SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20 Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage. This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Green moved to adopt CS SJR, 20 24-LS1676\G as amended, as the working document, and then objected for explanation purposes. SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee which sponsored the bill, noted that the committee substitute would add the following language to the "Marriage Amendment", Art. 1, Section 25, of the State's Constitution, which specifies marriage as a union solely between one man and one woman. …No other union is similarly situated to a marriage. No provision of this constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred on a union other than the union of a man and woman. Senator Seekins disclosed that the proposed language was based on language in Senate Joint Resolution 1 (SJR 1) as introduced in the United States Senate. 9:16:10 AM Senator Seekins continued that the adoption of Version "G" would align the State with the policy included in the U.S. Constitution, which would allow "reciprocal beneficiary contracts to exist". Such a policy currently exists within the University of Alaska system, where policy specifies that couples in a "mutual beneficiary relationship" who meet specified criteria could qualify for insurance benefits. Approximately 113 couples are qualified under the University's program. Senator Seekins further noted the bill would allow the University to expand its definition of "mutual beneficiary" to include "a mother and her son or two brothers". It would also allow an employer to provide benefits to individuals based on existing contract law "such as legal arrangements to co-own or inherit property, medical visitation decision-making, guardianship of children, medical benefits." While the bill would "expand the universe of those people" who would qualify for a mutual beneficiary relationship, the employer would be allowed to establish their own guidelines. 9:18:33 AM Senator Seekins considered the proposed changes to be a "good policy" which "could be defended" from differing perspectives. It would also "preserve the institution of marriage". He asked for the Committee's support. 9:19:00 AM Senator Dyson ascertained therefore that Version "G" would return the State to the policy position which existed prior to the October 2005 Alaska Supreme Court ruling on the case ACLU v. State & Municipality of Anchorage. That position was "permissive" in "that State organizations are free to enter into these kinds of relationships as they choose". Senator Seekins affirmed. Senator Dyson recognized the policy as permissive because it would allow State organizations to choose whether or not to provide benefits to individuals in "these kinds of relationships". Senator Seekins responded that while Version "G" would permit it, "it would no longer require" as the Court's ruling did, that "someone who cannot be legally married under law would have to be treated as if they were married. And the extension of that, and the expansion of that, is much greater than the particular case" upon which the State Supreme Court ruled. This bill would allow beneficiary relationships, "but it does not require any longer that you treat … someone who cannot be married as if they were married". 9:20:12 AM Senator Dyson understood that a man and a woman who were not married are recognized as a couple under the University's policy. That particular union was not addressed in the Supreme Court ruling. Thus, the language proposed in this resolution would make that situation permissible whereas before it could be argued "it was not, in terms of heterosexual couples". Senator Seekins concurred. An unmarried man and woman could qualify under the language being proposed. Senator Dyson reemphasized that the benefit determination would be a choice of the institution or political subdivision. Senator Seekins affirmed. 9:21:14 AM Senator Bunde asked for confirmation that this language would permit domestic partnerships "including a mother and son or any other combination of people" to qualify. Senator Seekins affirmed. 9:21:41 AM Senator Bunde discerned that Version "G" would allow "an entity of the State then to recognize" such domestic partnerships "for purposes of benefits". Senator Seekins replied "yes"; the recognition would be based "on a mutually dependent situation" rather than being based "on the premise of rights or privileges of marriage or sexual expressions". Senator Bunde asked whether the policy could be interpreted as lowering "the choice to discriminate to a municipal level". Senator Seekins expressed that rather than expanding discrimination, this resolution would expand an employer's choice. It would not require an employer "to provide benefits to someone that isn't legally married", but it would allow an employer to provide benefits if they chose, to someone in a mutually beneficial relationship. Senator Bunde had heard that qualifying criteria had been incorporated into the previous version of this resolution to address the concern that "these mutually beneficial relationships would cost the State a lot of money". Thus, his understanding now was that Version "G" would not save the State, University, or municipality any money. Senator Seekins expressed that passage of this resolution might incur costs to the State. To that point, he stated that of the University's 7,000 employees, less than 120 mutual beneficiary relationships have been formalized. Less than 20 of those 120 were same sex couples. While this is not a huge number, some financial impact could be incurred to the State were the University's policy incorporated into the State's collective bargaining systems and offered to all State employees. 9:24:02 AM Senator Bunde remarked therefore that the adoption of Version "G" would negate the argument "that preventing these relationships would save money". Senator Seekins affirmed. He noted he had never argued that position. Co-Chair Green announced that public testimony would be limited to two minutes. Also in consideration of the time, she asked that those who had previously testified on the bill not present repetitious testimony. 9:25:06 AM Senator Seekins noted that Kevin Clarkson, a consultant to the Legislature on this issue, would be available via teleconference to respond to Member's questions. Co-Chair Green, observing that 20 people had at this point signed up to testify, again directed that testimony be concise. 