CSSJR 42(FIN) - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE MARRIAGE Number 0018 CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address CSSJR 42(FIN), "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage," sponsored by the Senate Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee. He noted there a proposed committee substitute. Number 0030 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS moved that the committee adopt HCSCSSJR 42(RLS), Version K, dated 5/10/98. There being no objection, HCSCSSJR 42(RLS) was before the committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT explained the change is on page 1, lines 9 through 11. The words, "The legislature may enact additional requirements related to marriage to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States and this constitution," have been deleted. He said, "It is my belief that this is language that is probably not needed as the legislature can take action based on constitutional provisions that's put forth to the public, if it goes to a vote, and incorporated into our state constitution. So it's probably extraneous information that's probably not necessary. So it's more of a clean up provision than anything else." Number 152 SENATOR LOREN LEMAN came before the committee. He explained he doesn't have an objection to removing the language, but would like to testify as to why the language was included. Senator Leman explained that the state has a legitimate interest in establishing some requirements for marriage, though be it very few. One of the requirements that deals with blood quantum if children can be produced from that marriage. That is one that is of legitimate interest because of genetics. Senator Leman said he wants to make it very clear that there is an interest there that by taking it out, the language does not, in any way, infringe on the state's right to be able to do that. He said, "Another one is age and children below a certain age, I don't know what it is, I think it's 16, that can't marry and that's another legitimate one. There also is, I believe, either residency or time in the state - there is a certain amount of time for administrative purposes. The state has certain rules regarding getting married." SENATOR LEMAN stated, "The opponents of this were likely to distort this to mean something other than what was intended, but it really was meant to address what Judge Michalski, in his decision, came back and said that when he found that choice of a life partner was so fundamental that he said, 'Government intrusion into the choice of a life partner encroaches on the intimate personal decisions of the individual. This, the constitution does not allow unless the state can show a compelling interest in necessitating the embridgement (ph) of the constitutionally protected right.' We just wanted to avoid cases where the state was going to have to show a compelling state interest and things like that. Taking it out actually makes the amendment much easier to read. I believe it enhances the support and when it goes on the ballot to the voter, they want to be able to understand the amendment far better. And so I'd encourage the committee to support the amendment, as amended." Number 0422 CHARLES NORTHRIP came before the committee to testify on the proposed committee substitute. He said he believes the amendment has the effect of making the resolution that remains even more discriminatory than it was in the previous version. He said it now clearly targets only one segment of the population. Mr. Northrip said as Senator Leman pointed out, it makes it very clear what the resolution now attempts to do. Mr. Northrip said what is left of the resolution after this amendment is indeed very clear, and that the violence and hate that could come from the kind of statewide publicity campaign that will (indisc.) from this decision, be something that he doesn't want to revisit. Mr. Northrip, referring to growing up in the segregated South, said he was convinced that the white man was superior and had to come to Alaska to find out that all people are the same and deserve the same treatment under the laws. The resolution is a bad way to go. Number 0653 PAM NORTHRIP came before the committee to testify. She said "I have lived in Alaska since statehood in 1959. My parents raised me in the church and I raised my children in the church. We believed in family values, truthfulness, kindness, treating others as we would be treated. MS. NORTHRIP continued "I have three wonderful children. They entered the world with different physical appearances, different personalities from the beginning, different gifts. They are merit scholars, Truman scholars, a youth deacon, Sunday school teacher, equestrian, debater. All three pay taxes. One is an actress, one is a choir member. Which of my three children should have fewer rights than the others because one of my children is gay. MS. NORTHRIP explained, "The proposed amendment to SJR 42 does nothing to change the tenor of this bill. In fact, I agree it makes it very clear that this is a 'anti-gay' bill. Similar bills in Colorado and Oregon have gone on the ballot and have given tacit permission for an increase in hate crimes against homosexuals by implying that there is some question that all citizens are equal under the law and that is something that we, the public, can vote on. I have trusted our constitution to protect the rights of the minority, even when those may not be the choice of the majority. We have seen throughout history what that has done to minority races, to women, to immigrants. MS. NORTHRIP continued, "My 16-year old daughter has already been harassed at the high school simply for having the tenacity to love and support her brother and to say so openly. I have always prized being an Alaskan, and the freedoms recognized by out state. This matter is currently before courts and there is a joint resolution by the Senate and the House asking them to deal with this in a timely fashion. I would ask that you let the courts finish this. This is something that can be revisited at a later time if that is not a satisfactory resolution. And I fear what would happen if we put on the ballot an issue that asks the majority to vote on the rights of any minority. It is a slippery slope, I fear for my family, my children and the people of Alaska if SJR 42 goes on the ballot. Thank you." Number 0945 CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated there were no further witnesses to testify and closed public hearing. CHAIRMAN KOTT said, "Some (indisc.) believe that we are somewhat just taking out language that is probably not necessary, but I think with the amendment, it opens perhaps a Pandora's box. It gives the legislature (indisc.) to give the legislature a little more power than I think what the original intent of the resolution was. That's why it came back to us with this proposal which, I think, makes it clearer that we're not trying to expand anything beyond what's in the original content of the resolution. But also understanding that the legislature has that authority to create and establish laws that conform to our U.S. Constitution (indisc.)." Number 1048 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER stated, "Mr. Chairman, I guess for the record, my impression of what we have just done was to make clear, as testimony was indicating. What the intent of this is to preclude, as state statute now provides in every other state in the Union provides, that marriage between two people of the same sex is not recognized by this state or any other state. The other language can only be interpreted by both sides as giving too much authority whether you are in favor of this proposition or against it. So taking it out, I think, is appropriate and leaving this single issue we are being asked to vote on." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HCSCSSJR 42, Version K, out of the House Rules Committee with individual recommendation and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCSCSSJR 42(RLS) moved forward.