HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES  3:40:15 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of marriage." 3:40:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, prime sponsor, introduced HB 62 by paraphrasing 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. 3:44:12 PM SOPHIE JONAS, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 62 [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. 3:45:04 PM MS. JONAS introduced a testimonial video, which was viewed by the committee from 3:45 p.m. to 3:49 p.m. 3:49:10 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled hearing this legislation two years ago. He offered his belief that "it was great legislation, and nothing has changed." 3:49:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether weddings are taking place via Zoom. After receiving confirmation, he asked if the bill would affect Zoom weddings. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that the bill would not affect weddings attended via Zoom. Further, he shared his understanding that the witness requirement could not be satisfied by a Zoom witness and would still require a person to be physically present. He questioned why Alaska is still following a law from 1700s era England, during which time the church was keeping records instead of the state. He reiterated that people are attending weddings via Zoom, but this bill has no impact on that. 3:51:06 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened invited testimony. 3:51:38 PM CIAN MULHERN, Reverend, Celtic Ministries, informed the committee that he is an ordained minister with 21 years of experience performing weddings in other states, including those with no witness requirement. He said this is a big problem in Alaska, noting that over 90 percent of his clientele are coming from other parts of the world and don't know anyone in the state. He explained that couples become uneasy when they are required to have a stranger attend their wedding as a witness, especially during the exchange of vows. Furthermore, he reported that witnesses are not being used to verify the couples' identity - as the Bureau of Vital Statistics [Health analytics & Vital Records Section, DHSS] is responsible for checking IDs - nor to verify that the wedding took place and was performed in the proper manner. He opined that the bill is smart for the wedding industry in Alaska. He offered to address the previous inquiry regarding Zoom weddings. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS welcomed his perspective on the subject of Zoom weddings. 3:53:57 PM MR. MULHERN said prior to COVID-19, no states allowed Zoom weddings; however, two states, including New York, currently allow people to marry via Zoom due to COVID-19. He opined that the practice would not last a long, adding that it is not significant to the witness requirement. Returning to Representative Kaufman's question, he said, "no, you could not perform a wedding on Zoom because the witnesses do have to be present at the time of the wedding." 3:54:44 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 62 was held over.