9:25:50 AM Senator Olson asked Senator Seekins to further clarify how this resolution would affect a heterosexual unmarried couple, with or without children. Senator Seekins stated the adoption of Version "G" would allow those individuals to be recognized as being in a mutual beneficiary relationship; coverage could be extended to them if the employer opted to. Senator Olson understood therefore that a private employer would be required to recognize these relationships under a legislative mandate. Senator Seekins responded no, a private employer would have the option to offer such benefits. While a private employer currently has a number of beneficiary options, he or she is not required to provide beneficiary coverage to employees. While many employers currently do so, the employer has the right to negotiate options. Senator Seekins was uncertain as to whether the aforementioned State Supreme Court ruling might have required private employers to provide benefits they provided to married couples "to someone that legally was not allowed to be married". Nonetheless, the adoption of Version "G" would allow any employer, private or public, to provide mutual beneficiary coverage if it chose to. 9:28:20 AM DIXIE HOOD, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, appreciated the opportunity to speak "on this important piece of legislation". She was "alarmed and offended that our representative democracy at the State and at the national level was being undermined in so many ways by political opportunism". Adopting an amendment to the State's Constitution that "would further deprive many Alaskans of their civil rights and equal protection is unjust and contrary" to the "ideals of democracy". Women, Blacks, Jews, and other groups in the United States were "denied equality by laws determined by the majority". During her lifetime she witnessed condemnations of many minorities. Ms. Hood has advocated for civil rights on behalf of women, the elderly, gay people, and persons with disabilities. "Putting civil rights up for a popular vote is shameful … discrimination based on self interest ignorance is all too common in this day and age and has no place in Alaska." She urged the Committee to hold Alaska to the highest democratic standards and prohibit legislation such as this which would "deny rights and benefits based on marital status". 9:30:40 AM CLOVER SIMON testified via teleconference from an offnet location in opposition to the resolution. All persons in Alaska's diverse society should be respected and benefits should be available to individuals' partners regardless of their sexual orientation or marriage status. 9:31:39 AM JAMES GRAY testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to the resolution. He and his partner's "loving and caring" family are insulted by discriminatory views such as the one being furthered in this resolution. 9:32:19 AM FRED TRABER, Public Employee Retirement System Retiree, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to the resolution. He applauded the actions taken by Ross Anderson, the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, who, shortly after taking office, had "issued a non-discrimination executive order" which was followed by another executive order. These orders served to extend "benefits to the both unmarried and married city employees". Mr. Traber summarized that "on one hand we have an enlightened mayor of a notoriously religious city who recognized the need for same sex benefits and created those benefits with a simple stroke of a pen. Here we are in a notoriously independent and free thinking state debating whether or not you legislators should legislate additional discrimination toward a small group of" people. He urged the Committee not to pass the resolution from Committee. 9:34:59 AM Senator Bunde understood that Version "G" changed the bill "significantly and would allow mutually beneficiary partnerships or same sex partnerships to receive benefits from their employers". To that point, he asked whether Mr. Traber had reviewed Version "G", and if so, whether he maintained his objection. Mr. Traber responded "yes". 9:35:43 AM MARY KEHRHAHN-STAR testified via teleconference from Fairbanks against the resolution. Legislators should keep their personal beliefs separate from "the big picture". While the people targeted by this resolution might be same sex couples, they are also law abiding hard working Alaskans who pay taxes and are neighbors and co-workers. Adopting this resolution "would be out and out discrimination". This action would be contrary to the essence of Alaska. Serious consideration must be given to this issue. 9:36:51 AM VICTORIA SCHLERGER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition to the resolution. She identified one of the prominent questions asked by "the wide spectrum of religious and political group" family members at a recent multi-state Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) conference she attended as being "why are our children being treated differently?" A vote in support of this legislation would be akin to saying "I want to discriminate against" gay and lesbian people. She urged the Committee to vote no on the resolution. 9:37:57 AM MARJORIE COLE, Chair, Call to Action Alaska, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. The organization, which is primarily comprised of Christians, sent a letter [copy not provided] on February 19, 2006 to legislators which expressed concern about the discriminatory nature of this resolution. The State's Constitution "was not meant to limit human rights or divide the people". The discrimination in the resolution was based on outdated fears; "most Americans have moved toward tolerance and acceptance of the approximate ten percent of population born to homosexual orientation". During the debate of a similar proposal in the state of Washington, a legislator decried "that the heart does not choose who to love". Alaska should be at the forefront of human rights. The language in SJR 20 is "extremely vague and if applied literally would make life intolerable for many people. What are these benefit obligations?" She asked whether they would include the right to visit a loved one in the hospital, to execute a loved one's will, or to raise their children. Homosexual people are family people with morals. She requested the Committee not support this discriminatory legislation. 9:39:54 AM KEVIN DIAMOND, Student, Juneau Douglas High School, spoke in opposition to the resolution as it would be an unconstitutional violation of people's "basic human rights to equal protection under the law". The financial impact to the State incurred in providing benefits to gay and lesbian couples would be minimal. He was concerned about how furthering this resolution would affect himself and his partner in the future. 