HB 62-MARRIAGE WITNESSES  3:35:52 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 62, "An Act relating to solemnization of marriage." 3:36:10 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 62. After ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public testimony. 3:36:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, prime sponsor of HB 62, said he had no additional comments other than noting that the bill follows House Bill 20, which expanded the list of people who could solemnize marriage to include elected public officials. He noted that House Bill 20 passed 29-6 in the House and 17-2 in the Senate in 2018. 3:37:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 [labeled 32- LS0272\A.2, Dunmire, 3/8/21], which read: Page 1, following line 2: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Section 1. AS 25.05.261(c) is amended to read: (c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty or obligation on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a) [(a)(1), (3), OR (4)] of this section to solemnize any marriage." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected. 3:38:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 1 would clarify that [the legislature] is not trying to compel, coerce, or legally force anyone to preside over a wedding in Alaska. He pointed out that Alaska's only requirement is that the person presiding over a wedding be [at-least] 18 years old and the proposed amendment would clarify that he/she is not required to solemnize the marriage. 3:40:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated his opposition to Amendment 1. He noted that Representative Eastman proposed the same Amendment to House Bill 20 in 2018, which failed by a vote of 6-29 on the House floor. He explained that the real impact of this amendment would implicate judges, who are statutorily required to set their political, religious, and personal opinions aside and perform certain ceremonial functions, which the court is required to do. He recalled Nancy Meade explaining why including subparagraph (a)(2) would be problematic, as it would allow a judge's personal opinion to interfere with his/her official duty. He deferred to Ms. Meade for further explanation. 3:42:04 PM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, stated that the proposed amendment was previously discussed with respect to House Bill 20. She reiterated that it presents a problem and a conflict for judges who have an ethical obligation to handle any case that comes before them. She added that judges do not have the ability to turn something down or not do a duty because of a personal belief. Given that Amendment 1 would create that conflict for judges, she said it would be problematic. 3:43:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned whether anyone other than judges could be statutorily required to perform a marriage. MS. MEADE said she could not think of a circumstance in which a marriage commissioner would be forced to [perform a marriage] because he/she would have said no to the couple and would not show up at the court, nor pay $25 to become a marriage commissioner in the first place. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about individuals who are "standing" marriage commissioners. He asked whether that exists or if it's a "one-time thing over and over." MS. MEADE replied it's almost always a one-time thing, as in a couple asks somebody to marry them and that person gets a one- time commission for that couple. She noted that in some districts, a person could get a longer-term marriage commissioner appointment; however, AS 25.05.081 states that the marriage commissioner must solemnize marriages in the same manner as a district judge or magistrate, so the idea that the marriage commissioner could be forced to perform a marriage is theoretical. She stated her belief that it would be extremely rare for a marriage commissioner to be, somehow, forced to perform a marriage after expressing disinterest. 3:46:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN shared his understanding that the practical reality of marriage commissioners is that they get requested to perform a ceremony and have already agreed to it before obtaining the certificate. He shared a personal anecdote regarding House Bill 20. 3:48:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained that Amendment 1 would provide a solution for a problem created in a previous piece of legislation. He indicated that some are equating marriage with the idea that it's "just a rubber stamp and anyone should sign a marriage certificate for no other reason than someone is asking them to," which he saw as a departure from the way Alaska has historically viewed marriage. He considered a situation in which a judge or marriage commissioner expresses a desire not to marry a couple and said [the legislature] ought to give him/her the same right that legislators have been provided under statute. He suggested that Amendment 1 would correct the disparity in the law created by the passage of House Bill 20. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained his objection. 3:50:38 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Vance, Kaufman, and Eastman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1. Representatives Claman, Tarr, Story, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HB 62 was held over.