up question, he confirmed that under Alaska law, the officiant cannot be considered one of the two required witnesses. He argued that the officiant is sufficient, and he reiterated that already 30 states do not require the two witnesses. 2:44:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN recollected having heard testimony from those who said there have been ceremonies where the officiant served as one of the two witnesses. MR. CONNELLY interjected, "Not in Alaska." 2:44:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he registered the objection to two witnesses being present at the ceremony but asked whether there was objection to "the documentation having two witnesses after the fact." 2:45:41 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether Representative Eastman was suggesting an amendment such that a couple could get married on a glacier without the witnesses, and then those witnesses would sign afterward in recognition that the newlyweds really had wanted to get married. 2:46:12 PM REPRESENTAIVE EASTMAN described the signing of a marriage license as "official and formal" and suggested that even when that happens separate from a marriage ceremony, "there might still be utility in maintaining in statute or requirement that that document, whenever it's signed," has two witnesses. 2:46:57 PM MR. CONNELLY responded that when he first envisioned the proposed legislation and brought the idea to Representative Claman, his initial thought was to leave the marriage license as is. He explained that currently a marriage license has two blank spaces on it for witness signatures. Those spaces could be left for those who want witnesses to sign but be left blank for those who do not. Either license, signed or unsigned, would be legal and processed by the state. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that makes sense and he would support it, but his question pertains to "a little bit after that." He asked, "Is there any reason that we wouldn't require, you know, when you're going to get ... your marriage license document, that ... your signature at that point should not be witnessed?" MR. CONNELLY responded that prior to COVID-19, either the bride or groom would pick up the marriage license from the Bureau of Vital Records, where he or she would sign it; the other person would sign in front of the marriage officiant. He said that served as a check. He said the requirement for two witnesses on top of that is antiquated and stems from a time in the past when the church in England was not able to "properly maintain documents." Now, Mr. Connelly proffered, people typically take photos with a mobile phone. He said anyone could write any name, even fictitious, on the witness line of the certificate, because there is "no auditing" or "verification of the people who are actually listed on the marriage license." He said it is probably best to have the officiant, who was certainly a witness to the marriage, sign the document. 2:50:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, having heard this legislation in two legislatures and two committees, opined that [requiring two witness signatures] is one of the most stupid things he has ever heard state government do. He said the law complicates people's lives and "the sooner we can dispense with this and get rid of this requirement, the better." 2:51:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked about the increase in cost to take two extra people on a helicopter [to serve as witnesses during a wedding in a remote location]. 2:52:06 PM MR. CONNELLY confirmed the cost is significantly more and the result is sometimes couples will cancel, which means less revenue. He suggested that some go ahead with the wedding without the witnesses, who afterward sign "Donald Duck or something on the license, because nobody checks it anyways." In response to a request for specific costs, he offered that a four-seater helicopter could cost $1,500 and a 6-seater could cost $3,000, so basically double the cost for a bigger helicopter. 2:54:37 PM CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 62. After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public testimony. 2:55:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said, "I'm one of those who feels that the two witnesses is highly significant." She drew attention to a sentence beginning on page 1, line 10, of HB 62, which read: "At the time of the ceremony, the person solemnizing the marriage shall complete the certification on the original marriage certificate." She said she thinks that is the difficulty, that the witnesses have to be there during the ceremony to make the certificate fully legal. She then paraphrased [the third paragraph from "Solemnization Law and Legal Definition"], from USLegal.com, which read as follows: Similarly, in the solemnization of marriage, no particular form is required except that the parties must declare in the presence of the judge, minister or magistrate, and the attending witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife. In every case there shall be at least two witnesses present besides the person performing the ceremony.[ Barnett v. Hudspeth, 211 Cal. App. 2d 310 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1962)] REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested the challenge is separating a religious ceremony [from] the legal action of the two witnesses, who, "after a ceremony can say, 'Do you take each other as husband and wife?' in front two witnesses, and they say, 'Yes, yes we do.'" She said she thinks that could fulfill the legal requirement. She said she thinks amending line 10 would serve this purpose. 2:57:49 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 62 was held over.