9:41:42 AM LIN DAVIS stated that the language in Version "G" was still "vague and problematic" and thus, had not diminished her opposition to the resolution. It would not provide her and her partner of 18 years "the equal protection that we deserve". Unfortunately, in her job assisting people in finding employment, she has become aware of numerous discriminatory actions people have experienced. She disclosed she was a plaintiff in the 2005 ACLU v. State & Municipality of Anchorage Marriage Amendment case because she was concerned about her partner who is nine years her junior. She wanted her to receive "all the benefits that the people who work in the offices next to me automatically get when they get married". Her community is strengthened when people like her and her partner have access "to the strongest financial base possible"; conversely, neither a community nor a family would benefit by denying people "that safety net" of health, death, or dental benefits. She has worked hard at her job and is simply seeking "to receive the same pay and benefits" as co-workers. 9:44:13 AM STEPHEN GINGRICH of Eagle River testified via teleconference from Anchorage and stressed this resolution would harm rather than benefit people. The State's Supreme Court ruling on the 2005 lawsuit was conducted with "professionalism" and the justices "rose above personal prejudices to do what was right. Their decision harmed no one. This bill panders to bigotry" and would violate many good government principles particularly that, in a democracy, "a prejudice majority should not have the right to deny equal rights to a minority". Providing equal pay for equal work and providing medical coverage and survivor benefits to children as well as spouses is the responsibility of good government. Discriminatory actions such as the State's 1998 Constitutional amendment which specified marriage to be a union between one man and one woman would one day be ruled unconstitutional. The University of Alaska's policy of equal treatment to all employees has been in effect for a decade. It is a harmless policy. "Popular prejudice is diminishing." The supporters of this bill would be placing "themselves on the wrong side of history in the same place as the legislators of the former slave states who after the Civil War enacted the Jim Crowe laws. This is a Jim Crowe law." 9:45:46 AM Senator Bunde asked whether the Marriage Amendment had ever been challenged as being unconstitutional. 9:46:16 AM Senator Seekins clarified that the "amendment has not been challenged" as unconstitutional. While he was uncertain as to whether similar language adopted by other states had been challenged, he was certain any such challenge had not prevailed. 9:47:17 AM Co-Chair Green invited Senator Seekins to join the Committee at the table in order to respond to concerns raised by testifiers. Continuing, she asked whether Version "G" could be viewed as discriminatory, as argued by testifiers. 9:47:38 AM Senator Seekins did not view the language in Version "G" as discriminatory against individuals. It is correct that "people can't get married" to their mother, brother or sister, first cousin, or "someone of the same sex". Therefore, "if our laws are discriminatory", they are uniformly "discriminatory to all of those particular combinations". Thus, it is difficult to understand how including the language specified in Version "G" in the State's Constitution could be viewed as discriminatory; specifically as the provision specifying marriage as a union between one man and one woman already exists in the State's Constitution and has not been challenged in Court. 9:49:00 AM KEVIN CLARKSON, Attorney, Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C., testified via teleconference from an offnet location and communicated that his firm was retained by the Legislature to provide legal advice on this legislation. He observed that the majority of the testimony presented was to the previous version of this resolution rather than to Version "G". Mr. Clarkson presented that Version "G" would "return this issue to the democratic process". Version "G" "would allow either a legislative branch of government or an administrative branch of government to extent benefits to its employees, similar to the benefits provided to a married employee for their spouse. While the University of Alaska's policy which "extended benefits to domestic partnership type relationships" for the last ten years could have been impacted by the previous version of the resolution, it would not be impacted by Version "G". "The only entity" that Version "G" "would prohibit from extending these benefits would be the Court because it simply says that the Constitution doesn't require it". The proposed language "would allow the democratic process to operate", as it would make it permissible for benefits to be extended to mutual beneficiary relationships. Mr. Clarkson responded to Senator Bunde's question regarding litigation on marriage amendments in the country: 19 states have adopted "marriage defining or marriage benefit defining amendments" and 12 more are considering such action. Of the ones adopted, the only constitutional challenge was filed in federal court in regards to a Nebraska amendment. In that case, the "federal judge issued an opinion that he thought that that particular amendment somehow deprived gay and lesbian people access to the democratic process. That opinion has been appealed by the State of Nebraska…" Legal scholars specializing in this type of issue expect that federal ruling "to be soundly reversed". Mr. Clarkson verified that Alaska's Marriage Amendment has never been challenged as being unconstitutional. 9:52:22 AM Senator Bunde remarked therefore that the "current unchallenged Alaska Constitution says that marriage is one man and one woman." Mr. Clarkson affirmed. 9:52:52 AM Senator Bunde acknowledged those who philosophically prefer "the original version of SJR 20, which would have prevented domestic partnerships or mutually beneficial relationships..." Continuing, he asked how the adoption of Version "G", which would allow extending benefits to those in mutual beneficial relationships, would affect current law considering that the Constitution currently specifies that "gay marriage is prohibited". Mr. Clarkson limited his response to the legal impacts rather than to any political impacts which might result by the adoption of Version "G". Version "G" would "undo the Alaska Supreme Court decision because that was the judicial extension of benefits by the Court under the logic that the Constitution of Alaska required those benefits to be extended." Adoption of Version "G" would say "no, the judiciary on this particular issue should not be getting out ahead of the people of Alaska …. It would put the issue back into the democratic process because across the country when marriage and marriage related amendments get presented to the people" those amendments pass by overwhelmingly margins. The people of the country do not want the courts to make decisions on these types of issues. 9:55:46 AM Senator Bunde discerned therefore that this resolution would further the "separation of powers". The message to the courts would be that this is a legislative and public decision to make rather than a judicial issue. The basic law would not change regardless of whether the resolution was adopted. Mr. Clarkson clarified that SJR 20 would change the ACLU v. State & Municipality of Anchorage court decision which specified that "the Alaska Constitution mandates that these benefits be extended by all public employers". Senator Bunde acknowledged. The adoption of this resolution would make the extension of benefits by various entities of the State permissive rather than required. Mr. Clarkson affirmed. 9:56:49 AM Senator Olson inquired to the number of states banning gay marriage, and the related benefit language of those laws. Mr. Clarkson communicated that 19 states, including Alaska, currently have marriage amendments. Of those, "seven include language that addresses marriage related benefits". Some prohibit extending benefits to people not in a "man and woman" marriage relationship, and some contain permissive language similar to that contained in this resolution. Marriage related amendments would be on 12 other states' election ballots this November. Were it adopted, this resolution would also be on the November general election ballot. Some of the benefit language of the 12 other ballot measures would be similar to that proposed in Version "G". 9:58:29 AM Senator Olson asked the reason this benefit was not considered one of employment rather than one of marriage. Mr. Clarkson replied that historically, the matter has been "a benefit of employment that is extended because of the marriage relationship". AT EASE 9:59:37 AM / 10:01:00 AM 10:01:40 AM MARGOT KNUTH, former State employee, observed that people participating in this hearing were "disadvantaged" as copies of Version "G" were unavailable. Co-Chair Green apologized and ordered copies of Version "G" to be distributed. Ms. Knuth voiced concern regarding the possible legal effects of Version "G". She deemed the impacts to be not "nearly as clear" as professed by Mr. Clarkson. Her testimony was as follows. It says that no provision in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidence of marriage be construed on a union other than the union of a man and woman and as pointed out by Senator Olson, there is a distinction between what are the legal incidence of marriage and what are the legal incidence of employment. And that is what the Alaska Supreme Court was addressing in the ACLU case. I don't know that this new language impacts the Alaska Supreme Court decision at all. To the extent that this language is meant to accomplish something, I'm not sure what that is. It is ambiguous, it is unclear and I think an extremely good argument can be made that it does not impact the decision and I've heard a number of people that have said that the problem that we're trying to address is judicial activism. If you are going to address judicial activism, you need to be as clear as you can. Otherwise, all you're doing is inviting further litigation. I also think that April 28th is late in the [legislative] session to try to develop a clear, helpful Constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments are something that should happen very, very rarely, and for a compelling reason. And if we're hearing that this is not supposed to have a significant impact on the State of Alaska, legally speaking, why are we doing it? If it is supposed to have significant legal impact what is that impact? Members of the Committee, I would like to suggest that what's really wrong with this resolution and with the amendment is that it's divisive and it will divide this State once again. It's a topic that is painful to people and it's within the control of this Committee to not let it go forward. And I just believe that what we want is a unified Alaska. We have enough issues like oil and gas taxes that we need to be rallying around and that splintering us and making us focus on what we don't like about each other is not the right direction to go. I thank you for your consideration and I thank you especially for your compassion. 10:05:03 AM Senator Bunde voiced his appreciation for the legal advice Ms. Knuth had provided to legislators when she worked for the State. As indicated by his questions to Mr. Clarkson, he is confused about what this resolution would accomplish. To garner further insight as to the affect of Version "G" he had hoped a supporter of the original version of the resolution would testify. Continuing, he asked Ms. Knuth whether she agreed with Mr. Clarkson's view that the two major things that this initiative would accomplish would be placing this issue back within "the legislative arena rather than the judicial" arena, making these mutually beneficial relationships "permissive for local entities rather than mandatory". 10:06:25 AM Ms. Knuth disagreed with both points. Responding to the second question, she made the following statement. "There is nothing in this language that addresses domestic partnerships or mutually beneficial relationships at all. This is completely silent about that, and so it can't support those or allow those in its silence. At most you're saying that those are allowed under the Alaska Constitution already and that they would continue to be allowed. But there's nothing in the language that says no other union is similarly situated to a marriage; no provision in this Constitution shall be construed to require something. There's nothing in that language at all that's helpful to domestic relationships or partnerships. Ms. Knuth continued as follows. On the first question, counsel had said that the affect of this amendment would be to change the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling in the ACLU case. I'm not sure that that's true either because the Alaska Supreme Court was not interpreting marriage and the benefits of marriage; it was interpreting employment and the benefits of employment. And, as an example, I'm a Tier I State of Alaska employee. I paid as much of a contribution for benefits the entire time that I worked for the State of Alaska and if I have a same sex partner, why should I not have the right to buy the same insurance for that person, or as a Tier I to have it provided by the State of Alaska, as somebody who's dependent or partner is a legally recognized marriage. Senator Seekins was trying to lump marriages that are illegal; to wed cousins within a degree of consanguinity with gay and lesbian marriages. The United States Supreme Court has said that you cannot do that. There is a distinction. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the rights of states to prohibit certain marriages…and to say that this is illegal conduct. They have ruled that states cannot criminalize gay and lesbian relationships. It cannot be criminalized. And the fact that it cannot be criminalized is what put the Alaska Supreme Court in the bind in the ACLU case. You have said that I'm not going to grant you the same civil recognition for same sex marriage, but by federal Constitution, you cannot criminalize it. And so the Alaska Supreme Court was saying in that case, what I have to do is say for this class of people who you are prohibiting from the civil rights of marriage, but which is conduct that is constitutionally permissible, now that has to be treated equally. And that's going to remain true after this amendment to SJR 20. It's a complicated issue." 10:09:33 AM Senator Bunde appreciated the information Ms. Knuth provided. 10:10:28 AM MARSHA BUCK, Representative, Parents Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) - Juneau, voiced being "equally as confused" as Committee members. She also appreciated Margo Knuth's testimony. As a public citizen, she would have appreciated having advance notice that a committee substitute would be offered today as many people's testimony, including hers, was based on the previous version of the resolution. As a consequence, that testimony might be inappropriate to the discussion. Therefore, she would speak to the issue at hand contemporaneously. Ms. Buck spoke to her initial opposition of the resolution: gay and lesbian sons and daughters and bisexual citizens were being marginalized today in the same way that groups of people even in Biblical times "have been marginalized throughout history". Provisions in the original resolution "definitely marginalized" her lesbian daughter as well as her daughter's children as it would have denied them access to the same rights and benefits. This was an affront to her Christian beliefs. Ms. Buck stated that, like the original version, Version "G" might, upon review, also "feel discriminatory". There is concern that making the provision of benefits permissive rather than mandatory for the State would also marginalize gays and lesbians; it would "protect the rights of the minority". "What if there were a legislature that didn't look at protecting the rights of the minority but looked only at taking a vote out to the majority, since we know the majority doesn't always protect the rights of a minority." The rights of people such as her daughter might not be protected were the issue put to a vote of the people. The benefits of State employees should be available to her daughter and her grandchildren. This is an important issue. Committee members should take note of events that occurred in the past. 10:14:20 AM REVERAND MICHAEL BURKE, Rector, St. Mary's Episcopal Church, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to the Resolution. He is a husband and father and his family would represent "one of those traditional families people talk about upholding and strengthening". "The whole issue of gay and lesbian people and their partnerships is far from settled in our faith communities." In his Christian denomination, for example, these lifelong monogamous partnerships are called blessings of holy union and the discussion of what the Hebrew and Christian scriptures say about human sexuality is a lively discussion and it's far from settled. Rev. Burke reminded Members that a generation or so ago, the place of people who were divorced or remarried were of a similar uncertain status in our faith communities and in society. "The argument back then is the same that I'm hearing among folks today. That we need to uphold traditional marriage, strengthen families, prevent the erosion of what was called public morality, but in both churches and civil law, we recognize, I think, the complexity of human relationships. That's been reflected in changes in the law and in the moral judgments we make about people who are divorced or remarried. Make no mistake, I believe there are threats to the family unit today that are real, that are substantial, but those threats do not come from long-term stable monogamous lifelong loving relationships whether they're straight or whether they are gay or lesbian. Those are the kinds of relationships that strengthen our family and our civil societies. Rev. Burke continued, "So, to close, as an Alaskan, as a father, as a husband, as a Christian minister, as one who has two young kids that are going to grow up in this great State, I ask that you reject" this resolution and "unequivocally take a stand for the full human rights and respect in human dignity of all Alaskans", regardless of what actions are taken in other states. "Join me in being proud to be an Alaskan where basic civil rights are never called special rights". 10:16:54 AM FRANCIS MANYOKY, Student, University of Alaska Anchorage, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to SJR 20 as it would deprive the State and its citizens of social and economic benefits. Those supporting the bill tout it "to protect the traditional marriage" by providing benefits only to married couples. However, federal law has recognized "homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, which means it's not immoral or unethical". Thus, denying homosexuals the right to marry has resulted in "an acceptable, ethical, and moral minority" who are denied the right to joint health benefits. Mr. Manyoky stated that the question would be whether this resolution might encourage homosexual people "to conform to the viewpoint of those who propose this bill and have fraudulent heterosexual marriages in order to receive these benefits or do those who propose this bill expect to discourage homosexuals from seeking employment" with the State; "either way the bill would have a negative social and economic impact" on the State. Were this bill to encourage heterosexual marriages among homosexual Alaska State employees "it would mock the very sacredness of marriage those who propose this bill claim to be protecting". On the other hand, "were this bill to discourage homosexuals from working for the State, it would be unethically discriminative towards an acceptable minority but it would also economically disadvantage the State as it would discourage many exceptionally qualified applicants from applying for State employment." Those people would instead seek employment with more accepting entities such as Wells Fargo Bank and Providence Hospital. The Alaska Native Hospital would loose "desperately needed" skilled nurses and doctors. "Since the professional skills of a person are relevant to his or her income," and being that the national average income of homosexuals is approximately $20,000 higher than the income of heterosexuals according to information on the Family Research Council website, this would indicate that "there would be highly valuable professional" homosexuals who would be discouraged from working for the State. He shared that Anchorage, with an index rating of 100, is on par with the national average number of homosexual relations; Juneau's index is 140. These numbers would underscore the negative social and economic impacts that passage of this bill would incur to the State. Co-Chair Green stated that in order to provide sufficient time for public testimony on this bill, the two minute time limit would be strictly enforced. 10:22:02 AM Senator Bunde noted that the bill's sponsor had distributed a three-page letter [copy on file] from pastors and churches belonging to the Alaska Family Council, in support of SJR 20. His question however, was to which version of the bill the letter was written. If it was to the original bill, he wondered whether that support would continue to apply to Version "G". He also noted that his pastor was not one of the letter signers. 10:23:00 AM KAY ROLLISON testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to the resolution. She could not understand how the Committee could make a decision on this "extremely important" issue in a short period of time when it took the founders of the State's Constitution several months to develop that document. Their educated and well-researched effort produced such things as excellent resource development and equal protection clauses. They endeavored to establish a government that would protect citizens' equality rather than "second guessing it by social norms of the day". In days gone by, racial marriages were unacceptable. However that has changed as the result of a change in social norms rather than a change in any type of "legal contractual provision". A lively debate is occurring in this country. She is proud to be an Alaskan as this State's Constitution was well founded. The Committee had insufficient time in which to address such an important issue. Co-Chair Green announced that individuals who had testified previously to the earlier version of this resolution would not be permitted to testify again due to time constraints. 10:25:00 AM CRYSTAL SCHRIER, Mother, Student at the University of Alaska/Fairbanks, and Inactive Reserve Member of the United States Army National Guard testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. "As a soldier", she took the Constitutions of Alaska and the country "very seriously". She took exception to putting forth "an amendment that discriminates and that really doesn't appear to have a purpose based on the testimony" presented. Contrary to the bill sponsor's statement, this resolution would not allow mutual beneficiary contracts such as those currently offered by the University of Alaska, as the experiences of the states of Oregon, Kansas and Nebraska, which have adopted similar language, would indicate that the language could be used "to deny benefits for same sex partners" and common law partners. Ms. Schrier stressed that "the United States Supreme Court has decided that gay/lesbian employees and citizens should not be discriminated against, and this resolution, in its current form, says that it is recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I don't believe that this is an issue of marriage … Civil partnerships are a matter of giving civil rights to all citizens, all taxpayers, all workers". Soldiers are risking their lives to protect the Constitution that the Committee is thinking about changing. This "very very serious matter" should not be acted upon without sufficient public input. The civil rights of all Americans must be protected. She urged the Committee to oppose the legislation. 10:27:31 AM JEREMY SMITH testified via teleconference from Fairbanks to urge the Committee to reject this resolution. 10:27:46 AM MATTHEW WIEDERHOLT testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He was confused about the purpose of bill. There is no danger in allowing same sex marriages and the fact that that issue is not being addressed adds to "the ambiguity" of the bill. In his opinion, if people are worried about such things as perversions, "the institution of marriage has been perverted since the very beginning when people began getting divorces and making prenuptial agreements and getting married for reasons that had nothing to do with love and raising a family… It is further perverted by us discussing this issue and spending further money on it." He agreed with the comments made by Reverend Burke: "there are way more" important issues to address than this. He was opposed to this bill. 10:29:13 AM CHERYL HUMME testified via teleconference from Fairbanks against the bill. Instead of working towards "fairness, equal treatment, and equal rights", this resolution would further discrimination of people the supporters of the bill "consider outside the norm". Instead of expanding health care to Alaskans, this proposal would "narrow and restrict health care". Her sister is married to a man who has had extramarital relations, disrespected her numerous times and "has taken advantage of her financially". However, because they are married, they are entitled to better rights than those provided to her brother who is in a long-term, financially stable heterosexual relationship but not married. Ms. Humme, who was also "a strong supporter of gay rights", stated that "the essence of this resolution is harmful to all Alaskans". She was "skeptical" of the committee substitute, particularly to the vagueness of its language. Supporters of this proposed amendment bring the issue of same sex unions to the forefront because this issue "can stir up indignation". "This proposal is against any individual who does not conform to the mandate of" its supporters. She has heard repeatedly that "people who support this amendment are good people but it is simply a moral issue for them". She has come to "loathe the use of the term 'morals' because it is usually a codeword for judgment". She could not fathom how people "could talk about morals and still be willing to work to destroy families that are simply different from your own". She urged the Committee not to support this resolution. She also did not appreciate Senator Seekins's comparing incestuous couples to same sex couples. 10:31:30 AM AMY PAGE voiced her opposition to the resolution. The democratic process should not be utilized in this manner, as this is not an issue that the "wider population" should decide. The individual civil rights of minorities are protected in both the United States and Alaska Constitutions. Allowing the wider population to vote on the Marriage Amendment allowed it to be added to the State's Constitution. Continuing with this resolution in that manner would be deplorable. Ms. Page viewed the language in Version "G" as vague in regards to mutual beneficiary relationships. "It would allow for any kind of interpretation." Efforts should be made to ensure that all people could be treated equally under the law, in regards to employer based health care benefits and numerous other rights. 10:33:56 AM JUDY CRONDAHL addressed "the poorly drafted and ambiguous amendment" language in both the original version of the bill and Version "G". While the passage of this legislation would not incur any financial impact to the public at large, the State would incur expenses due to the years of litigation that would result. "Conversely, failure to pass this resolution would help many people to obtain health insurance and reduce personal medical expenses at no additional cost to the State." Members of the legislature, especially members "of this Committee would be irresponsible to approve a resolution "that would place an additional financial burden on the Department of Law and serve no public function". Furthermore, it would be contrary to the teachings of Jesus who promoted loving one's neighbors and helping the most vulnerable among us. This would, in today's society, include those who have no health insurance. 10:35:17 AM EVE DILLINGHAM, Representative, University of Alaska Southeast Faculty Senate, read into the record the organization's resolution [copy on file], dated March 24, 2006. The resolution supported the University of Alaska Board of Regents' policy of non-discrimination and commended its policy of providing "financially interdependent partner (FIPs) benefits". Ms. Dillingham also agreed with the remarks of Margo Knuth and Reverend Burke. 10:37:58 AM DANIEL COLLISON, State of Alaska Employee, spoke in opposition to SJR 20. This resolution would, on a "practical level", impact his family. For example, had his partner who is also a State of Alaska employee been able to submit his recent $1,200 dental work claim as a joint benefit coverage, his out of pocket expense would have been significantly reduced. Version "G" would "allow public entities to discriminate against gays and lesbians". The citizens of the State should have the right to vote on public policy matters such as sales taxes; however, "in a democracy, neither the public nor the legislature should have the right to vote" on minority or civil rights issues. This is what would be allowed were this resolution to pass. 10:40:07 AM KEN SMITH, State of Alaska Employee, stated his opposition to SJR 20. The intent of both the original resolution language and that of Version "G" would be "to deny benefits to partners of same sex couples". 10:40:47 AM PAULA TERREL appreciated hearing Senator Olson's earlier remark that this discussion "is not about marriage, it is about employment rights and benefits". She urged legislators to focus on that issue because that is the issue. That was what the Alaska Supreme Court ruling addressed. She understood that Version "G" would make extending benefits "permissive". In other words, "it would allow, for example, the legislature to either grant or not grant employment benefits to same sex partners". In her opinion, this would "open up a can of worms". If the State or the legislature refused to grant benefits, "it would come right smack back in front of the courts because again it is discriminatory". The Alaska Supreme Court could not be told how to interpret the State Constitution. Alaska's Constitution is "very strong" on rights of individuals and is not discriminatory. It should not be compared to the constitutions of other states. In summary, this resolution would create more problems. She was opposed to SJR 20. 10:42:54 AM Senator Dyson asked Ms. Terrel to share her thoughts as to what should constitute "a couple or a family, and therefore who should get the benefits of an employee". Ms. Terrel was unsure how to respond, as even "a committed relationship" in a marriage could end in divorce. She communicated however, that the University of Alaska has specified guidelines for its benefits determination. Senator Dyson agreed with Ms. Terrel's use of the words "committed relationship". However, the fact that he is "really committed to a quite a number of people" would not "make us a couple". In addition to being a committed relationship, some states require there be "an intimate relationship, which is code word for sexual". Were the State to expand beyond the formalized process that we call marriage, it would encounter a slew "of subjective things". Therefore, he asked Ms. Terrel whether a couple must have an intimate relationship as well as a committed relationship. Ms. Terrel responded that identifying "the standards" as to who would qualify for health care and other benefits would be "overstepping" her expertise. However, more thought should be given to SJR 20 as it "is really discriminatory". Careful consideration should be taken in order to avoid creating "a lot of pain and … legal problems". 10:45:29 AM GLENN GRAY spoke in opposition to Version "G" "because it would allow discrimination". When his Irish ancestors came to the United States centuries ago, they were discriminated against. When his mother married his father in 1934, "the family was scandalized because he was an Italian American". While his father "dealt with that" by changing the family name to "Gray", such an easy solution would not be available to people dealing with this issue. The "live and let live attitude" he enjoyed when he moved to the State in 1976 has changed over time. Now a "vocal minority" is telling us "that it's okay to be different as long as you're just like them". He asked the Committee to oppose the resolution. The committee substitute is confusing and, rather than being permissive as argued, it would be permissive in that it would allow and promote discrimination. 10:47:10 AM STEVE HAMILTON, local businessman, stated "that this is the first time in all of my 54 years that I have found it necessary to tell anyone that I am gay. I am disappointed that you are making an attempt to discriminate against me simply because of my sexuality." His sexuality "has never been an issue" in either his work or family life. He grew up in the Midwest with "ultraconservative" parents who loved him "unconditionally". "God created me … and loves me for who I am. God simply created me a little different than some of you. The same as we have no choice in our physical makeup," either in the color of our skin, the color of our eyes or our statute, "God created us the way he chose. Please have the respect for all of us, and let this bill die. Thank you." 10:48:51 AM KAREN WOOD, accompanied by her and her partner's six year old daughter, Willa, informed the Committee that she and her partner were two of the plaintiffs in the ACLU v. State & Municipality of Anchorage lawsuit which prompted this resolution. She and her partner joined the lawsuit because "we believed we were being discriminated against by not being able to cover one another under our respective health insurance policies". They have spent tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket "that our married co- workers and their spouses did not have to spend. This affects our family" financially and "emotionally as it is yet another message to us that we are not equal or as good as our straight married co-workers." Ms. Woods revealed that she had wanted to stay home a few years with Willa after she was adopted because they believed it was important for a child to have that time with a parent. However, because she had medical issues and could not be covered under her partner's health insurance, she could not stay home with Willa. This situation affected her and her partner's life as well as Willa's. Were this resolution adopted and something to happen to either her or her partner, the surviving parent could not "access benefits or the deceased partner's health benefits". This would place the family at financial risk. Ms. Woods continued, stating "By writing discrimination into Alaska's Constitution, you would not only be discriminating against us as gay and lesbian people, you would be discriminating against our children". Parents want to provide their children good lives. Gay and lesbians are no exception. "Why should their children be offered less than any child in the State whose parents are married? Why shouldn't she be provided the same financial security and economic options as those children? There are thousands of children who live in families like ours in the State. Please do what you know in your hearts is right, to allow our kids to be provided for as equals to the other children in our State." She urged the Committee to "do the right thing". 10:52:42 AM LAURA MINNE opposed both the original version of the bill and Version "G". The time is now for Alaska to respect its Constitution and the people it protects. Amending the State's Constitution further "to remove, rather than to enhance, protections is undeniably un-American". Families and schools endeavor to teach children to welcome diversity, "to accept differences in others, and to be willing to take a stand for what we believe is right". As parents of a ten-year old boy, she and husband work diligently to teach him values including fairness, tolerance and acceptance of all types of people and families, "both conventional and unconventional". Children are not borne with discriminating thoughts or prejudices; they learn it from adults in their lives. Parents and "leaders like you have the responsibly to all our children, to all our families, to begin, as a society, to walk this talk of embracing diversity through the demonstration of equality and justice for all". She pleaded with the Committee not to advance legislation "that would undeniably discriminate against a minority group of citizens who have the same commitments to their families, their churches, their relationships, their communities, and to this state as you do. Equal protection of the law means everyone. I ask that you take a stand for what is truth and just and do not allow this proposed amendment to go any further." 10:55:13 AM Senator Dyson asked whether Ms. Minne considered federal congressional actions in the 1880s that refused a state that condoned polygamy to enter the union, to be "improper or discriminatory". Ms. Minne could not comment, as the different philosophical reasoning that accompanied that issue made it difficult to compare to the issue before the Committee. SJR 20 addressed the issue of committed relationships. Senator Dyson clarified that, rather than asking for a comparison, his question was whether she considered it improper for the government to decide that committed relationships would only include two people. Ms. Minne could not comment. There being no further testifiers, Co-Chair Green announced that public testimony on SJR 20 was concluded. AT EASE 10:56:14 AM / 10:56:37 AM Co-Chair Green reminded that the Committee would reconvene later in the day to address the other bills on today's agenda. Co-Chair Green removed her objection to the adoption of the Version "G" committee substitute. Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the committee substitute from Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. Senator Bunde objected. Furthering this legislation would not accomplish anything. Co-Chair Green informed the Committee that the three page letter from church pastors, which had been distributed earlier, was written to the original version of the bill. While that version would be their preference, they would extend their support to the committee substitute. A roll call was taken on the motion to report the bill from Committee. IN FAVOR: Senator Dyson, Co-Chair Wilken, Senator Olson, and Co- Chair Green OPPOSED: Senator Stedman, Senator Bunde, and Senator Hoffman The motion PASSED (4-3) SRJ 20 (FIN) was REPORTED from Committee with previous $1,500 fiscal note #1 from the Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor. RECESS 10:58:28 AM / 3:09:29 PM